# Willis Tower

• 63 Replies
• 14555 Views
?

#### herewegoround

• 286
##### Willis Tower
« on: February 22, 2015, 11:31:05 AM »

cikljamas posted this picture. As far as I can tell he is suggesting that this is a picuture taken 46 miles away and that it somehow proves that the Earth can't be round. I think that's what he meant although it's hard to tell, he's not very articualte.

The height of the tower to the tip is 527m, the architectural height is 442m. The difference between the two is 85m which is about 1/6 of the total. I would estimate then that only the top 1/3 of the entire tower is visible in this picture. So the lowest part of the tower showing is about 350m high.

He didn't state the height the picture was taken at but it's quite clearly not at sea level, I am going to estimate it is 5m above sea level. That's about a 2 storey house.

The distance to the horizon is calculated using √((R+h)2-R2), where R is the radius of the Earth, 6400 km, and h is the height of your eyes above sea level.

The distance to the horizon from the lowest part of the building is √((6400+0.35)2-64002)=67km.

The distance to the horizon if your eyes are 5m above sea level is √((6400+0.005)2-64002)=8km.

Therefore, if the picture was taken 5m above sea level and just managed to see a point on the tower 350m above sea level then the distance from the point the picture was taken to the tower was 67km + 8km = 75km or 47 miles.

This picture, if it is a photograph of the Willis Tower taken 46 miles away from a height of 5m, is very strong evidence for the Earth being a sphere with a radius of 6400km or 4000 miles.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 03:13:36 AM by herewegoround »

?

#### herewegoround

• 286
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2015, 12:23:17 AM »
I did actually include an image with this post but it's disappeared for some reason. If you look in the thread, "bingo! sea foam at 8 km, certified by Pentax and Wikipedia", you will see a long posting by cikljamas on the first page. There is a picture of Willis tower taken across water from 46 miles away.

?

#### sevenhills

• 219
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2015, 03:17:48 AM »
The image is there when I looked at the thread last night

?

#### SKEP

• 4
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2015, 03:34:39 AM »

cikljamas posted this picture. As far as I can tell he is suggesting that this is a picuture taken 46 miles away and that it somehow proves that the Earth can't be round. I think that's what he meant although it's hard to tell, he's not very articualte.

The height of the tower to the tip is 527m, the architectural height is 442m. The difference between the two is 85m which is about 1/6 of the total. I would estimate then that only the top 1/3 of the entire tower is visible in this picture. So the lowest part of the tower showing is about 350m high.

He didn't state the height the picture was taken at but it's quite clearly not at sea level, I am going to estimate it is 5m above sea level. That's about a 2 storey house.

The distance to the horizon is calculated using √((R+h)2-R2), where R is the radius of the Earth, 6400 km, and h is the height of your eyes above sea level.

The distance to the horizon from the lowest part of the building is √((6400+0.35)2-64002)=67km.

The distance to the horizon if your eyes are 5m above sea level is √((6400+0.005)2-64002)=8km.

Therefore, if the picture was taken 5m above sea level and just managed to see a point on the tower 350m above sea level then the distance from the point the picture was taken to the tower was 67km + 8km = 75km or 47 miles.

This picture, if it is a photograph of the Willis Tower taken 46 miles away from a height of 5m, is very strong evidence for the Earth being a sphere with a radius of 6400km or 4000 miles.

47 miles eh? Impressive. So lemme get this straight. IF it were possible to actually see 47 miles in a straight line over the ocean, with the naked eye,as you claim, and the building as you estimated is 350m tall or above the water line, then tell me, just how wide is that building at 47 miles away?

Do you know what depth perception is? Things appear smaller as they go farther away, right? The tallest and biggest building in the world would look like a tiny spec at 47 miles away.

After reading many of the believers posts in here i have come to many conclusions   1) none of you did well in school  2) You tweek everything to justify your theory, despite proper math  3) Theres zero rational in any of your arguments, it simply defies all laws.

Have you never been on an airplane before?  Do you really believe that clouds in the distance are touching the ground?

I'm not sure if this site is real or a joke, a collection of the dimmest people on earth. Are you all trolls seeking attention? If so, cool, knock your socks off, have fun with it. If not, then i'm here for the long haul, you people are hysterical.

Yeah, i read the rules, it also seems you heavily moderate your forums to prevent outsiders from shedding light on facts before educating the uniformed....one way to keep a following i suppose. Yeah?

?

#### herewegoround

• 286
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2015, 03:52:38 AM »

cikljamas posted this picture. As far as I can tell he is suggesting that this is a picuture taken 46 miles away and that it somehow proves that the Earth can't be round. I think that's what he meant although it's hard to tell, he's not very articualte.

The height of the tower to the tip is 527m, the architectural height is 442m. The difference between the two is 85m which is about 1/6 of the total. I would estimate then that only the top 1/3 of the entire tower is visible in this picture. So the lowest part of the tower showing is about 350m high.

He didn't state the height the picture was taken at but it's quite clearly not at sea level, I am going to estimate it is 5m above sea level. That's about a 2 storey house.

The distance to the horizon is calculated using √((R+h)2-R2), where R is the radius of the Earth, 6400 km, and h is the height of your eyes above sea level.

The distance to the horizon from the lowest part of the building is √((6400+0.35)2-64002)=67km.

