OK i chaleneg you - find any passage from my post that is cut /paste / plagiarized.

The FACT is - there is none. But you couldn't care less about making (the same repeated) false accusation, despite having no evidence, because that is the way you approach the rest of factual information. But i will thank you to "put up or shut up". LINK to where you say I plagiarized from or else you are shown up to be a liar and a fantasist.


As explained ad infinitum, the flight times given theoretical zero wind conditions would be the same, because the air would be still, relative to the ground. Even for someone as brainwashed by your own dogma as you are, you must see this is no "proof" of any such thing. Given spinning ball and atmosphere, or given non-spinnig ball and atmosphere, the journey times would be the same. For reasons which should be so obvious they are not worth repeating. So, a fundamental error Stan - again.


You are the master diversion tactics man not anyone else! You are also the delusional who claims there are no nuclear bombs nor ever were, and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions never happened. I did try to explain this to you but you are set in that delusion so crack on.


Wow. Well, there is a conclusive argument.A bare, bald assertion, that flies in the face of a zillion pieces of evidence, research, physics and facts. Yes, that really was worth saying, wasn't it?

[i[uLMAO. No, No No. The earth is stationary. As you said, the air moves with the earth spin,[/u[/i=#BF0040[i[u Well how do i see clouds moving in all directions eh? Not just west to east, they go north to south, and east to west! That in itself proves the earth doesn't spin[/u[/i.


[i
Also if the earth is moving at the 1000 mph eastward spherical spin, all stars would wander perpetually. We would never have discovered your so called 'planets', as all the stars would be moving, and the your planets would have no significance. I agree that Polaris moves, very slightly. But, given the 'fact' that earth revolves around the sun, and the sun supposedly revolves around the galaxy, there is no way any star would remain in a fixed position. Understand. [/i

Clouds are in Earth's atmosphere and will move relative to the ground, along with anything else in the air, including planes. In terms of their movement, nothing to do with the Earth spinning, just weather systems (which you may want to read up on).

The stars move across the nights sky as the Earth is spinning innit.

Our Solar System orbits the centre of the Milky Way, but so do all the rest, and the position of our Solar System and the stars around us (which is what we can see) relative to each other, are fairly fixed. I say fairly as over millions of years the positioning will change slightly, but not noticeable in our lifetimes, certainly not 'wandering' as you're imagining.

The whole galaxy is one huge spiral, of which we're towards the ends of one of the 'arms' it is believed.

It proves that there are winds. But you are becoming increasingly bizarre and it is difficult to find the enthusiasm to relate with this level of numbskullery, which sounds much more like trolling.


the figure of 1000 mph is just from your example. That is the approx. figure at the Equator. It decreases in proportion until you get to the poles, where you would rotate on the spot. (ignoring for this purpose precession, another well understood motion)

The stars do exactly what you would expect them to do if the Earth spins and orbits as science has proved it spins and orbits. And the proof of that pudding is that we can predict, with extremely high precision, where any given celestial body will appear in the sky hundreds of years into the future, and where it was in the past.

Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"[We would never have discovered your so called 'planets', as all the stars would be moving, and the your planets would have no significance. '"

All celestial objects are in motion. Even the millions of stars. Because they are so distant, the motion only becames apparent over long periods of time, but we can still detect and measure that motion.

The planets do of course move much more against the general background of stars, as (a) they are nearer (b) we and they are in orbit around the sun. Using standard Newtonian mechanics their orbits are also entirely predictabel and thus we knew that from yesterday 5 of the planets would be all visible and nicely aligned in the pre-dawn sky. These planets incidentally will all still be visible pre-dawn till 20 Feb if you want to check, but the neatest alignment was predicted for Wednesday and -would you believe - happened precisely as predicted. Funny, that.



I have already told you that all stars are in motion. NONE remain "in a fixed position". But due to the vast distances involved, by the scale of human lifetimes they can be regarded as "fixed" in the sky for practical purposes, as any noticeable shift in position would not be visible for many thousnads of years (though can of course be detected wit appropriate instruments).

There are catalogues of stars providing you with ephemera in the most minute detail, readily available. Polaris is in fact a multiple star system. the main star which you can see with the naked eye, is a supergiant with 2 close companion stars and 2 more distant companions.

Most naked-eye visible stars are broadly speaking in a similar path around the galaxy as is the Earth.

The most visibly moving star in our sky (and here I mean proper motion, against the general background of stars, and not apparent motion) is Barnard's Star, about 6 light years distant, which over a period of a year can be seen to have change position as it goes merrily along its way. Here it is in a composite from 2004-2008:

Hahahaha Nope. That's probably what you've been told. Whose this alter ego. Hahaha Ferocious Aardvark



[iNASA and modern astronomy claim that star-trails in the Southern Hemisphere rotate clockwise, while those in the North rotate Anti-clockwise and provide this as proof positive of their spinning ball-Earth. In reality, however, the Earth is an extended flat plane and all the stars and other celestial bodies rotate East to West around Polaris, the only non-moving star in the sky situated perfectly in line directly above the North Pole. The so-called "South Pole" and South Pole star "Sigma Octantis" are both myths - complete fabrications to bolster their ball model. The following video exposes the entire hoax and explains in detail how star-trails work on the flat Earth model, and how they do NOT on the ball.[/i [url=https://youtu.be/ahNfU7zYlmYStar trails Explained[/url

