What makes the flat earth hypothesis even less sound is the simple fact that not one of the earth's 6 million scientists accept that the earth is anything other than spherical.Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.
What makes the flat earth hypothesis even less sound is the simple fact that not one of the earth's 6 million scientists accept that the earth is anything other than spherical.Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.
Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.
Accreditation doesn't necessarily make one a reputable scientist.
I would say that a good reputation makes for a reputable scientist. I would also say that a scientist (like just about anyone else) earns a good reputation by the work they do, not by the degrees or certificates they hold. You might say that I'm one of those crazy people who respects experience above education.Accreditation doesn't necessarily make one a reputable scientist.
How would you then define a "reputable" scientist markjo? If academic qualifications and subsequent accreditation doesn't make one reputable, then perhaps your definition is different to mine?
You might say that I'm one of those crazy people who respects experience above education.
Then please enlighten me. What do you think makes for a reputable scientist?You might say that I'm one of those crazy people who respects experience above education.
If that's truly the case, then you have no true idea of what a reputable scientist actually is.
This is a short list of educated scientists, mathematicians, psychologists and philosophers, whose "experience" led them to totally misconstrue their research results:I'm confused. Are you saying that none of those scientists have accredited academic qualifications? Perhaps you're confusing "accreditation" with "integrity".
• John Locke
• Linus Pauling
• Immanuel Velikovsky
• Hanns Hörbiger
• Franz Joseph Gall
• William Thomson, Baron Kelvin
• Wilhelm Reich
• Zecharia Sitchin
• Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
• Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier
• Johan Joachim Becher
• Giovanni Schiaparelli
Of course, there's nothing at all wrong with experience in the sciences, but it's critical that it's used in conjunction with accredited academic qualifications.
I'm confused. Are you saying that none of those scientists have accredited academic qualifications? Perhaps you're confusing "accreditation" with "integrity".
What makes the flat earth hypothesis even less sound is the simple fact that not one of the earth's 6 million scientists accept that the earth is anything other than spherical.I dont know how much more proof is reqiured to confirm, the apollo missions & moon landings are contrived falsehoods. total engineering & scientific fraud. Yet it is held as being truthful achievement.
The flat earthers have been asked on numerous occasions to name a few such scientists—if any— but thus far simply avoid the question.
That in itself should indicate how unsound is the flat earth notion. If there were even the slightest possibility of the earth being flat, then I'm more than sure a handful of those scientists would've spoken up. Imagine the esteem, the Nobel Prizes, and the big dollars if they could prove it.
I don't know how much more proof is required to confirm, the Apollo missions & moon landings are contrived falsehoods. total engineering & scientific fraud. Yet it is held as being truthful achievement.
It's been said that good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement.I'm confused. Are you saying that none of those scientists have accredited academic qualifications? Perhaps you're confusing "accreditation" with "integrity".
I guess on second thoughts my intent wasn't all that clear. :(
I was just making the point that relying solely on "experience"—which all those guys had in truckloads—doesn't guarantee any correct outcome. The fact that they all had/have accredited academic qualifications doesn't alter the fact that their experience let them down badly.
And you were (apparently) hanging your hat solely on experience were you not? You (apparently) said it trumped academia.No, that is not what I'm saying. Education is important, but it's nearly useless without practical experience. After all, what kind of reputation did Einstein have before SR was finally validated by Eddington's eclipse pictures?
One has to stand back to see the true picture . To see ones enslavement & the slave market one is being bought sold & traded in. Only when you see it for what it is , can you even remotely gauge what science to trust as factual & what is share maket shenanigans.I don't know how much more proof is required to confirm, the Apollo missions & moon landings are contrived falsehoods. total engineering & scientific fraud. Yet it is held as being truthful achievement.
As it stands Charles, there is not one single piece of empirical evidence that would support your repeated claims that the Apollo missions were faked.
If you disagree with this, can you briefly post links to your sources of "proof"—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively.
And to answer your premise... there'd need to be a LOT more evidence in order to even suggest that the missions were faked.
One has to stand back to see the true picture . To see ones enslavement & the slave market one is being bought sold & traded in. Only when you see it for what it is , can you even remotely gauge what science to trust as factual & what is share market shenanigans.