The distance to the horizon if your eyes are 5m above sea level is √((6400+0.005)2-64002)=8km.

Therefore, if the picture was taken 5m above sea level and just managed to see a point on the tower 350m above sea level then the distance from the point the picture was taken to the tower was 67km + 8km = 75km or 47 miles.

This picture, if it is a photograph of the Willis Tower taken 46 miles away from a height of 5m, is very strong evidence for the Earth being a sphere with a radius of 6400km or 4000 miles.

47 miles eh? Impressive. So lemme get this straight. IF it were possible to actually see 47 miles in a straight line over the ocean, with the naked eye,as you claim, and the building as you estimated is 350m tall or above the water line, then tell me, just how wide is that building at 47 miles away?

Do you know what depth perception is? Things appear smaller as they go farther away, right? The tallest and biggest building in the world would look like a tiny spec at 47 miles away.

After reading many of the believers posts in here i have come to many conclusions   1) none of you did well in school  2) You tweek everything to justify your theory, despite proper math  3) Theres zero rational in any of your arguments, it simply defies all laws.

Have you never been on an airplane before?  Do you really believe that clouds in the distance are touching the ground?

I'm not sure if this site is real or a joke, a collection of the dimmest people on earth. Are you all trolls seeking attention? If so, cool, knock your socks off, have fun with it. If not, then i'm here for the long haul, you people are hysterical.

Yeah, i read the rules, it also seems you heavily moderate your forums to prevent outsiders from shedding light on facts before educating the uniformed....one way to keep a following i suppose. Yeah?

Can you please address the mathematics if you don't agree. I am responding to a claim made by clikljamas. He is the one who claimed the building is 46 miles away. If you have a problem with that take it up with him.

Sarcasm doesn't disprove anything.

?

#### SKEP

• 4
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2015, 04:07:03 AM »

cikljamas posted this picture. As far as I can tell he is suggesting that this is a picuture taken 46 miles away and that it somehow proves that the Earth can't be round. I think that's what he meant although it's hard to tell, he's not very articualte.

The height of the tower to the tip is 527m, the architectural height is 442m. The difference between the two is 85m which is about 1/6 of the total. I would estimate then that only the top 1/3 of the entire tower is visible in this picture. So the lowest part of the tower showing is about 350m high.

He didn't state the height the picture was taken at but it's quite clearly not at sea level, I am going to estimate it is 5m above sea level. That's about a 2 storey house.

The distance to the horizon is calculated using √((R+h)2-R2), where R is the radius of the Earth, 6400 km, and h is the height of your eyes above sea level.

The distance to the horizon from the lowest part of the building is √((6400+0.35)2-64002)=67km.

The distance to the horizon if your eyes are 5m above sea level is √((6400+0.005)2-64002)=8km.

Therefore, if the picture was taken 5m above sea level and just managed to see a point on the tower 350m above sea level then the distance from the point the picture was taken to the tower was 67km + 8km = 75km or 47 miles.

This picture, if it is a photograph of the Willis Tower taken 46 miles away from a height of 5m, is very strong evidence for the Earth being a sphere with a radius of 6400km or 4000 miles.

Heres  a little insight for you.  You cannot see Chicago from 47 miles away at sea level. FACT.  BUT, if you were to stand on top of one of the 250 ft dunes, 53 miles away, one can barely , BARELY make out the tip top of the antennas on top of the willis tower. You're putting your faith into a picture with little information. This photo has gotten around, it's all over, with many different stories behind it. I lived, worked in Chicago for 2 years, as well as Milwaukee and Menomonee Falls. I can tell you first hand, this photo is photoshoped. You CAN see the city utline from 10 miles away with ease if given a clear path of view at sea level. 47 miles, sorry sir...not at sea level, simple fact i have lived and experienced, as well as MILLIONS of others. You have been duped.

#### cikljamas

• 1912
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2015, 06:14:45 AM »
Heres  a little insight for you.  You cannot see Chicago from 47 miles away at sea level. FACT.  BUT, if you were to stand on top of one of the 250 ft dunes, 53 miles away, one can barely , BARELY make out the tip top of the antennas on top of the willis tower. You're putting your faith into a picture with little information. This photo has gotten around, it's all over, with many different stories behind it. I lived, worked in Chicago for 2 years, as well as Milwaukee and Menomonee Falls. I can tell you first hand, this photo is photoshoped. You CAN see the city utline from 10 miles away with ease if given a clear path of view at sea level. 47 miles, sorry sir...not at sea level, simple fact i have lived and experienced, as well as MILLIONS of others. You have been duped.

Your logic sounds good to me, so if that is correct (that an observer is not so far away from these buildings) then i am the one who had been duped, in the first place by giving credit to unverified informations concerning alleged distance between the observer and those towers. If you asked me, where i found this image and accompanying data about alleged distance, i would not hesitate to admit that the source for these informations was one old discussion that had been going on right here : at this very forum!

That is why this photograph is not a good choice for this discussion, but if you chose any other photograph that you can find at the same place (where you have found "Willis tower" photograph, aslo), then you would have a good material for further discussion.

