A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory

I still want my evidence.  And don't say "Conspiracy, blah" until you tell me how they faked it.

Quote from: jackofhearts on June 07, 2010, 03:05:10 AM

I still want my evidence.  And don't say "Conspiracy, blah" until you tell me how they faked it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Conspiracy

Quote from: levee on June 06, 2010, 05:56:55 AM

sokarul, it took you a FULL 30 MINUTES to write a few sentences? You are certainly improving...

You wrote:

A low angel picture will not show curvature, give it up.

You mean, of course, ANGLE and not angel, who knows what you had in mind...

Let me remind you of the facts.

From that beach in Spain (and we are located right on the beach itself) you should see an ascending slope, and midpoint curvature of some 3.3 meters. But in the photograph, as in the second video, the surface of the water is completely flat all the way to Morocco, we can see all the details from the other side.

Here is the second video, FROM THE SAME SPOT AS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


You also wrote:

I already pointed out the true horizon of the height above the ground the picture was taken is past the distance to the city.  You did not respond to this so give it up.

But I did respond exactly to your point, for I wrote myself:

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO THE FIRST SIGNS OF LAND FROM TORONTO, IN SPITE OF A HUGE CURVATURE OF 59 METERS, 1/4TH OF THE ALTITUDE AT WHICH THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS LOCATED (55 KM AWAY).

You do not understand what is going on.

We should see, on a round earth, a huge curvature of some 59 meters, that is, one fourth of the altitude itself (240 meters). And I ascended to 240 meters just to show you how easily it is to demonstrate that there is no curvature at all over Lake Ontario.

No such curvature is seen in any of the pictures, just a completely straight, flat surface of the lake.


You are making up quite a few things, in those 30 minutes it took you to struggle to respond...

Here is what you wrote:

You did not respond to what I said, give it up.  Air density gradients are what lead to mirages.  
Give it up, it's from a website about mirages.  

Are we to understand you no longer know what you are reading?

There is NO MIRAGE PAGE present in the story from Lake Michigan, here is the full story itself:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

PLEASE WAKE UP, sokarul!!!

Over a distance of 128 km, you cannot see anything, not now, not ever, from the other side of Lake Michigan.

The visual obstacle itself, some 900 meters in the case of Milwaukee, and some 1040 meters in the case of Racine, makes it impossible to see ANYTHING; no refraction formula, no looming phenomenon can do that for you.

Let us know, again, read what those residents from Holland actually saw:


'I said to my friend that it can't be a boat because it was a big rectangle with lights on either side of it,' Kanis said Tuesday. 'So we kept watching, and it didn't move.

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.


YOU CANNOT SEE ANYTHING FROM MILWAUKEE/RACINE WISCONSIN, FROM HOLLAND MICHIGAN, PERIOD!!!

No such thing possible on a round earth, given the immense visual obstacle.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).


So-karul, this is the situation over Lake Michigan; please do your homework, and stop posting nonsense...

Since you responded without actually responding I'm going to just say "Mirage". 

Levee, why are you posting pictures as evidence? Why do we not get to use pictures as evidence, but you guys do?

Quote from: Popeye on June 19, 2010, 09:30:28 PM

Levee, why are you posting pictures as evidence? Why do we not get to use pictures as evidence, but you guys do?

Why do you have an issue with it?  If your side of the argument says they are valid unless you think this is some sort of game you'd be happy to except what you see as valid evidence.

I have an issue with it because it gives one side an unfair advantage. Pictures are a great way illustrate your ideas in reality, and I'd be happy to discuss it with Levee with pictures of my own, but for some strange reason I am not allowed.

Quote from: Popeye on June 19, 2010, 09:45:15 PM

I have an issue with it because it gives one side an unfair advantage. Pictures are a great way illustrate your ideas in reality, and I'd be happy to discuss it with Levee with pictures of my own, but for some strange reason I am not allowed.

