What would change your mind?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 07, 2021, 11:34:39 PM

I know better than expect you to admit it.
Just like I know better than to expect you to actually address the multitude of issues with your nonsense, such as by answering the simple questions you refuse to because you know answering them will show you know your claims are BS.

Once more:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?

And again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:


Figured out how to lie your way out of them yet?

Out of, what?

Out of the questions in the post you chose to ignore yet again, as you have no answer and know that answering them will show you are wrong.
Here they are again:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?

What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 05, 2021, 02:51:30 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 05, 2021, 01:58:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2021, 12:51:39 AM

I've already told you, so either do it or don't.

'Honesty', I've got that much so far.  You posted two different diagrams, so I'll just pick a grade then.  Glad that's settled.
Now then, what do you want me to use to level the tubes?

A plumb bob with a hanging pencil or straight stick with an equal identical mass on each end that balances as a horizontal against the vertical under the, plumb bob.


Place this at the back of the first tube (nearest you), about 2 feet or so.
Take your picture via this set up and towards the crosshairs on both tubes, lining them all up.

This way you get to see the true crosshair to the true level of both tube crosshairs.
Here's the  diagram, for clarity.
The little man in the diagram is wearing a high viz vest, hard hat and boots. It makes him look a bit more professional but you are not under any obligation to follow suit, if you don't want to.
You can do this experiment in a G-string or anorak...etc, if you feel like it. 

A coupla questions. Are we still dealing with toilet rolls here, or have we moved up to discarded Christmas wrapping rolls?  Why is the little man in the diagram dressed in a bright yellow chicken little costume instead of a fluoro yellow g-string? Will it help have a birdseye view of the tubes? Oh, and can I use hair from any part of my body to make the cross hairs?

I haven't seen a photo from who has done this yet, but I'm eagerly looking forward to it! I might even do it myself on the busiest hill in town, but would have to order my chicken costume first.

Dress how you want to and do the experiment with christmas paper end rolls if you feel the need.
And you can use hair from your unfurled bun if you want to. 

What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:

Why would the blue line reach the eye?

Quote from: JackBlack on January 08, 2021, 12:28:24 AM

What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:

Why would the blue line reach the eye?

Because it's in the field of view.

So what's the magic that stops the blue line from reaching your eye?
Are you still hung up on that thing where no matter how far away an object is from the tube you are looking through, you only see the exact same area as the diameter of the tube? As in, if the tube is 2" in diameter, you're looking through it at a building 100 yards away, you will only see a spot on the building 2" in diameter?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2021, 12:40:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 08, 2021, 12:28:24 AM

What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:

Why would the blue line reach the eye?

Because it's in the field of view.

So what's the magic that stops the blue line from reaching your eye?
Are you still hung up on that thing where no matter how far away an object is from the tube you are looking through, you only see the exact same area as the diameter of the tube? As in, if the tube is 2" in diameter, you're looking through it at a building 100 yards away, you will only see a spot on the building 2" in diameter?

No, you will see a compressed building, by sight that fits into that 2 inch of diameter.

Quote from: Stash on January 08, 2021, 12:51:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2021, 12:40:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 08, 2021, 12:28:24 AM

What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:

Why would the blue line reach the eye?

Because it's in the field of view.

So what's the magic that stops the blue line from reaching your eye?
Are you still hung up on that thing where no matter how far away an object is from the tube you are looking through, you only see the exact same area as the diameter of the tube? As in, if the tube is 2" in diameter, you're looking through it at a building 100 yards away, you will only see a spot on the building 2" in diameter?

No, you will see a compressed building, by sight that fits into that 2 inch of diameter.

Ok, not sure what that means. But if I am seeing an amount of an object that is greater than 2" in real life, what would prevent me from seeing the blue line?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2021, 12:54:22 AM

Quote from: Stash on January 08, 2021, 12:51:32 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2021, 12:40:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 08, 2021, 12:28:24 AM

What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:

Why would the blue line reach the eye?

Because it's in the field of view.

So what's the magic that stops the blue line from reaching your eye?
Are you still hung up on that thing where no matter how far away an object is from the tube you are looking through, you only see the exact same area as the diameter of the tube? As in, if the tube is 2" in diameter, you're looking through it at a building 100 yards away, you will only see a spot on the building 2" in diameter?

No, you will see a compressed building, by sight that fits into that 2 inch of diameter.

Ok, not sure what that means. But if I am seeing an amount of an object that is greater than 2" in real life, what would prevent me from seeing the blue line?