Geoff, how about the NASA video that has been posted plenty of times on here. I am not posting it again now. The video where the astronots are seen putting cardboard in the window to obtain their desired view of the earth. They are heard saying the camera is pushed against the window when it clearly is not. I don't know what you think about it, but you can clearly see NASA lying.One has to stand back to see the true picture . To see ones enslavement & the slave market one is being bought sold & traded in. Only when you see it for what it is , can you even remotely gauge what science to trust as factual & what is share market shenanigans.
I for one am certainly not being "bought and sold" by any slave masters—whatever that means?
And as I asked you earlier, if you disagree that the Apollo missions were authentic, can you briefly post links to your sources of contrary "proof"—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively.
I'm also unclear as to what you mean by the phrase "share-market shenanigans". Please clarify, and explain how the share market helps prove your flat earth notion. The connection escapes me.
Geoff, how about the NASA video that has been posted plenty of times on here. I am not posting it again now. The video where the astronots are seen putting cardboard in the window to obtain their desired view of the earth. They are heard saying the camera is pushed against the window when it clearly is not. I don't know what you think about it, but you can clearly see NASA lying.One has to stand back to see the true picture . To see ones enslavement & the slave market one is being bought sold & traded in. Only when you see it for what it is , can you even remotely gauge what science to trust as factual & what is share market shenanigans.
I for one am certainly not being "bought and sold" by any slave masters—whatever that means?
And as I asked you earlier, if you disagree that the Apollo missions were authentic, can you briefly post links to your sources of contrary "proof"—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively.
I'm also unclear as to what you mean by the phrase "share-market shenanigans". Please clarify, and explain how the share market helps prove your flat earth notion. The connection escapes me.
could you tell me who the queen of Australia is Geoff ? Could you tell me how maritime & roman law became the rule of law , as opposed to to our constitutional common law ? Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of congressman approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating under it . How many US citizens are told that on voting day.Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.
The reason I repeatedly bring this up is due simply to the fact (which I've also repeated numerous times here) that not one flat earther has yet named six accredited scientists that accept that the earth is purportedly flat out of a pool of 6 million.
Further, if even one flat earther was to do so, I'd have no further need or desire to mention this statistic or ask the question.
So on that basis markjo... can you please name six "flat earth scientists"? And stop me repeating myself ad nauseam?
Or, conversely, are you prepared to state unequivocally that no such scientists exist? (And please don't sit on the fence as is your usual modus operandi on these forums.)
could you tell me who the queen of Australia is Geoff ? Could you tell me how maritime & roman law became the rule of law , as opposed to to our constitutional common law ? Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of congressman approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating under it . How many US citizens are told that on voting day.Jroa's right, you do need a new shtick. That "6 million scientists" line is getting pretty stale.
The reason I repeatedly bring this up is due simply to the fact (which I've also repeated numerous times here) that not one flat earther has yet named six accredited scientists that accept that the earth is purportedly flat out of a pool of 6 million.
Further, if even one flat earther was to do so, I'd have no further need or desire to mention this statistic or ask the question.
So on that basis markjo... can you please name six "flat earth scientists"? And stop me repeating myself ad nauseam?
Or, conversely, are you prepared to state unequivocally that no such scientists exist? (And please don't sit on the fence as is your usual modus operandi on these forums.)
Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of congressman approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating under it . How many US citizens are told that on voting day.Umm... You may want to check your facts.
In recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.
The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.
really well you need to ask your self how your President got to signed off òn ÙN agenda21, when its in complete breach of your constitutional rights & treason.Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of congressman approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating under it . How many US citizens are told that on voting day.Umm... You may want to check your facts.Quote from: http://constitution.org/pub/nam6205a.htmIn recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.
The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.
really well you need to ask your self how your President got to signed off òn ÙN agenda21, when its in complete breach of your constitutional rights & treason.Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of congressman approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating under it . How many US citizens are told that on voting day.Umm... You may want to check your facts.Quote from: /pub/nam6205a.htmIn recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.
The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.
why would your president sign it In the first place ? You dont sign 'any document 'as it is legally binding in international law . Why is it being implemented if there is no consequence to signing . Your ether very nieve or a facilitating UN agenda21 stooge ?really well you need to ask your self how your President got to signed off òn ÙN agenda21, when its in complete breach of your constitutional rights & treason.Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of congressman approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating under it . How many US citizens are told that on voting day.Umm... You may want to check your facts.Quote from: /pub/nam6205a.htmIn recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.