This is the place: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1661813#msg1661813

This is a photograph that i would like to recommend to you :

The view from the height of 8650 m from the ridge of Mt Everest:

On the right MAKALU (8463m - distance 12 miles)
In the back KANCHANJUNGA (8456m - distance 78 miles)

Dip for MAKALU : 29 meters
Dip for KANCHANJUNGA : 1 217 meters

HOW COME THAT KANCHANJUNGA IS AT EYE LEVEL AND ABOVE THE LEVEL OF MAKALU???

WHERE IS THE GROUND DROPPING FOR 1 217 METERS AT A DISTANCE OF KANCHANJUNGA?

4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1639044#msg1639044
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

?

#### SKEP

• 4
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2015, 06:28:37 AM »
While i did take the time to illustrate my next point via Google Earth Pro...i also realized after reading your wiki just how insane your upload process is...

Heres the obvious problem with the photo you have shown. As you stated, the Willis tower is on the LEFT, the John Hancock is on the RIGHT...Correct? Ok...moving on... That in of itself is what makes this photo complete bs. Heres why. I took the time to map out Chicago, exactly from the base of the willis tower, to exactly 47 miles away, across the water in 2 directions. the first one going south, at 47 miles exactly, relative to where 47 miles hits a coastline, you end up in New Buffalo. Directly south of Chicago, which is exactly where this photo must have been taken according to your description of where both buildings are in the picture, as i have quoted you. Willis/left  handcock right. Theres only one HUGE problem with your scenario. Look at the photo, it clearly shows the sun setting in the background, which would be NORTH. The sun does NOT set in the North. We all know that, and i can promise you nobody that has ever in the history of time has witnessed a sunset north of Chicago.

SOO.....With that said....I also went directly EAST from the base of the Willis tower, exactly 47 miles. This puts you in roughly a few miles west of Kenosha. On the coastline as well, as this is where the photo was supposedly taken. Now we have 2 problems with this scenario, first, you are looking over about 30 miles of warer before the coastline juts out and the city of Evanston is directly in line of Chicago, one would have to see through this city first. Never gonna happen, but i'll humor your theory a bit more.....And finally...the nail in the coffin.....From that exact angle, from 47 miles away on the costline, that puts the Willis Tower on the right and the John Handcock building on the LEFT. Which is opposite of the picture. BUT, this is this ONLY way possible to have a sunset BEHIND the city of Chicago....east looking west.

In other words, as i said previously, the photo is clearly photoshopped for your convenience. I dont care about what you believe or dont, but these FACTS i stated are facts, ones that if you went there you would ALL experience the same. None of us can change those facts. We dont control mother nature. Even if you dont believe in the same "north" as i do, it doesnt matter. its all relative to one thing....the sun sets in the SAME EXACT DIRECTION everyday, WEST.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 06:30:40 AM by SKEP »

?

#### SKEP

• 4
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2015, 07:12:20 AM »

That is why this photograph is not a good choice for this discussion, but if you chose any other photograph that you can find at the same place (where you have found "Willis tower" photograph, aslo), then you would have a good material for further discussion.

This is the place: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1661813#msg1661813

This is a photograph that i would like to recommend to you :

The view from the height of 8650 m from the ridge of Mt Everest:

On the right MAKALU (8463m - distance 12 miles)
In the back KANCHANJUNGA (8456m - distance 78 miles)

Dip for MAKALU : 29 meters
Dip for KANCHANJUNGA : 1 217 meters

HOW COME THAT KANCHANJUNGA IS AT EYE LEVEL AND ABOVE THE LEVEL OF MAKALU???

WHERE IS THE GROUND DROPPING FOR 1 217 METERS AT A DISTANCE OF KANCHANJUNGA?

4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1639044#msg1639044
[/quote]

Your logic sounds good to me, so if that is correct (that an observer is not so far away from these buildings) then i am the one who had been duped, in the first place by giving credit to unverified informations concerning alleged distance between the observer and those towers. If you asked me, where i found this image and accompanying data about alleged distance, i would not hesitate to admit that the source for these informations was one old discussion that had been going on right here : at this very forum!

That is why this photograph is not a good choice for this discussion, but if you chose any other photograph that you can find at the same place (where you have found "Willis tower" photograph, aslo), then you would have a good material for further discussion.

This is the place: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1661813#msg1661813

This is a photograph that i would like to recommend to you :

The view from the height of 8650 m from the ridge of Mt Everest:

On the right MAKALU (8463m - distance 12 miles)
In the back KANCHANJUNGA (8456m - distance 78 miles)

Dip for MAKALU : 29 meters
Dip for KANCHANJUNGA : 1 217 meters

HOW COME THAT KANCHANJUNGA IS AT EYE LEVEL AND ABOVE THE LEVEL OF MAKALU???

WHERE IS THE GROUND DROPPING FOR 1 217 METERS AT A DISTANCE OF KANCHANJUNGA?

4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1639044#msg1639044
[/quote]

OK, not difficult to explain. I will give you a little insight into what i do. I have been in Industrial Construction for over 30 years, have built many larger structures, some worthy of bragging rights, others were nightmares i'd just assume forget...but i've learned a lot from each and everyone.
What i am going to tell you is what i have told many many people over the years, some that are far far more intelligent than myself, and each and everytime, i prove them wrong, some go away pissed,convinced their 6 figure education can't be wrong.

There is no such thing as "LEVEL". it does not exist. Not on earth that is. Do not confuse straight with level, two completely different things all together. Trust me, this applies to this photo as well.

