Strongest FE Evidence

I think it's time someone calls the undisputed winner of this debate, by a landslide.

Would anybody have any objections to me calling the winner?

- Planes use less fuel than they are alleged to use because they use technology that they allege to not use - With no evidence

Call it.

Quote from: sandokhan on December 04, 2019, 12:21:49 AM

Boeing and Airbus and Rolls-Royce and everyone else BUILD THEIR ENGINES using the SCHAUBERGER MODEL/TEMPLATE.

No one else could make it work.

But he could, for the first time, using DOUBLE TORSION ETHER WAVES. That is why jet airplanes use much less fuel than we are told.

That's pure comedy gold Sandy.

I know I've only been flying large commercial jets for 30 years now, but you'd think I'd have heard of that. I mean, when I order the fuel to go to say, off the top of my head , Toronto, then sign for it so the fuelling company get paid, then do the calculations to ensure that we've got enough and there hasn't been an embarrasing pounds/kilos mix up etc and that we've got the correct total aircraft weight so we can work out the take-off performance and calculate the correct engine thrust...you'd think somewhere along the line the whole "weights and measures" system would pick up on the fact that airliners burn less fuel than advertised.

And FFS jet engines simply use the same "suck-squeeze-bang-blow" as internal combustion engines, not di-lithium crystal fucking flux capacitors.

You really need to get out more. Maybe actually like go to Niagara-on-the-Lake and look at the top half of the Toronto skyline across the water. Or go to a beach where there are cliffs behind and and see how much farther you can see as you climb.

Old man rab does t know when hes getting playedd.

Quote from: Sunset on December 05, 2019, 09:20:40 PM

I think it's time someone calls the undisputed winner of this debate, by a landslide.

Would anybody have any objections to me calling the winner?

In summation, the strongest FE evidence thus far has been:

- 5 recorded instances in the past 90+ years, worthy of note journalistically, 5 in approximately 32,850 nights, whereby lights have been seen across Lake Michigan when they definitely should not have been seen from an RE perspective. Explained by understood, yet rare, atmospheric conditions…Hence the rarity, yet understood
- A perhaps meteoric explosion over Siberia 110+ years ago that burned brightly in the atmosphere over the course of several days, witnessed as far away as London. Explained as such through atmospheric means
- A Toronto Skyline, specifically the CN Tower and Rogers Center, seen from far across the lake from various points and elevations. When corralled as to the specifics of the aforementioned data, the skyline appears underwater conforming to RE theory of curvature

Runner ups:

- Near sun, 12-15 km above the earth, 600m in diameter
- Black Sun?
- Missing Sagnac Orbital data from GPS devices - Which no one seems to care about - They orbit earth, not the Sun
- Something about how the NASA/ESA LISA project, through satellites in orbit predicated on a globe earth somehow proves otherwise - Irony Alert= FE citing NASA
- Planes use less fuel than they are alleged to use because they use technology that they allege to not use - With no evidence

Call it.

Is Sando still failing to understand surface tension?

Is Sando still failing to understand surface tension?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on December 06, 2019, 06:43:44 AM

Is Sando still failing to understand surface tension?

WHERE IS THE REST OF THE TOWER?

You are trolling this thread.

Just a few minutes ago you tried to imply that the Niagara Escarpment is 120 meter above sea level.

Now this.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS.

Even with only standard refraction, there should only be 1m behind the horizon.

1 METER!!!!!

What?

The visual obstacle is 5 meters.

Now, even if we ascend to 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge) and you get 1 centimeter for the visual obstalce, it still won't help you.

The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.




MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

Distance Muskegon - Milwaukee: 84.7 miles = 135.5 km

Curvature = 360 meters

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.31 KILOMETERS, from an altitude of 3 meters, right on the beach






Tallest building in Milwaukee: 183 meters

Tallest building in Racine: 40 meters

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 — using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html


1310 METERS - 40 METERS = 1270 METERS (1.27 KM) TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR

Quote from: sandokhan on December 02, 2019, 12:51:34 PM

WHERE IS THE REST OF THE TOWER?

You are trolling this thread.

Just a few minutes ago you tried to imply that the Niagara Escarpment is 120 meter above sea level.

Now this.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS.

Even with only standard refraction, there should only be 1m behind the horizon.

1 METER!!!!!

What?

The visual obstacle is 5 meters.

Now, even if we ascend to 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge) and you get 1 centimeter for the visual obstalce, it still won't help you.

The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.




MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

Distance Muskegon - Milwaukee: 84.7 miles = 135.5 km

Curvature = 360 meters

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.31 KILOMETERS, from an altitude of 3 meters, right on the beach






Tallest building in Milwaukee: 183 meters

Tallest building in Racine: 40 meters

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 — using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html


1310 METERS - 40 METERS = 1270 METERS (1.27 KM) TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR

it's Getting Very Interesting!
can anyone disprove Sandonkhan on this topic?

Quote from: sandokhan on December 02, 2019, 12:51:34 PM

WHERE IS THE REST OF THE TOWER?

You are trolling this thread.

Just a few minutes ago you tried to imply that the Niagara Escarpment is 120 meter above sea level.

Now this.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS.

Even with only standard refraction, there should only be 1m behind the horizon.

1 METER!!!!!

What?

The visual obstacle is 5 meters.

Now, even if we ascend to 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge) and you get 1 centimeter for the visual obstalce, it still won't help you.

The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.




MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

Distance Muskegon - Milwaukee: 84.7 miles = 135.5 km

Curvature = 360 meters

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.31 KILOMETERS, from an altitude of 3 meters, right on the beach






Tallest building in Milwaukee: 183 meters

Tallest building in Racine: 40 meters

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 — using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html


1310 METERS - 40 METERS = 1270 METERS (1.27 KM) TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR

it's Getting Very Interesting!
can anyone disprove Sandonkhan on this topic?

it's Getting Very Interesting!
can anyone disprove Sandonkhan on this topic?

He found formula for zeta zeros, antimatter gravity, natiral logaritm formula..

Cut the crap, you miserable troll.

Sandokhan isn't dumb


He found formula for zeta zeros, antimatter gravity, natiral logaritm formula..

Cut the crap, you miserable troll.

Let us increase the distance to 145.6 kilometers.

MILWAUKEE WAS VISIBLE FROM MUSKEGON THURSDAY NIGHT
The phenomenon, called a fata morgana, which is caused by a temperature inversion that bends light's rays causing an image to flip or appear closer, made the city that is 70 miles away across Lake Michigan seem much, much closer.

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 — using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

MILWAUKEE WAS VISIBLE FROM MUSKEGON THURSDAY NIGHT
A weather phenomenon resulted in the Milwaukee, Wisc. skyline being visible from West Michigan this week.

The phenomenon, called a fata morgana, which is caused by a temperature inversion that bends light's rays causing an image to flip or appear closer, made the city that is 70 miles away across Lake Michigan seem much, much closer.

Cameron Mosier was able to snap a photo of the skyline from Pere Marquette Beach in Muskegon Thursday night, and it is really something to behold

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html

(?)jamas and sandokhan are good geocentrists. (?)jamas quotes are good and snadokhan formulas too

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 09, 2020, 05:15:50 AM

(?)jamas and sandokhan are good geocentrists. (?)jamas quotes are good and snadokhan formulas too

Cikljamas' geocentric Universe is quite impossible. He has the stars orbiting at thousands light years/second!

Quote from: rabinoz on July 09, 2020, 05:40:01 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 09, 2020, 05:15:50 AM

(?)jamas and sandokhan are good geocentrists. (?)jamas quotes are good and snadokhan formulas too

Cikljamas' geocentric Universe is quite impossible. He has the stars orbiting at thousands light years/second!

This is based on assumption he belived stars are far away. And maybie speed of light is fake?

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 09, 2020, 08:05:35 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 09, 2020, 05:40:01 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 09, 2020, 05:15:50 AM

(?)jamas and sandokhan are good geocentrists. (?)jamas quotes are good and snadokhan formulas too

Cikljamas' geocentric Universe is quite impossible. He has the stars orbiting at thousands light years/second!

This is based on assumption he belived stars are far away. And maybie speed of light is fake?

More likely Cikljamas is totally incorrect. How far away is is nearest star?
But let Cikljamas argue his own case.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 09, 2020, 09:13:47 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 09, 2020, 08:05:35 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 09, 2020, 05:40:01 AM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 09, 2020, 05:15:50 AM

(?)jamas and sandokhan are good geocentrists. (?)jamas quotes are good and snadokhan formulas too

Cikljamas' geocentric Universe is quite impossible. He has the stars orbiting at thousands light years/second!

This is based on assumption he belived stars are far away. And maybie speed of light is fake?

More likely Cikljamas is totally incorrect. How far away is is nearest star?
But let Cikljamas argue his own case.

His quotes talking about geocentrism are strong. What about Miller experiments. And how Einsten tried to supress it. He posted it on thread. And MM experiment being wrong interpretation?

Let Cikljamas argue his own case.

This is based on assumption he belived stars are far away. And maybie speed of light is fake?

His quotes talking about geocentrism are strong. What about Miller experiments. And how Einsten tried to supress it. He posted it on thread. And MM experiment being wrong interpretation?