The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.
You seem to not understand how the American political system works, which is ok because that majority of American's dont either.
The president can sign whatever he wants. But the only body that can ratify a treaty or agreement is the Congress. If the President were to sign something that was binding (which Agenda 21 is not btw) and Congress didn't ratify it, guess what? It never happens.
Its called checks and balances, and the only body that can enter the United States in a long term binding agreement is Congress.
The only reason that you see so much bullshit about Agenda 21 and Obama is because Republicans know that the majority of their voting base are mentally handicapped and wont realize that a non-binding photo op is meaningless to the American political landscape and that as long as Congress doesn't sign off on it, its meaningless, and therefore rail against Obama and give them more support in the midterms and presidential elections.
I'm sorry Chuck, the American system is working just fine, and the only people that think it isn't are those that dont understand how it works.
Could you tell me who the queen of Australia is Geoff ? Could you tell me how maritime & roman law became the rule of law , as opposed to to our constitutional common law ? Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of congressman approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating under it . How many US citizens are told that on voting day.
why would your president sign it In the first place ? You dont sign 'any document 'as it is legally binding in international law . Why is it being implemented if there is no consequence to signing . Your ether very nieve or a facilitating UN agenda21 stooge ?really well you need to ask your self how your President got to signed off òn ÙN agenda21, when its in complete breach of your constitutional rights & treason.Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of congressman approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating under it . How many US citizens are told that on voting day.Umm... You may want to check your facts.Quote from: /pub/nam6205a.htmIn recent years, an ever-increasing number of alarming rumors have been paraded before Americans concerning their nation's future. Fears of United Nations forces in Montana, a concentration camp in downtown Indianapolis, and black helicopters everywhere are but a few of the sensational stories that have been spread through talk radio, the Internet, and tabloid newspapers.
The most recent addition to this maelstrom of false alarms offers the theory that the U.S. Constitution has been suspended since 1933 through a declaration of national emergency by President Franklin Roosevelt.
You seem to not understand how the American political system works, which is ok because that majority of American's dont either.
The president can sign whatever he wants. But the only body that can ratify a treaty or agreement is the Congress. If the President were to sign something that was binding (which Agenda 21 is not btw) and Congress didn't ratify it, guess what? It never happens.
Its called checks and balances, and the only body that can enter the United States in a long term binding agreement is Congress.
The only reason that you see so much bullshit about Agenda 21 and Obama is because Republicans know that the majority of their voting base are mentally handicapped and wont realize that a non-binding photo op is meaningless to the American political landscape and that as long as Congress doesn't sign off on it, its meaningless, and therefore rail against Obama and give them more support in the midterms and presidential elections.
I'm sorry Chuck, the American system is working just fine, and the only people that think it isn't are those that dont understand how it works.
thats no surprise you have trouble understanding my ramblings, but then again I wouldn't expect a person like you to be man enough to answer.: (http://)Could you tell me who the queen of Australia is Geoff ? Could you tell me how maritime & roman law became the rule of law , as opposed to to our constitutional common law ? Maybe Americans should be asking the same qestion about their suspended constitution , which has been suspended since April 1933 by an act of congressman approving emergency powers & the US is still opperating under it . How many US citizens are told that on voting day.
Uh... you're rambling incoherently again Charles LOL.
These comments have absolutely nothing to do with any alleged "proofs" of yours that the earth is purportedly flat. Please try and stay on-topic for a change, rather than attempting to derail the thread.
And you still haven't addressed my earlier question: "If you disagree that the Apollo missions were authentic, can you briefly post links to your sources of contrary 'proof'—other than third-party YouTube videos composed by conspiracy theorists who have no credible scientific qualifications in order to do so authoritatively."
...that's no surprise you have trouble understanding my ramblings
I suppose she's just rambling on as well ....that's no surprise you have trouble understanding my ramblings
LOL... at least we have one small victory for logic. Charles admits that he's just "rambling".
My dictionary defines rambling as: incoherent, confused, disjointed, muddled, and long-winded. 10/10 Charles. Well done. ;D
I suppose she's just rambling on as well.