When building anything, say a large structure, one must set a benchmark, meaning elevation / grade. EVERYTHING you do after that is based on that benchmark. Easy enough,right? Wrong! And this is where flat earth believers will call bs, and thats fine, but i can with certainty say that none of them have ever built anything in their lives, or they would know what i'm about to say is fact. On EARTH, a round sphere, there is no such thing as level in relationship to the earth,period. Perhaps on a small degree one could say something is level, and for all intensive purposes, it is,meaning its level enough to support anything we build or design, one would never know the difference, BUT....Say you have a project that is 5.4 miles long, and I have, what is level at point "A" in not level at the other end of point "B" in relation to the earth, due to the subtle curvature of the earth. Here is a mathematical fact. what is level at point "A" is 8 inches out of level after 2 miles, fact. This is something we MUST account for,without fail. Example, look at the keywest bridges in Florida, 90 miles of bridge, NOT LEVEL. BUT, to the naked eye it appears level as we cannot see nor judge such a minimalist change in level. IF we did not account for the curvature of the earth, our point "A" level benchmark extending for as far as we needed it to be, by the time we got to the end of our desired point of reference, we would be meters above the ground / grade. The earth is HUGE, in order to see the big picture you must step back, far back until you can see the entire picture, only then will you see the curvature. It is relative to distance. The same thing applies to this photo. Albeit a pretty photo, it is cropped, by that i mean you have a very limited side to side view. Up close, it seems level, but step further back and you will see a gradual curve. One can see it from an airplane at 35,000 ft. it is not drastic by any means, but it is there. Clouds will follow the curvature of the earth as well, gravity dictates that, no getting around that.

HOW COME THAT KANCHANJUNGA IS AT EYE LEVEL AND ABOVE THE LEVEL OF MAKALU???

easy to explain. The photo was taken from a higher elevation than the closest mountain.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 07:21:02 AM by SKEP »

?

#### herewegoround

• 286
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2015, 07:29:15 AM »
Regardless of whether that picture is fake or not I have shown that it would be possible to  see the top of a structure 350m high from 46 miles away for a person who's eyes are 5m above sea level.

According to an online source the width of the Willis Building is 225 feet or 69m. A circle with a radius of 74km (46 miles) would have a circumference of 465km. The angular size of the Willis Building at a distance of 74 km would be 360°x0.069/465=0.05°. The human eye can see at that resolution. The angular size of the diameter of the sun is 0.5°. I think you will agree that if the sun was visible in this picture, the angular size of its diameter would be more than the angular size of the width of the building which is supposedly the Willis Building. If this picture was taken with a zoom of between x5 and x10 it could well be genuine. I'm not saying that it is. If I have been duped I will hold my hands up. However, it is within the bounds of possibility that it is real.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 07:47:19 AM by herewegoround »

#### cikljamas

• 1912
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2015, 07:34:42 AM »
@ SKEP,

Flat earth believers will call it bs, because it is bs!

1.

If the earth be the globe of popular belief, it is very evident that in cutting a canal, an allowance must be made for the curvature of the globe, which allowance would correspond to the square of the distance multiplied by eight inches, nearly. From the Age, of 5th August 1893, I extract the following:

" The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level."

Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for "curvature" ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, — (Earth Review, October, 1893), " It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!

A surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, writes to the Earth Review for January, 1896, as follows :

" In levelling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birmingham level, this is said to be 453.04 feet above sea level. Sometimes I work from the Walsall level, this is said to be 407.89 feet above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed... One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life."

I think most will grant that a practical man is capable of forming a judgment, in all cases of more value than the merely theoretical calculator. Here, then, we have the evidence of practical men to the effect that no allowance for curvature is made in cutting canals, a clear proof that we are not living on a huge ball, but on a surface, the general contour of which is level, as the datum line from which surveys are made IS ALWAYS A HORIZONTAL LINE.

2.

QUESTION : At approximately what altitude we can see that earth is spherical?

1. Ground level if you look in the right places. The classic example is the way distant ships appear to sink as they cross the horizon. No need for any maths.

2. If you actually want to see the curvature of the Earth it depends what threshold to want to apply as 'noticeable'. Decide on how much curvature is noticeable and determine the how much horizon needs to be in view to see that much curvature. One equation for the horizon distance is S = 1.42sqrt(H) where S is the distance in miles and H is the height in feet. From there you can get your answer with a bit of simple geometry.

3. Presuming that you mean with the naked eye, you only need to be a few kilometres in the air for it to be obvious. If you have ever been in an aeroplane on a clear day, the curvature of the Earth is easily visible. It can even be detected at sea in calm weather.

4.
You would never see that at any altitude. The earth is flat.

5. You could see the curvature of the earth every day while travelling on Concorde....

6. Perhaps it is a fantasy. I swear that on the two times I flew the Condorde I could see the curvature. In any event, the experiences are sealed in my brain. What great memories!!

7. The curvature of the Earth was visible on my Concorde flight, along with the darnkess of the sky. It wasn't black but very dark blue. I have not been able to see either features on a normal flight up to 40k

8. My father used to travel on Concorde. When asked about seeing the curvature of the Earth, he thought it was pretty imperceptable, albeit beginning to become noticable, and probably due more to the power of suggestion or camera distortion than anything else. He thought, apparently, you have to go up in the likes of U2 aircraft (70,000 feet) before one really has a spectacular view of the Earth's curvature, although of course the view from Concorde certainly was unique and spectacular. I only flew it once when a child.