Nothing would stop you seeing the blue line with a fish eye, human eye, wide view, lens.
You have a great field of view. But I'm not talking about that so why are you people using it?

OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!

Just 6 more pages to push through now.  I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 08, 2021, 12:28:24 AM

What magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:

Why would the blue line reach the eye?

Because it is light, travelling through the air, with no obstruction to stop it. Without the tube there, it gets there just fine, and the tube clearly doesn't obstruct the path.

If there was no tube, do you think the blue line would get there?

Do I need to rephrase it?
Why can the green line reach the eye, but not the blue one?


And don't forget the other one:
You start looking straight down towards a round Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?

No, you will see a compressed building, by sight that fits into that 2 inch of diameter.

Again, does the building magically compress to be only 2 inches tall?
If not, you need to have light come from above and/or below the tube just like that blue line.

Nothing would stop you seeing the blue line with a fish eye, human eye, wide view, lens.
You have a great field of view. But I'm not talking about that so why are you people using it?

Because it clearly establishes that the blue line is capable of reaching the eye.
Just like the orange line is also capable of reaching the eye when no tube is used.

So the issue is what does the tube do?
It is clear that it blocks the orange line, because that would otherwise intersect the tube.
i.e. in order for the orange line to reach your eye, with the tube there, it needs to go through the wall of the tube.

But that isn't the case for the blue line, so what stops the blue line?

OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!

Just 6 more pages to push through now.  I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.

It's like mining.  Endless repetition with very little reward. 

Occasional nuggets though - magic kitchen roll tubes that "compress" objects, the moon as holographic reflection, the invisibility of curved surfaces, etc ...

Hard work on everyones part, and far too often boringly repetitious, but moments of great entertainment as far as I am concerned.   

Haha yes almost there.

A new nugget of revelation.

"Compressed"

JackB
Can you add a far away tree.
And then add ever shrinking tree that fits the field of view.
While noting the bottom of the tree is NOT in line with the blue line.
So the tube limits the fov and the trees bottom is cut off to the viewer?

Quote from: JJA on January 07, 2021, 06:18:08 PM

Quote from: jack44556677 on January 07, 2021, 05:40:30 PM

@JackBlack

Quote

Again, what magic stops the blue line from reaching the eye:

IF I understand your question properly AND scepti's posit - the answer is more tubes in front of the first one!  I think that is why he felt they were so critical.

I don't think you understand it right, because more tubes won't help.

He only felt two (is it now three?) tubes was critical well after pictures were posted proving him wrong.  Then he added more conditions, like multiple tubes. 

But more tubes can't save him.  You can add as many tubes as you like, that blue line will always exist.  All you can do is change the angle of the blue line, you can't make that blue line go away.  You can always see downward (or upward, or sideways) out of a non-infinite tube.

We are talking about a gradient and level sighting through a tube.

You cheated and it's clear to see why.

If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.

I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.

If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.

I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.

Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.

For the upteenth time

What is the purpose of the experiment.
What physical property of seeing things through a tube do you hope to achieve or acomplish.

If you saw in one dimension, or near zero field of view
And looked straight level
All you would see is sky.
This is admited in jackBs circle diagram model of a globle and can be addmitted in your flat earth theory as well.
So yoyre not proving anything useful

Quote from: JJA on January 08, 2021, 04:12:18 AM

If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.

I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.

Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.

I did.  And you changed it.  And I did it again.  And you changed it again.

Show me where I cheated. Point out what in the photos shows I tilted the tube or did whatever it is you are accusing me of.

Don't just call me a liar.  That's just attacking me, not my experiment.

I've proven you wrong this entire thread.  If all you have are insults, maybe that should tell you something.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 08, 2021, 01:32:38 AM

OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!

Just 6 more pages to push through now.  I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.

It's like mining.  Endless repetition with very little reward. 

Occasional nuggets though - magic kitchen roll tubes that "compress" objects, the moon as holographic reflection, the invisibility of curved surfaces, etc ...

Hard work on everyones part, and far too often boringly repetitious, but moments of great entertainment as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, like a computer game, once you've been through the grind once it loses it's appeal.

I know what you mean about the nuggets though.  Occasionally he gets so trapped in a corner and people stop him doing his normal diversions (having to explain gravity in your own words is a favourite) he has to invent something completely new.  The kitchen roll compression one is pretty amusing.

Quote from: JJA on January 08, 2021, 04:12:18 AM

If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.

I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.

Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.

Why was this ok as a proposed experiment a ways back?

