>>3361806that's a question that's asked as much as "okay due but like how do we not fall off the edge lol"
It's entry-level
>>3361807Those points weren't directed at you, and you didn't reply to my actual comment:
The explanations you're giving for the discrepancies between the flat earth model and reality are attributed to some kinda force beyond scientific understanding i.e. the supernatural. If you are saying there is an advanced being that designed Venus to selectively dim and brighten parts of itself to look like it has crescent shadows (is this some kinda trap?), then that is supernatural.
And again, the firmament lifting up and down does NOT explain a discrepancy between the movement of multiple objects that are all fixed in the firmament.
In the end your answers boil down to "something beyond scientific understanding is controlling it.". Then why bother even pretending that the flat earth model is scientific? Just say an advanced being is doing everything, including seasons, sunsets (could just be imprinting it onto a retinas for all we know).
And why do pretty much all images of the flat earth model that show the firmament, sun and moon show the sun and moon below the firmament (as seen in my screenshot in
>>3361803)? How high do you believe the peak of the firmament is compared to the heights of the sun and moon?
If you're interested in the video, here's a copypaste of my post in that thread
"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv4Hwk17F8YWhy does this video uploaded by jeranism have visible convex curvature even when the horizon is at the bottom of the frame? If it were a fish-eye lens, shouldn’t it go concave at those points? Why does it appear convex no matter which part of the frame the horizon appears in? Also, the description states that the lens was swapped for a non-fisheye 4.35mm lens.
Points at which the horizon is convex while at the bottom of the frame:
1:00:56
1:07:03
1:13:02
1:23:49
1:32:01
1:42:45"