9. From a friend who was a military pilot, and from sources such as the many books I have read on the SR-71 and U-2 it can be said that this doesn't appear until you get up to 55K-60K feet........The highest I have been is 41K on a 777 and I couldn't see anything but a flat horizon.

10. I am an airline pilot, and the highest I have been is 41000'. Can't say that I have noticed any curvature. Not that I have been specifically looking for it either though. I would also guess that one would have to be at least 20 miles up to notice a curve without any instruments.

The first direct visual detection of the curvature of the horizon has been widely attributed to Auguste Piccard and Paul Kipfer on 27 May 1931. They reported seeing it from a hydrogen-filled balloon at an elevation of 15 787m (51 783 ft) over Germany and Austria. On 11 November 1935, Albert W.Stevens and Orville A. Anderson became the first people to photograph the curvature. They were flying in the helium-filled Explorer II balloon during a record-breaking flight to an altitude of 22 066m (72; 395 ft) over South Dakota. Other claims have been made as to being the first to see the curvature of the Earth, but they seem to have come long after visual curvature had been established.

Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers revealed that few if any could detect curvature below about 50; 000 ft. High-altitude physicist and experienced sky observer David Gutierrez reported that as his B-57 ascends, the curvature of the horizon does not become readily sensible until about 50 000 ft and that at 60 000 ft the curvature is obvious. Having talked to many other high fliers (SR-71, U2, etc.), Gutierrez confirms that his sense of the curvature is the same as theirs. Passengers on the Concorde (60; 000 ft) routinely marveled at the curvature of the Earth. Gutierrez believes that if the field of view (FOV) is wide enough, it might be possible to detect curvature from lower altitudes. The author has also talked to many commercial pilots, and they report that from elevations around 35; 000 ft, they cannot see the curvature.

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.

Just one snapshot from my video:

So, 110 000 ft is almost twice as high as 60 000 ft, and we still can't see any curvature of the Earth?

How come?

Well, this question we need to ask a true scientist, and AusGeoff is a true scientist without a slightest doubt:

Quote

Quote
Cikljamas presents:

Flat Earth All Around You : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> (don't forget to switch full screen)

There are people who will never admit the trueness of this fact. If they continue to refuse to recognize what their eyes see, then let them keep their noses in their asses for ever...

Is these sorts of of low resolution YouTube videos really the best "evidence" you can produce to support your claim of a flat earth?  Seriously?  Can you be 100% certain that this one's not been digitally manipulated?  And why have they been captured with a potato instead of a digital camera?

And you're apparently happy to ignore the thousands of the European Space Agency videos, and the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research videos in favour of this dross?  Not good enough.

Aren't you satisfied with an answer (above) of a true scientist?

"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2015, 07:37:54 AM »
Just one snapshot from my video:

Yes. Yes I do.
You know that just because you draw a line across a picture, doesn't mean you've drawn it over the Earth? A fuzzy photo might make it harder, but you can quite clearly see a dip at the left.

?

#### herewegoround

• 286
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2015, 07:42:25 AM »

Have you never been on an airplane before?  Do you really believe that clouds in the distance are touching the ground?

What's that got to do with it?

#### JimmyTheCrab

• 7859
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2015, 09:10:29 AM »
SKEP seems very confused.  I've no idea what all that mountain stuff was meant to illustrate.

Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2015, 09:48:57 AM »
Regardless of whether that picture is fake or not I have shown that it would be possible to  see the top of a structure 350m high from 46 miles away for a person who's eyes are 5m above sea level.

According to an online source the width of the Willis Building is 225 feet or 69m. A circle with a radius of 74km (46 miles) would have a circumference of 465km. The angular size of the Willis Building at a distance of 74 km would be 360°x0.069/465=0.05°. The human eye can see at that resolution. The angular size of the diameter of the sun is 0.5°. I think you will agree that if the sun was visible in this picture, the angular size of its diameter would be more than the angular size of the width of the building which is supposedly the Willis Building. If this picture was taken with a zoom of between x5 and x10 it could well be genuine. I'm not saying that it is. If I have been duped I will hold my hands up. However, it is within the bounds of possibility that it is real.

0.05 degrees is just on the edge of angular resolution for the human eye, but fortunately, and Skep seems to have forgotten this, we have telephoto lenses that make small things bigger.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Agnotology

• 87
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2015, 10:36:45 AM »
This is a photograph that i would like to recommend to you :

The view from the height of 8650 m from the ridge of Mt Everest:

On the right MAKALU (8463m - distance 12 miles)
In the back KANCHANJUNGA (8456m - distance 78 miles)

Dip for MAKALU : 29 meters
Dip for KANCHANJUNGA : 1 217 meters

You sir, are excellent at providing data that breaks with your own logic. Please continue that line you so graciously provided to the other side of the picture. I won't even point out on the existing line, the cloud cover is on the left is below the given line, in the middle, above, and if you continued it to the right, well below the endpoint of your line.

edit: In the event this photo you put forward also then becomes under the "photoshopped", I would ask you refrain from providing pictures forward at all, and not to claim others are photoshopped, as you are incapable of discerning one from the other.

as seen as follows....

Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.

Just one snapshot from my video:

So, 110 000 ft is almost twice as high as 60 000 ft, and we still can't see any curvature of the Earth?

How come?

Your image given is cropped AND zoomed.

I found one taken by the camera 49 seconds after your snip, at 110,000 feet. I also found the video you took your picture from. Your photo comes from 5:53.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WwimocU0IIc/maxresdefault.jpg

Please draw your line again. Why do you feel the need to fake photos to prove a point?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2015, 11:14:14 AM by Agnotology »

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3914
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2015, 01:34:25 PM »
While i did take the time to illustrate my next point via Google Earth Pro...i also realized after reading your wiki just how insane your upload process is...

Heres the obvious problem with the photo you have shown. As you stated, the Willis tower is on the LEFT, the John Hancock is on the RIGHT...Correct? Ok...moving on... That in of itself is what makes this photo complete bs. Heres why. I took the time to map out Chicago, exactly from the base of the willis tower, to exactly 47 miles away, across the water in 2 directions. the first one going south, at 47 miles exactly, relative to where 47 miles hits a coastline, you end up in New Buffalo. Directly south of Chicago, which is exactly where this photo must have been taken according to your description of where both buildings are in the picture, as i have quoted you. Willis/left  handcock right. Theres only one HUGE problem with your scenario. Look at the photo, it clearly shows the sun setting in the background, which would be NORTH. The sun does NOT set in the North. We all know that, and i can promise you nobody that has ever in the history of time has witnessed a sunset north of Chicago.
New Buffalo, Michigan is almost due east of Chicago, not south. The lakefront at New Buffalo is exactly 46 miles across the lake at a heading of 96.26° from the Willis Tower according to Google Earth. You might want to check your map again.

This puts the setting sun west of Chicago, as expected. Calm down, dude!

Quote
SOO.....With that said....I also went directly EAST from the base of the Willis tower, exactly 47 miles. This puts you in roughly a few miles west of Kenosha. On the coastline as well, as this is where the photo was supposedly taken.
Well, at least you're consistent. Kenosha, WI, is almost due north of Chi. Did you miss the North Arrow on your map? Are you totally unfamiliar with the geography of Lake Michigan? Hint: It's a very long lake aligned so that its length is almost due north-south, and Chicago is located on the west side at the southern end. [Oh, wait... you said you lived there for two years, and also elsewhere in the region. If that's true, how could you possibly make a blunder like this? Something doesn't add up.]

Here's another map, this one with the traditional north up orientation (see the compass rose at upper right - the circle with 'N' at the top? 'N' is the direction of north from the center of the circle). The yellow ruler line is from the Willis Tower in downtown Chicago to a point on the beach at New Buffalo, MI. Kenosha is on the lake shore at top right, a smidgen west of due north of Chicago.

Quote
Now we have 2 problems with this scenario, first, you are looking over about 30 miles of warer before the coastline juts out and the city of Evanston is directly in line of Chicago, one would have to see through this city first. Never gonna happen, but i'll humor your theory a bit more.....And finally...the nail in the coffin.....From that exact angle, from 47 miles away on the costline, that puts the Willis Tower on the right and the John Handcock building on the LEFT. Which is opposite of the picture. BUT, this is this ONLY way possible to have a sunset BEHIND the city of Chicago....east looking west.
Oops...

As I said...  calm down. Take a deep breath.

Quote
In other words, as i said previously, the photo is clearly photoshopped for your convenience. I dont care about what you believe or dont, but these FACTS i stated are facts, ones that if you went there you would ALL experience the same. None of us can change those facts. We dont control mother nature. Even if you dont believe in the same "north" as i do, it doesnt matter. its all relative to one thing....the sun sets in the SAME EXACT DIRECTION everyday, WEST.
You really need to learn how to read a map and pay more attention to your surroundings (assuming you really did live in Chicago, which is suspect from what you've said here). Doing so might help you avoid making ridiculously wrong pontifications due to complete ignorance of geography. You seem to call what everyone else calls "west", "north". Calling "west" "north" doesn't actually make it that. Especially since you also insist that the Sun sets in your "west", too, which doesn't make sense.

That had to be one of the most ridiculous rants I've seen in a while. Yikes!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

#### herewegoround

• 286
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2015, 01:49:52 PM »
I've tried to make sense of the interaction between SKEP and cikljamas. It's incomprehensible.

#### ausGeoff

• 6091
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2015, 04:10:27 PM »

LOL... this image is so obviously Photoshopped as to be worthless as any sort of evidence supporting a flat earth claim.

As the flat earthers frequently remind us, photographic images are often distorted by the type of lens on the camera, refraction caused by the varying density of the atmosphere, the elevation of the observer above the earth's surface, and even deliberate digital manipulation.

I'd suggest that a least a couple of these conditions apply to this image, so as to misrepresent what we really should be seeing;  that is, a slight but positively curved horizon line.  Unless cikljamas can prove the veracity of this image, I'd say it's bogus.

And I've been in the photography game long enough to assess images accurately from simple observation.

I also notice that cikljamas has stripped the EXIF data out of this image.  I wonder why?

?

#### Agnotology

• 87
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2015, 04:31:15 PM »
I've tried to make sense of the interaction between SKEP and cikljamas. It's incomprehensible.