Quote from: Stash on November 23, 2020, 02:24:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 21, 2020, 01:10:25 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 20, 2020, 11:56:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2020, 09:21:23 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 18, 2020, 06:20:00 PM

Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?

Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.

You didn't answer the question. Why?

I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.

Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.



Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.

Is this an acceptable set up?

Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):



With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:



The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:

Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.

And now it's not and you need two tubes 5' apart and plumb line. What changed? Your main gripe at the time was there wasn't some sort of uncut video showing the level tube from the side swinging around to the back, viewing end, showing the level view. Why change the experiment?

For the upteenth time

What is the purpose of the experiment.
What physical property of seeing things through a tube do you hope to achieve or acomplish.

If you saw in one dimension, or near zero field of view
And looked straight level
All you would see is sky.
This is admited in jackBs circle diagram model of a globle and can be addmitted in your flat earth theory as well.
So yoyre not proving anything useful

So you admit you can't see a downward curve oir stood level plumb and level on a gradient with a level tube.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along.
Someone needs to tell JJA.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2021, 04:47:22 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 08, 2021, 04:12:18 AM

If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.

I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.

Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.

I did.  And you changed it.  And I did it again.  And you changed it again.

Show me where I cheated. Point out what in the photos shows I tilted the tube or did whatever it is you are accusing me of.

Don't just call me a liar.  That's just attacking me, not my experiment.

I've proven you wrong this entire thread.  If all you have are insults, maybe that should tell you something.

All you've done is proven yourself to be insincere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2021, 04:47:22 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 08, 2021, 04:12:18 AM

If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.

I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.

Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.

Why was this ok as a proposed experiment a ways back?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2020, 09:28:32 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 23, 2020, 02:24:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 21, 2020, 01:10:25 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 20, 2020, 11:56:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2020, 09:21:23 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 18, 2020, 06:20:00 PM

Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?

Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.

You didn't answer the question. Why?

I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.

Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.



Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.

Is this an acceptable set up?

Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):



With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:



The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:

Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.

And now it's not and you need two tubes 5' apart and plumb line. What changed? Your main gripe at the time was there wasn't some sort of uncut video showing the level tube from the side swinging around to the back, viewing end, showing the level view. Why change the experiment?

I'm still waiting for your set up you said you'd do.

Quote from: sobchak on January 08, 2021, 02:55:27 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 08, 2021, 01:32:38 AM

OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!

Just 6 more pages to push through now.  I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.

It's like mining.  Endless repetition with very little reward. 

Occasional nuggets though - magic kitchen roll tubes that "compress" objects, the moon as holographic reflection, the invisibility of curved surfaces, etc ...

Hard work on everyones part, and far too often boringly repetitious, but moments of great entertainment as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, like a computer game, once you've been through the grind once it loses it's appeal.

I know what you mean about the nuggets though.  Occasionally he gets so trapped in a corner and people stop him doing his normal diversions (having to explain gravity in your own words is a favourite) he has to invent something completely new.  The kitchen roll compression one is pretty amusing.

The desperate craziness when pressed is pretty good.  Its also kind of silly though, we end up with Magic Laser Vision Kitchen rolls to rescue his bizarre idea that you can not see an apparent edge of a round object.  (although... Maybe that is why I have such a hard time finding my beer)

My favorite though is still the moon.  Not only is there no moon, not only is it just a hologram, but it is in fact a ...

Magic Reflected Hologram.

Learn something everyday   

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 08, 2021, 06:05:14 AM

Quote from: sobchak on January 08, 2021, 02:55:27 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 08, 2021, 01:32:38 AM

OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!

Just 6 more pages to push through now.  I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.

It's like mining.  Endless repetition with very little reward. 

Occasional nuggets though - magic kitchen roll tubes that "compress" objects, the moon as holographic reflection, the invisibility of curved surfaces, etc ...

Hard work on everyones part, and far too often boringly repetitious, but moments of great entertainment as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, like a computer game, once you've been through the grind once it loses it's appeal.

I know what you mean about the nuggets though.  Occasionally he gets so trapped in a corner and people stop him doing his normal diversions (having to explain gravity in your own words is a favourite) he has to invent something completely new.  The kitchen roll compression one is pretty amusing.

The desperate craziness when pressed is pretty good.  Its also kind of silly though, we end up with Magic Laser Vision Kitchen rolls to rescue his bizarre idea that you can not see an apparent edge of a round object.  (although... Maybe that is why I have such a hard time finding my beer)

My favorite though is still the moon.  Not only is there no moon, not only is it just a hologram, but it is in fact a ...

Magic Reflected Hologram.

Learn something everyday   

I'm glad you are learning.