Australian Politician tells Truth&Exposes Agenda …: (http://)
Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply .Sodium fluoride is not naturally occuring in nature. Calcium fluoride is . Sodium fluoride is a by product of producing aluminium. Forever ton of aluminium smelt you produce a ton of highly toxic sodium fluride . The evilness of the whole corporate toxic dumping scheme thats been going on for years , with greed & share profits put before public health is Criminal & a total abuse of trust. Only an imbecile could possibley believe prolonged exposure to a highly toxic substance would be good for your health & teeth. You can refuse medical attention, you have to consent to having a medical procedure performed. But its ok to dump posionous toxin in peoples drinking water . lie to them that its not harmful to their heatlh & good for their teeth & thats ok?. What country did you come from ? >:(I suppose she's just rambling on as well.
Australian Politician tells Truth&Exposes Agenda …: (http://)
Ann Bressington is another whack-job Charles, possibly only exceeded in her lunacy by your good self. ;D
From The Australian March 2013:
"Ms Bressington was just one year into her eight-year term when she said she was fed up with being a pollie, but she's starting to look like she will not go quietly when her term is up next year. That's a shame. She is dedicating considerable time and energy to promoting fringe conspiracy theories, anti-scientific thinking and outright rubbish.
Recently she gave a rambling speech about the Club of Rome and Agenda 21, about shadowy figures creating crises such as global warming to condition us and control our lives. If that sounds garbled, then it's an accurate reflection of the entire speech. She has been posting about communism by stealth and dragging other bits of flotsam and jetsam out of the murky depths of the internet.
Sometimes, ignoring these things is the best option.
But not when we have a public figure, on the taxpayer teat, in a position of power, in a climate where every now and then the conspiracy theorists get to influence public policy.
In Queensland, the Newman Government has revoked compulsory fluoridation of water to appease people who believe it is poisoning us - or worse, part of a government conspiracy to medicate and control us. [The health minister] reassured The Advertiser there was no mind-control conspiracy in the water, just fluoride, one of "the most effective public health advances in decades".
I suspect there's something in Ms Bressington's water."
—Political Editor Tory Shepherd
Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply .Sodium fluoride is not naturally occuring in nature. Calcium fluoride is . Sodium fluoride is a by product of producing aluminium. Forever ton of aluminium smelt you produce a ton of highly toxic sodium fluride . The evilness of the whole corporate toxic dumping scheme thats been going on for years , with greed & share profits put before public health is Criminal & a total abuse of trust. Only an imbecile could possibley believe prolonged exposure to a highly toxic substance would be good for your health & teeth. You can refuse medical attention, you have to consent to having a medical procedure performed. But its ok to dump posionous toxin in peoples drinking water . lie to them that its not harmful to their heatlh & good for their teeth & thats ok?. What country did you come from ? >:(Do you understand how doses work? Water is poisonous in large enough doses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication). It's just fine in smaller amounts. Sodium fluoride can be part of toothpaste, is that a conspiracy too? It has medical benefits: but not when you overdose. The same as basically anything. The incredibly diluted amount of sodium fluoride is not enough to be dangerous.
Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply.
[...]
But its ok to dump poisonous toxin in peoples drinking water. lie to them that its not harmful to their health & good for their teeth & that's ok?
You're worse then the people who think vaccines cause autism because they don't know the difference between methyl and ethyl mercury.
if you want to brush your teeth with sodium fluoride toothpaste . Thats your consented choice . Sodium fluoride toothpast was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity. Corporate profitability changed the sale marketing ,not it toxicity.Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply .Sodium fluoride is not naturally occuring in nature. Calcium fluoride is . Sodium fluoride is a by product of producing aluminium. Forever ton of aluminium smelt you produce a ton of highly toxic sodium fluride . The evilness of the whole corporate toxic dumping scheme thats been going on for years , with greed & share profits put before public health is Criminal & a total abuse of trust. Only an imbecile could possibley believe prolonged exposure to a highly toxic substance would be good for your health & teeth. You can refuse medical attention, you have to consent to having a medical procedure performed. But its ok to dump posionous toxin in peoples drinking water . lie to them that its not harmful to their heatlh & good for their teeth & thats ok?. What country did you come from ? >:(Do you understand how doses work? Water is poisonous in large enough doses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication). It's just fine in smaller amounts. Sodium fluoride can be part of toothpaste, is that a conspiracy too? It has medical benefits: but not when you overdose. The same as basically anything. The incredibly diluted amount of sodium fluoride is not enough to be dangerous.
Don't make claims about things you know nothing about.
