Can you provide anything in the way of proof, other than the fact that it fits with the flat earth theory?

The thing I see flat earthers do all the time is that they seem to work backwards from a flat earth conclusion, and then come up with theories to explain away the discrepancies with observable natural phenomena that would be violated by a flat earth model.

The last time a flat earther explained to me why the moon is occluded by a horizon, and I presented follow up scenarios that contradicted the original explanation, he dropped the bomb on me that he didn't even believe the moon to be a physical object as we know it, so my scenarios were not a valid way to disprove the flat earth model.

And that's pretty telling when you get there, because you find out that these people not only think the earth is flat, but they have also adopted god knows how many other beliefs to make the flat earth model work. And they never tell you those beliefs up front. It's never "hey the earth is flat, and the moon is a 38 mile wide ball of plasma, and the sun is a sphere of golden snakes". It's always "the earth is flat and lol at you for not knowing about the golden snakes, take this bitchute link and go educate yourself".

It feels very disingenuous. Usually when people have a hard-to-swallow theory that they're trying to convince me of, they do their best to explain it carefully and methodically, not by finding the quickest way to "gotcha" me out of the conversation.

I get that these things need to be true to make the flat earth model work. But that doesn't mean they are.

Can you provide anything in the way of proof, other than the fact that it fits with the flat earth theory?

The thing I see flat earthers do all the time is that they seem to work backwards from a flat earth conclusion, and then come up with theories to explain away the discrepancies with observable natural phenomena that would be violated by a flat earth model.

The last time a flat earther explained to me why the moon is occluded by a horizon, and I presented follow up scenarios that contradicted the original explanation, he dropped the bomb on me that he didn't even believe the moon to be a physical object as we know it, so my scenarios were not a valid way to disprove the flat earth model.

And that's pretty telling when you get there, because you find out that these people not only think the earth is flat, but they have also adopted god knows how many other beliefs to make the flat earth model work. And they never tell you those beliefs up front. It's never "hey the earth is flat, and the moon is a 38 mile wide ball of plasma, and the sun is a sphere of golden snakes". It's always "the earth is flat and lol at you for not knowing about the golden snakes, take this bitchute link and go educate yourself".

It feels very disingenuous. Usually when people have a hard-to-swallow theory that they're trying to convince me of, they do their best to explain it carefully and methodically, not by finding the quickest way to "gotcha" me out of the conversation.

I get that these things need to be true to make the flat earth model work. But that doesn't mean the are.

Can you provide anything in the way of proof, other than the fact that it fits with the flat earth theory?

The thing I see flat earthers do all the time is that they seem to work backwards from a flat earth conclusion, and then come up with theories to explain away the discrepancies with observable natural phenomena that would be violated by a flat earth model.

The last time a flat earther explained to me why the moon is occluded by a horizon, and I presented follow up scenarios that contradicted the original explanation, he dropped the bomb on me that he didn't even believe the moon to be a physical object as we know it, so my scenarios were not a valid way to disprove the flat earth model.

And that's pretty telling when you get there, because you find out that these people not only think the earth is flat, but they have also adopted god knows how many other beliefs to make the flat earth model work. And they never tell you those beliefs up front. It's never "hey the earth is flat, and the moon is a 38 mile wide ball of plasma, and the sun is a sphere of golden snakes". It's always "the earth is flat and lol at you for not knowing about the golden snakes, take this bitchute link and go educate yourself". It feels very disingenuous.

Usually when people have a hard-to-swallow theory that they're trying to convince me of, they do their best to explain it carefully and methodically, not by finding the quickest way to "gotcha" me out of the conversation.

I get that these things need to be true to make the flat earth model work. But that doesn't mean the are.

Can you provide anything in the way of proof, other than the fact that it fits with the flat earth theory?

The thing I see flat earthers do all the time is that they seem to work backwards from a flat earth conclusion, and then come up with theories to explain away the discrepancies with observable natural phenomena that would be violated by a flat earth model.

The last time a flat earther explained to me why the moon is occluded by a horizon, and I presented follow up scenarios that contradicted the original explanation, he dropped the bomb on me that he didn't even believe the moon to be a physical object as we know it, so my scenarios were not a valid way to disprove the flat earth model.

And that's pretty telling when you get there, because you find out that these people not only think the earth is flat, but they have also adopted god knows how many other beliefs to make the flat earth model work. And they never tell you those beliefs up front. It's never "hey the earth is flat, and the moon is a 38 mile wide ball of plasma, and the sun is a sphere of golden snakes". It's always "the earth is flat and lol at you for not knowing about the golden snakes, take this bitchute link and go educate yourself". It's feels very disingenuous.

I get that these things need to be true to make the flat earth model work. But that doesn't mean the are.