Quote from: Stash on January 08, 2021, 06:27:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2021, 04:47:22 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 08, 2021, 04:12:18 AM

If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.

I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.

Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.

Why was this ok as a proposed experiment a ways back?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2020, 09:28:32 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 23, 2020, 02:24:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 21, 2020, 01:10:25 AM

Quote from: Stash on November 20, 2020, 11:56:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 19, 2020, 09:21:23 PM

Quote from: Stash on November 18, 2020, 06:20:00 PM

Now here is the real question: If I did that same exact experiment, tube on level, at elevation, and showed an uninterrupted video of a leveled bubble affixed to said tube, panning on to the back of the tube, looking through it, and showed the same result as presented here, would you admit that you are wrong?

Go and do one with absolutely nothing missing. No con jobs and see for yourself.
I know what happens.

You didn't answer the question. Why?

I don't need to answer a question on you asking me to admit I'm wrong when I've actually done it to show I'm not wrong. You have not legitimately done it and this is why you are still arguing.
Go and do the legitimate experiment as I've mentioned and stop obscuring any part of it like you've been doing since the start.
It should be pretty obvious to you why I do not trust you.

Here's the rig I'm proposing. I'm still not sure exactly the method I will use to mount everything, but I'm working on it.



Then the trick will be to use camera B to show the level bubble and pan over to the live view on the back of camera A, uncut.

Is this an acceptable set up?

Location I'm still scouting, but I think it will be approximately 800+' above sea level, looking west out over the pacific, here, Golden Gate Heights Park (37.750625314952956, -122.46928117525167):



With a view (Non-zoomed, obviously) like this:



The challenge is that this time of year it often is quite foggy. So I have to find the right conditions. A typical day looks like this:

Let's see how you do.
You know the script so you just have to make sure you ensure there's no manipulation.
If you're an honest person you should find no need to.

And now it's not and you need two tubes 5' apart and plumb line. What changed? Your main gripe at the time was there wasn't some sort of uncut video showing the level tube from the side swinging around to the back, viewing end, showing the level view. Why change the experiment?

I'm still waiting for your set up you said you'd do.

Of course you simply dodge the question: What changed?

I haven't made the time to do it. It's not like a priority considering you won't do it and show us EXACTLY what you want. And after it's already been shown with the same set up I had proposed, you decided to change the set up by adding another tube and plumb bob.
It's only to be expected that after someone goes through the trouble of hiking out somewhere with now three supports for the 2 tubes and the bob, a camera with support and another camera to film the set-up end-to-end, that you are just going to come back and say, "Ok, 3 tubes, each 10' apart, a bob on the front and back, six crosshairs, simultaneous 3-cam uncut video showing top-down, side view and back to the viewing angle, and 4 witnesses with signed affidavits attesting to the authenticity of levelness."

You're being totally absurd and disingenuous.

I haven't made the time to do it. It's not like a priority considering you won't do it and show us EXACTLY what you want. And after it's already been shown with the same set up I had proposed, you decided to change the set up by adding another tube and plumb bob.
It's only to be expected that after someone goes through the trouble of hiking out somewhere with now three supports for the 2 tubes and the bob, a camera with support and another camera to film the set-up end-to-end, that you are just going to come back and say, "Ok, 3 tubes, each 10' apart, a bob on the front and back, six crosshairs, simultaneous 3-cam uncut video showing top-down, side view and back to the viewing angle, and 4 witnesses with signed affidavits attesting to the authenticity of levelness."

You're being totally absurd and disingenuous.

It's clear you are trying to figure a way out of it, because I've backed you into a corner.
You whine about me making the test more stringent but you should welcome it if you know you can prove a truth from your side  against mine.

You clearly cannot.
Maybe check back to who's being sincere.

OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!

Just 6 more pages to push through now.  I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.

Too true, Jimmy!

At page 100, Sceptimatic is automatically elevated to moderator status, and one of the current moderators (of his choice) must step down. (Much like Trump)

This is quite a crowning achievement for sceptimatic and the flat earth society. You couldn't push this much s#!t uphill, but sceptimatic has managed to push it for 100 pages, (and he doesn't even think earth is flat.  )

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 08, 2021, 01:32:38 AM

OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!

Just 6 more pages to push through now.  I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.

Too true, Jimmy!