And what does S2 mean?if you want to brush your teeth with sodium fluoride toothpaste . Thats your consented choice . Sodium fluoride toothpast was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity. Corporate profitability changed the sale marketing ,not it toxicity.Well I think it a good idea to take a highly toxin substance out of the water supply .Sodium fluoride is not naturally occuring in nature. Calcium fluoride is . Sodium fluoride is a by product of producing aluminium. Forever ton of aluminium smelt you produce a ton of highly toxic sodium fluride . The evilness of the whole corporate toxic dumping scheme thats been going on for years , with greed & share profits put before public health is Criminal & a total abuse of trust. Only an imbecile could possibley believe prolonged exposure to a highly toxic substance would be good for your health & teeth. You can refuse medical attention, you have to consent to having a medical procedure performed. But its ok to dump posionous toxin in peoples drinking water . lie to them that its not harmful to their heatlh & good for their teeth & thats ok?. What country did you come from ? >:(Do you understand how doses work? Water is poisonous in large enough doses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication). It's just fine in smaller amounts. Sodium fluoride can be part of toothpaste, is that a conspiracy too? It has medical benefits: but not when you overdose. The same as basically anything. The incredibly diluted amount of sodium fluoride is not enough to be dangerous.
Don't make claims about things you know nothing about.
Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.
Perhaps in Australia, but in America:Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.
Totally erroneous. Schedule 2, Pharmacy Medicine, can be sold in supermarkets LOL.
Schedule 8 is the first controlled drug level.
Schedule II substances are those that have the following findings:
The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.
Totally erroneous. Schedule 2, Pharmacy Medicine, can be sold in supermarkets LOL.
Schedule 8 is the first controlled drug level.
Perhaps in Australia, but in America...
No one is going to abuse sodium fluoride.Perhaps in Australia, but in America:Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.
Totally erroneous. Schedule 2, Pharmacy Medicine, can be sold in supermarkets LOL.
Schedule 8 is the first controlled drug level.Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_II_controlled_substancesSchedule II substances are those that have the following findings:
The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
lying about constant daily exposure not being detramental to your heath .is abuse .dumping a toxic substance in people's dinking water , because to store it safely in drums & bury in the grounde would cost millions, which would have made aluminium not viable to smelter . Is abuse.No one is going to abuse sodium fluoride.Perhaps in Australia, but in America:Sodium fluoride toothpaste was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity.
Totally erroneous. Schedule 2, Pharmacy Medicine, can be sold in supermarkets LOL.
Schedule 8 is the first controlled drug level.Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_II_controlled_substancesSchedule II substances are those that have the following findings:
The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
Lying about constant daily exposure being detrimental to your heath. is abuse dumping a toxic substance in people's drinking water, because to store it safely in drums & bury in the ground would cost millions, which would have make aluminium not viable to smelter.
care to tell us all why you would be wanting to be drinking!!!!!!!! sodium fluoride ? http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride) .Lying about constant daily exposure being detrimental to your heath. is abuse dumping a toxic substance in people's drinking water, because to store it safely in drums & bury in the ground would cost millions, which would have make aluminium not viable to smelter.
This is possibly the most ill-informed—and stupid—comment I've read on this forum today! Charles has absolutely no idea of what he's talking about with aluminium smelting. Please ignore this disinformation.
Just as cyanide in small amounts is not toxic to humans, neither is sodium fluoride. Charles—as he usually does—is talking through his arse.
if you want to brush your teeth with sodium fluoride toothpaste . Thats your consented choice . Sodium fluoride toothpast was a restricted category S2 drug once because of its toxicity. Corporate profitability changed the sale marketing ,not it toxicity.(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
care to tell us all why you would be wanting to be drinking!!!!!!!! sodium fluoride ? http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride) .Because... it has benefits. (for example, in stopping tooth decay). Have you done any research at all?
Really , well I, m afraid you have been lied to .care to tell us all why you would be wanting to be drinking!!!!!!!! sodium fluoride ? http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride) .Because... it has benefits. (for example, in stopping tooth decay). Have you done any research at all?
Really , well I, m afraid you have been lied to .(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
Flat Earth Theory has been empirically demonstrated, whereas Round Earth Theory has not. Round Earth Theory has survived the years on Aristotile's Three Proofs, which were dismantled and shown fallacious by Rowbotham and others.
The main proof of a Round Earth is provided by NASA, which has shown to be fraudulent.