You seem confused. Pictures are allowed, they just are not evidence. Feel free to use them to illustrate an idea, but you can't post a NASA picture and "lolearthisround"

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on June 19, 2010, 10:27:03 PM

Quote from: Popeye on June 19, 2010, 09:45:15 PM

I have an issue with it because it gives one side an unfair advantage. Pictures are a great way illustrate your ideas in reality, and I'd be happy to discuss it with Levee with pictures of my own, but for some strange reason I am not allowed.

You seem confused. Pictures are allowed, they just are not evidence. Feel free to use them to illustrate an idea, but you can't post a NASA picture and "lolearthisround"

Unless someone posts some real evidence that all NASA pictures are faked, I personally see no reason why they could not be used. The only evidence provided against NASA are links in the tiki to websites making unsubstantiated claims that are not verified by any independent sources.

But that's just me. I suppose this is your site, and you are within your rights to require unreasonable standards of evidence without proper justification if you want, but that doesn't make it fair.

See there's a difference, we have reason to believe those are not real, and they are easily demonstrated as such, but I have never seen anyone on this site attempt to show how a NASA image was "faked".

All they do is yell "That's fake!" and not even try to show how the pictures were modified.

See there's a difference, we have reason to believe those are not real, and they are easily demonstrated as such, but I have never seen anyone on this site attempt to show how a NASA image was "faked".

All they do is yell "That's fake!" and not even try to show how the pictures were modified.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 19, 2010, 10:39:53 PM

See there's a difference, we have reason to believe those are not real, and they are easily demonstrated as such, but I have never seen anyone on this site attempt to show how a NASA image was "faked".

All they do is yell "That's fake!" and not even try to show how the pictures were modified.

Please demonstrate how this picture is fake:

Umm, I'm not quite sure I got my point across. Why is Levee using pictures as evidence completely fine in your book, but when we try to we are told that pictures could easily be modified. Couldn't Levee's be just as modified?

elementry, the white holes in the picture +the textures are result of a computer program i.e. ms paint.

Quote from: Benjamin Franklin on June 19, 2010, 10:54:17 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 19, 2010, 10:39:53 PM

See there's a difference, we have reason to believe those are not real, and they are easily demonstrated as such, but I have never seen anyone on this site attempt to show how a NASA image was "faked".

All they do is yell "That's fake!" and not even try to show how the pictures were modified.

Please demonstrate how this picture is fake:

elementry, the white holes in the picture +the textures are result of a computer program i.e. ms paint.
Also what is the source? any eye witnesses?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 01:08:10 AM

Also what is the source? any eye witnesses?

I'm the eye witness you're looking for. I have seen this dragon before, and I can verify that this picture is real.

Quote from: Popeye on June 19, 2010, 09:45:15 PM

I have an issue with it because it gives one side an unfair advantage. Pictures are a great way illustrate your ideas in reality, and I'd be happy to discuss it with Levee with pictures of my own, but for some strange reason I am not allowed.

You seem confused. Pictures are allowed, they just are not evidence. Feel free to use them to illustrate an idea, but you can't post a NASA picture and "lolearthisround"

But Levee does use pictures as evidence.  He even uses a a picture that has has documentation on how it has been photoshopped as evidence of a "black sun" that he claims is the cause of solar eclipses. 

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on June 20, 2010, 08:47:45 AM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 01:08:10 AM

Also what is the source? any eye witnesses?

I'm the eye witness you're looking for. I have seen this dragon before, and I can verify that this picture is real.

I can second this observation, having witnessed the dragon myself as well.

I think reading levee's posts gave me brain cancer. I'm highly concerned about this and might seek to sue TFES for my life-threatening condition.

Quote from: sillyrob on June 20, 2010, 11:09:16 PM

I think reading levee's posts gave me brain cancer. I'm highly concerned about this and might seek to sue TFES for my life-threatening condition.

I think the feeling you're experiencing is Having Been Trolled syndrome. I firmly believe every Round-Earth proponent with more than a dozen posts (and dear God, there are some with thousands) has been tricked into spending way too much of their lives on this forum by maybe a half-dozen very clever trolls. I found this site from an outside link, read around a bit, and was very much impressed.