=#FF0000POINT ONE
[iWho says galaxies exist? NASA? NASA has zero credibility. NASA came into existence and prevented anybody else from doing their own exploration. They have a monopoly, and their imagery is all faked. Those galaxies are illustrations. [/i

=#BF0000POINT TWO
[iEven if you were to ignore all the evidence that NASA is just a high budget fantasy space storyteller, and if you were to believe galaxies exist, then why in the heck would you believe anybody can determine a galaxy moves? In this instance of time, how can anyone determine direction and speed?[/i

=#BF0000POINT THREE
[iThe stars above have not moved relative to each other for thousands of years (for all time), and they all keep coming back to the same location after a predictable amount of time. Even the planets (moving stars) have followed a predictable and repeated path for thousands of years.
[/i
[iThere is no expansion. It's all a grand storytelling scheme.[/i


[iStar trail time-lapse photography is absolute proof that Earth is the stationary centre of the universe around which everything in the sky revolves. If the Earth's supposed motion was what caused the star trail effect, Earth would have to be performing daily 360 loop-de-loops, inverting upside down, coming back around, and NOT rotating on an axis, otherwise the same stars would not remain visible in the sky for well over 12 hours (as they do), and would all move across the sky horizontally. The fact that we can see the same stars all night long revolving perfect circles around Polaris proves it is the stars moving relative to a fixed Earth and not the Earth doing roller-coaster loops around Polaris. Also, the stars are all said to be at varying incredible distances from one another so their relative positions to each other should be shifting constantly. In actual fact, however, all the constellations maintain their positions relative to one another day after day, year after year. This is only possible if we are fixed and the universe is a fixed sphere moving around us, like a planetarium dome.[/i

[i[size=150Hahahaha CGI Alert. What's that. I'm stuck between A Black Christmas Tree or Atari Asteroids. PMSL[/size[/i

Stan you have just convinced me you are a troll. But, either way you are at this point not worth taking seriously given the depths to which such desperate retorts have sunk. This sub-puerile stuff doesn't merit any response.

I am no Troll. I'm passionate about my beliefs. How can i take you seriously when you continue to post cartoon composites. Do me a favour. Godwins Law or what. You Abuse means you lose. Bye.

On what possible grounds can you realistically claim that this image is a fake? You know nothing about it nor the photographers who created the composite. Your knee jerk "CGI" bawl is what you do for *E*V*E*R*Y* image that is too hard for you to address.

In fact, the credits for the image are as follows:





Stefano Cancelli is a prominent member of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Toronto Chapter.

What justification or right do you have for questioning their bona fides?

But perhaps the most stupid aspect is that if you look through a decent telescope you aould see the current location of Barnard's star for yourself. And check that it has moved. And verify the information. But you would rather close your mind to the plain truth and facts. You would probably claim it is a NASA "holograph" or something.

[iAs for your moving train example there's absolutely no doubt of proof that the earth is stationary. When sitting in a rapidly moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that[u the ball or other projectile will always go further in the first case than in the latter.[/u[/i

[iIf a person leaps backwards from a horse in full gallop, he cannot jump so great a distance as he can by jumping forward. Leaping from a moving sledge, coach, or other object, backwards or forwards, the same results are experienced. Many other practical cases could be cited to show that any body projected from another body in motion, does not exhibit the same behaviour as it does when projected from a body at rest. None of the results are the same when projected in the same direction as that in which the body moves, as when projected in the opposite direction; because, in the former case, the projected body receives its momentum from the projectile force, plus that given to it by the moving body; and in the latter case, this momentum, minus that of the moving body. Hence it would be found that if the earth is moving rapidly from west to east, a cannon fired in a due easterly direction would send a ball to a greater distance than it would if fired in a due westerly direction.[u But the most experienced artillerymen many of whom have had great practice, both at home and abroad, in almost every latitude have declared that no difference whatever is observable. That in charging and pointing their guns, no difference in the working is ever required.[/u[/i[

[iGunners in war ships have noticed a considerable difference in the results of their firing from guns at the bow, when sailing rapidly towards the object fired at, and when firing from guns placed at the stern while sailing away from the object: and in both cases the results are different to those observed when firing from a ship at perfect rest.[u These details of practical experience are utterly incompatible with the supposition of a revolving earth.[/u[/i [iThanks for your input in clearing this up.[/i


[i[u

Quote King Street CatFerocious Aardvark Wrote: What justification or right do you have for questioning their bona fides?'"

[/u As i've highlighted above a plethora of evidence of his CGI fetish. I also highlighted your comment where you admitted the shot is a composite here=#FF0000 "You know nothing about it nor the photographers who created the composite" .Hahaha You're becoming more of a laugh post by post, Look at your contradictory tongue twisted comment in your first paragraph in your laat post. I highlighted it, please carry on amusing me.[/i

No, I have now blocked you, because not only are you more deluded than any other person I have ever conversed with, you are now rambling, ranting, simply spouting increasingly irrelevant nonsense, and appear hysterical.

Your increasingly bizarre behaviour, coupled with the fact that you have a total block on ever even considering a single thing anybody else writes, unless it fits your obsessive lunatic drivel, means that whatever you are, there is no point in attempted comunication as you are no longer on "receive". If you ever were.

Goodbye, Stanley. Parts of it were interesting, but no longer. We shall not speak again.

No worries, i'll miss your amusing tongue twisters proves how you can give it, but can't take it, Also obsessive lunatic personal digs eh Despite your immature vitriolic abuse i wish you well in your future endeavours. Adios.