See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy)
if its being put in your drinking water who desides the levels .you cant spit it out after brushing & rinse your mouth can you.Really , well I, m afraid you have been lied to .(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
Of course, please bear mind mind the importance of quantity and dosage.
if its being put in your drinking water who desides the levels .you cant spit it out after brushing & rinse your mouth can you.Sure: but not only do children have, for example, a recommended amount, but if you decide to drink a whole tube of toothpaste in one sitting followed by a bathtub of water, you've pretty much got whatever's going to happen coming. You don't seem to understand just how little is actually present. Should we ban salt just because someone could decide to chug down a glass of it, given that large quantities of salt could be fatal?
You have a right not to have your drinking water medicated with a toxic chemical .http://www.baff.org.au (http://www.baff.org.au)Again, no evidence there, just unfounded assertions. Try again (http://fluorideinfo.org/fluoride_claims-vs-facts.html).
Flat Earth Theory has been empirically demonstrated, whereas Round Earth Theory has not. Round Earth Theory has survived the years on Aristotile's Three Proofs, which were dismantled and shown fallacious by Rowbotham and others.
The main proof of a Round Earth is provided by NASA, which has shown to be fraudulent.
See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy)
Tom, my boy, where have you been?
And could you please state some of the empirically demonstrated evidences if you please
Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible, and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat moored near them.
Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the notice board 7ft. below the horizon.
My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!"
—"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al), ENGLISH MECHANIC, 1904
have you been to specsavers yet Jane ? Alcoa who wouldn't trust them not to be getting rid of their waste using the public water supply.if its being put in your drinking water who desides the levels .you cant spit it out after brushing & rinse your mouth can you.Sure: but not only do children have, for example, a recommended amount, but if you decide to drink a whole tube of toothpaste in one sitting followed by a bathtub of water, you've pretty much got whatever's going to happen coming. You don't seem to understand just how little is actually present. Should we ban salt just because someone could decide to chug down a glass of it, given that large quantities of salt could be fatal?QuoteYou have a right not to have your drinking water medicated with a toxic chemical .http://www.baff.org.au (http://www.baff.org.au)Again, no evidence there, just unfounded assertions. Try again (http://fluorideinfo.org/fluoride_claims-vs-facts.html).
I have an alt on www.tfes.org (http://www.tfes.org). Can you name it?Flat Earth Theory has been empirically demonstrated, whereas Round Earth Theory has not. Round Earth Theory has survived the years on Aristotile's Three Proofs, which were dismantled and shown fallacious by Rowbotham and others.
The main proof of a Round Earth is provided by NASA, which has shown to be fraudulent.
See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy)
Tom, my boy, where have you been?
And could you please state some of the empirically demonstrated evidences if you please
I migrated to tfes.org with other FE'ers.
There is empirical evidence of a Flat Earth all around. Just look out your window. The experience of living on a plane is empirical evidence for a Flat Earth. Additional evidence comes from Samuel Birley Rowbotham, who conducted water convexity experiments on the Bedford Canal. Repeats of his experiments were repeated by others, notably they were published by The English Mechanic (https://books.google.com/books?id=fEE_AQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA138&ots=NQgIC07lCx&dq=When%20the%20sluice%20gate%20and%20the%20turf-boat%20(being%20of%20a%20dark%20colour)%20became%20somewhat%20indistinct%2C%20the%20notice%20board%20(which%20was%20white)%20was%20still%20plainly%20visible%2C%20and%20remained%20so%20to%20the%20end%20of%20six%20miles.%20But%20on%20looking%20through%20the%20telescope%20all&pg=PA137#v=onepage&q=When%20the%20sluice%20gate%20and%20the%20turf-boat%20(being%20of%20a%20dark%20colour)%20became%20somewhat%20indistinct,%20the%20notice%20board%20(which%20was%20white)%20was%20still%20plainly%20visible,%20and%20remained%20so%20to%20the%20end%20of%20six%20miles.%20But%20on%20looking%20through%20the%20telescope%20all&f=false), a scientific journal.Quote from: The English Mechanic, 1904Bedford Canal experiment
The experiments were also repeated by the Flat Earth society in the 70's, 80's, and Daniel Shenton performed one a few years ago.
Even other organizations totally unaffiliated with a Flat Earth has reported observations consistent with a Flat Earth. Read through the Sinking Ship page on the wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect) and there is a link at the bottom to a chapter in the book "Cellular Cosmogony" reporting the same effects.