At page 100, Sceptimatic is automatically elevated to moderator status, and one of the current moderators (of his choice) must step down. (Much like Trump)

This is quite a crowning achievement for sceptimatic and the flat earth society. You couldn't push this much s#!t uphill, but sceptimatic has managed to push it for 100 pages, (and he doesn't even think earth is flat.  )

When you see Bull and smell Bull and then literally look around you to see you're surrounded by Bull crap, then the conclusion has to be simple. Don't get trampled by it or bogged down in it.
Thankfully I walk around it but I still throw the odd field buoy to those like yourself who look like they're sinking in it, only to find you're wallowing.

Quote from: JJA on January 08, 2021, 05:07:04 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 08, 2021, 04:47:22 AM

Quote from: JJA on January 08, 2021, 04:12:18 AM

If it was so clear you could actually give reasons and evidence, but you refuse to do anything but repeatedly call me a liar.

I didn't cheat, I didn't lie, I didn't fake anything. Those pictures are real and exactly as presented.

Do a legitimate experiment like I showed.

I did.  And you changed it.  And I did it again.  And you changed it again.

Show me where I cheated. Point out what in the photos shows I tilted the tube or did whatever it is you are accusing me of.

Don't just call me a liar.  That's just attacking me, not my experiment.

I've proven you wrong this entire thread.  If all you have are insults, maybe that should tell you something.

All you've done is proven yourself to be insincere.

How? You never give any details.

You keep calling me a liar and insulting me, and every time you provide no reasons. No evidence. Nothing.

It's a perfect example of attacking the messenger because you can't argue with the photos shown.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on January 08, 2021, 01:32:38 AM

OMG, you guys are nearly at the magic 100!

Just 6 more pages to push through now.  I know it's hard and you're just endlessly repeating yourselves, but now is not the time to think about quitting.

Too true, Jimmy!

At page 100, Sceptimatic is automatically elevated to moderator status, and one of the current moderators (of his choice) must step down. (Much like Trump)

This is not scepti's first rodeo.  He's got a few 100 page threads under his belt already.  Though some got a lot shorter after he deleted all his own posts during a tantrum. 

I'm just helping you guys out now with a bit of padding.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 08, 2021, 04:57:45 AM

For the upteenth time

What is the purpose of the experiment.
What physical property of seeing things through a tube do you hope to achieve or acomplish.

If you saw in one dimension, or near zero field of view
And looked straight level
All you would see is sky.
This is admited in jackBs circle diagram model of a globle and can be addmitted in your flat earth theory as well.
So yoyre not proving anything useful

So you admit you can't see a downward curve oir stood level plumb and level on a gradient with a level tube.
This is exactly what I've been saying all along.
Someone needs to tell JJA.

Great everybody!

Scepoy just accepted a round earth curves away from you so that ships disapear bottom up because you cant see past the curve *.
Lets all go home now.
Congrats sceppy.
Great start off for the year.


(* Disclaimer - refracrtion)
Big year for you.

Quote from: Stash on January 08, 2021, 08:35:21 AM

I haven't made the time to do it. It's not like a priority considering you won't do it and show us EXACTLY what you want. And after it's already been shown with the same set up I had proposed, you decided to change the set up by adding another tube and plumb bob.
It's only to be expected that after someone goes through the trouble of hiking out somewhere with now three supports for the 2 tubes and the bob, a camera with support and another camera to film the set-up end-to-end, that you are just going to come back and say, "Ok, 3 tubes, each 10' apart, a bob on the front and back, six crosshairs, simultaneous 3-cam uncut video showing top-down, side view and back to the viewing angle, and 4 witnesses with signed affidavits attesting to the authenticity of levelness."

You're being totally absurd and disingenuous.

It's clear you are trying to figure a way out of it, because I've backed you into a corner.
You whine about me making the test more stringent but you should welcome it if you know you can prove a truth from your side  against mine.

You clearly cannot.
Maybe check back to who's being sincere.

It's painfully clear that you are still dodging the simple question. Why did you change the experiment?

Why did you change it from a tube, with crosshairs, leveled, showing it's leveled throughout the experiment, to now:

2 tubes, 5' apart with a plumb bob somewhere in front of that

I'm not whining about you changing it, just asking why you did. I mean it's the definition of moving the goal posts and gives me pause to bother going through all that just to have you move them again. That's clear to everyone. Why it's not to you is the mystifying part. And the only reason why someone moves the goal posts and refuses to explain why they moved the goal posts is because they are backed into a corner. That, as well, is clear to everyone.

So why the change?

And have you done the 2 tubes 5' apart w/ crosshairs and a plumb bob with video showing level all the way through the experiment? If so, what were your results? Can we see the video? I'd like to know that you have validated it's right experiment/set-up before you change it again.