Did you miss my post pointing out exactly where he got it from, and how he cropped and zoomed it to fit his needs?

#### JimmyTheCrab

• 7859
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2015, 04:44:37 PM »
I've tried to make sense of the interaction between SKEP and cikljamas. It's incomprehensible.

Did you miss my post pointing out exactly where he got it from, and how he cropped and zoomed it to fit his needs?
No, but I missed the bit where SKEP and cikljamas started making any sense.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

#### sokarul

• 17155
• Discount Chemist
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2015, 05:27:29 PM »
This is a photograph that i would like to recommend to you :

The view from the height of 8650 m from the ridge of Mt Everest:

On the right MAKALU (8463m - distance 12 miles)
In the back KANCHANJUNGA (8456m - distance 78 miles)

Dip for MAKALU : 29 meters
Dip for KANCHANJUNGA : 1 217 meters

You sir, are excellent at providing data that breaks with your own logic. Please continue that line you so graciously provided to the other side of the picture. I won't even point out on the existing line, the cloud cover is on the left is below the given line, in the middle, above, and if you continued it to the right, well below the endpoint of your line.

edit: In the event this photo you put forward also then becomes under the "photoshopped", I would ask you refrain from providing pictures forward at all, and not to claim others are photoshopped, as you are incapable of discerning one from the other.

as seen as follows....

Just some background in physics. The sun is bright and screws up our pics on earth. Going outside the earth the suns brightness is much greater and reflected more off the atmosphere of the earth. Any picture would be unreadable due to the sun producing a massive lens flare.

Just one snapshot from my video:

So, 110 000 ft is almost twice as high as 60 000 ft, and we still can't see any curvature of the Earth?

How come?

Your image given is cropped AND zoomed.

I found one taken by the camera 49 seconds after your snip, at 110,000 feet. I also found the video you took your picture from. Your photo comes from 5:53.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WwimocU0IIc/maxresdefault.jpg

Please draw your line again. Why do you feel the need to fake photos to prove a point?
Nice find. That is actually quite common for Fe'ers to modify pictures to fit their needs.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

?

#### herewegoround

• 286
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2015, 02:18:24 AM »
I've tried to make sense of the interaction between SKEP and cikljamas. It's incomprehensible.

Did you miss my post pointing out exactly where he got it from, and how he cropped and zoomed it to fit his needs?

I suspect that SKEP is cikljamas, or possibly sceptimatic who may well be the same person. The name SKEP certainly suggests sceptimatic. The SKEP user name was set up yesterday and this is the only thread SKEP has replied to, almost as if it was set up just for that purpose.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 02:22:10 AM by herewegoround »

?

#### Saros

• 403
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2015, 04:45:08 AM »
I am not sure what SKEP tries to imply, but it is totally possible to see the Willis tower from 47 miles away. That is even possible within the RE in mind. Just use a regular horizon distance calculator and bear in mind the Willis tower has a height of 442 m without the antenna(which is not small at all). Just punch in the numbers in a calculator and the result is that from a height of 2 meters you could see something 442 m tall from a distance of 49 miles. So, in fact that observation doesn't prove anything as it is consistent with RE as well since even the horizon distance calculators allow it. Check out http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
For h1 enter 2 m for h2 enter 442 m and you will see how far is the visible horizon. Bear in mind that the photo was taken from a higher position than 2 m, so that explains why you see so much of the tower.

It is ridiculous how people who believe in round Earth start denying something is possible simply because it was suggested by a FE'er when in fact it is possible even within their theory... This just suggests they are not so bright after all. Anyone can get confused!
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 04:46:52 AM by Saros »

#### Lemmiwinks

• 2107
• President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2015, 09:42:46 AM »
I am not sure what SKEP tries to imply, but it is totally possible to see the Willis tower from 47 miles away. That is even possible within the RE in mind. Just use a regular horizon distance calculator and bear in mind the Willis tower has a height of 442 m without the antenna(which is not small at all). Just punch in the numbers in a calculator and the result is that from a height of 2 meters you could see something 442 m tall from a distance of 49 miles. So, in fact that observation doesn't prove anything as it is consistent with RE as well since even the horizon distance calculators allow it. Check out http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
For h1 enter 2 m for h2 enter 442 m and you will see how far is the visible horizon. Bear in mind that the photo was taken from a higher position than 2 m, so that explains why you see so much of the tower.

It is ridiculous how people who believe in round Earth start denying something is possible simply because it was suggested by a FE'er when in fact it is possible even within their theory... This just suggests they are not so bright after all. Anyone can get confused!

It appears Skep is a FE'r, so your last paragraph doesn't make much sense to me.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

?

#### Saros

• 403
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2015, 12:13:57 PM »
I am not sure what SKEP tries to imply, but it is totally possible to see the Willis tower from 47 miles away. That is even possible within the RE in mind. Just use a regular horizon distance calculator and bear in mind the Willis tower has a height of 442 m without the antenna(which is not small at all). Just punch in the numbers in a calculator and the result is that from a height of 2 meters you could see something 442 m tall from a distance of 49 miles. So, in fact that observation doesn't prove anything as it is consistent with RE as well since even the horizon distance calculators allow it. Check out http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
For h1 enter 2 m for h2 enter 442 m and you will see how far is the visible horizon. Bear in mind that the photo was taken from a higher position than 2 m, so that explains why you see so much of the tower.

It is ridiculous how people who believe in round Earth start denying something is possible simply because it was suggested by a FE'er when in fact it is possible even within their theory... This just suggests they are not so bright after all. Anyone can get confused!

It appears Skep is a FE'r, so your last paragraph doesn't make much sense to me.
I don't care what he believes in. I just wanted to point out that it is absolutely possible to see the Willis tower from that distance. He suggested otherwise. What do you believe in?

#### Lemmiwinks

• 2107
• President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2015, 12:19:08 PM »
I am not sure what SKEP tries to imply, but it is totally possible to see the Willis tower from 47 miles away. That is even possible within the RE in mind. Just use a regular horizon distance calculator and bear in mind the Willis tower has a height of 442 m without the antenna(which is not small at all). Just punch in the numbers in a calculator and the result is that from a height of 2 meters you could see something 442 m tall from a distance of 49 miles. So, in fact that observation doesn't prove anything as it is consistent with RE as well since even the horizon distance calculators allow it. Check out http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm
For h1 enter 2 m for h2 enter 442 m and you will see how far is the visible horizon. Bear in mind that the photo was taken from a higher position than 2 m, so that explains why you see so much of the tower.

It is ridiculous how people who believe in round Earth start denying something is possible simply because it was suggested by a FE'er when in fact it is possible even within their theory... This just suggests they are not so bright after all. Anyone can get confused!

It appears Skep is a FE'r, so your last paragraph doesn't make much sense to me.
I don't care what he believes in. I just wanted to point out that it is absolutely possible to see the Willis tower from that distance. He suggested otherwise. What do you believe in?

But you obviously did, because you assumed he was a RE'r and only didn't believe it could be seen because a FE'r said it could.  Here, I'll quote the relevant part:

Quote
It is ridiculous how people who believe in round Earth start denying something is possible simply because it was suggested by a FE'er when in fact it is possible even within their theory...

Of course you can see the tower from that distance, and in that picture you can see the curvature of the earth as well, its a rather great piece of Round Earth proof.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

?

#### acenci

• 55
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2015, 12:46:34 PM »

cikljamas posted this picture. As far as I can tell he is suggesting that this is a picuture taken 46 miles away and that it somehow proves that the Earth can't be round. I think that's what he meant although it's hard to tell, he's not very articualte.

The height of the tower to the tip is 527m, the architectural height is 442m. The difference between the two is 85m which is about 1/6 of the total. I would estimate then that only the top 1/3 of the entire tower is visible in this picture. So the lowest part of the tower showing is about 350m high.

He didn't state the height the picture was taken at but it's quite clearly not at sea level, I am going to estimate it is 5m above sea level. That's about a 2 storey house.

The distance to the horizon is calculated using √((R+h)2-R2), where R is the radius of the Earth, 6400 km, and h is the height of your eyes above sea level.

The distance to the horizon from the lowest part of the building is √((6400+0.35)2-64002)=67km.

The distance to the horizon if your eyes are 5m above sea level is √((6400+0.005)2-64002)=8km.

Therefore, if the picture was taken 5m above sea level and just managed to see a point on the tower 350m above sea level then the distance from the point the picture was taken to the tower was 67km + 8km = 75km or 47 miles.

This picture, if it is a photograph of the Willis Tower taken 46 miles away from a height of 5m, is very strong evidence for the Earth being a sphere with a radius of 6400km or 4000 miles.

Heres  a little insight for you.  You cannot see Chicago from 47 miles away at sea level. FACT.  BUT, if you were to stand on top of one of the 250 ft dunes, 53 miles away, one can barely , BARELY make out the tip top of the antennas on top of the willis tower. You're putting your faith into a picture with little information. This photo has gotten around, it's all over, with many different stories behind it. I lived, worked in Chicago for 2 years, as well as Milwaukee and Menomonee Falls. I can tell you first hand, this photo is photoshoped. You CAN see the city utline from 10 miles away with ease if given a clear path of view at sea level. 47 miles, sorry sir...not at sea level, simple fact i have lived and experienced, as well as MILLIONS of others. You have been duped.

Awesome!

A fake round earther, who defends their argument with the wrong objections, that is by saying that "it is photoshopped". This way if anyone were to produce a similar picture or video, this would prove the flat earth theory true. Genius. I should do it, too, although this forum is just meant to keep us busy, so I won't do it.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Lake Michigan Sunset, Chicago Skyline, September 4, 2011.

#### Slemon

• Flat Earth Researcher
• 11690
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2015, 12:47:59 PM »
although this forum is just meant to keep us busy, so I won't do it.
Then why don't you leave?
You've said you're going to countless times. Please do. You add literally nothing to any discussion you're involved in.

?

#### acenci

• 55
##### Re: Willis Tower
« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2015, 01:10:05 PM »
I add nothing to the debunking of flat earth. In fact, I create quite a few problems to you civil servants.

Hery, SKEP, check this out:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Pentax 55x zoom PAIR lens viewing ship at various distances

Don't forget the civil servants' formula at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon
Quote
The Horizon curves by: sqrt(radius^2 + distance^2)-radius, equivalent to distance^2/R*2. At 100 km, it descends 784m.