I have an alt on www.tfes.org (http://www.tfes.org). Can you name it?
Also, can you name any of these other organisations that have done the experiment
Flat - as in follows the curvature of the earth.I have an alt on www.tfes.org (http://www.tfes.org). Can you name it?
Also, can you name any of these other organisations that have done the experiment
Sects of the Hollow Earth Society, the ones which believe that we live on the inside of a Hollow Earth, have conducted numerous water convexity experiments in their literature, seeing things that should not be visible, proving that the surface of the earth is not convex (although they just use it to conclude that RET is incorrect).
The US NAVY and other militaries across the world conduct Flat Earth Experiments every day. Consider Over the Horizon Radar. Radar dishes pointed at the horizon can see for thousands of miles over the horizon which should be impossible in Round Earth Theory. The simplest explanation to explain these observations is that the earth is flat and that the photons travel in straight lines. But to keep RET alive an excuse was made up that the photons are actually being broadcasted off of the dish and bounce along the sky and the ground like ricocheting billiard balls to their location, hit a body in the distance, and then return along their bouncing path and an image can be miraculously resolved and recognized back at the radar facility without significant scattering. Photons creating an image from light rays bouncing off of the ground and sky, and then back again! Can you believe that?
(http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif)
Experiments hat Texas State University have shown that Kansas is Flatter than a Pancake (http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html). In fact, the experimenters needed to go to great lengths to measure it because the high precision tools were reading that Kansas was nearly mathematically flat. If the earth were a globe and the continents were wrapped around its surface with "gravity", Kansas would similarly be curved.
Flat - as in follows the curvature of the earth.
Reference frames exist.QuoteFlat - as in follows the curvature of the earth.
Curved is not the definition of flat.
The main proof of a Round Earth is provided by NASA, which has shown to be fraudulent.Incorrect. The science of geodesy and geodetic surveying predate NASA by several hundred years.
The main proof of a Round Earth is provided by NASA, which has shown to be fraudulent.Incorrect. The science of geodesy and geodetic surveying predate NASA by several hundred years.
OTH radars don't use dish antennas. They use large arrays of antennas, but not dishes, because of the wavelengths involved. You may want to read up on this stuff before saying anything about it.I have an alt on www.tfes.org (http://www.tfes.org). Can you name it?
Also, can you name any of these other organisations that have done the experiment
Sects of the Hollow Earth Society, the ones which believe that we live on the inside of a Hollow Earth, have conducted numerous water convexity experiments in their literature, seeing things that should not be visible, proving that the surface of the earth is not convex (although they just use it to conclude that RET is incorrect).
The US NAVY and other militaries across the world conduct Flat Earth Experiments every day. Consider Over the Horizon Radar. Radar dishes pointed at the horizon can see for thousands of miles over the horizon which should be impossible in Round Earth Theory.
The simplest explanation to explain these observations is that the earth is flat and that the photons travel in straight lines.This explanation is not consistent with observations of electromagnetic radiation ("photons" if you want) at VHF and shorter wavelengths. Traditional radar uses much higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) because that allows it to have better resolution, but those short wavelengths restrict it to essentially line-of-sight distances consistent with the curvature of the earth. OTH radar uses shortwave (HF) and lower frequencies because these can follow the curvature of the Earth for great distances if conditions are right. The "Russian Woodpecker" OTH radar in the 1970s and '80s was a huge nuisance for shortwave users like ham radio operators, international broadcasters, and aircraft.
But to keep RET alive an excuse was made up that the photons are actually being broadcasted off of the dish and bounce along the sky and the ground like ricocheting billiard balls to their location, hit a body in the distance, and then return along their bouncing path and an image can be miraculously resolved and recognized back at the radar facility without significant scattering."Transmitted" is a better term than "broadcast" (and "broadcasted" is much less commonly used than "broadcast", if at all anymore). And, as already mentioned, neither the transmitting no receiving antenna is a dish. OTH radars don't form an image of their targets, either. They pretty much tell something is there and roughly how far away it is.
Photons creating an image from light rays bouncing off of the ground and sky, and then back again! Can you believe that?No. Where did you get the idea that's what happens?
<Incorrectly interpreted image http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif (http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif)>Your reference is the Annals of Improbable Research, a spoof publication. The results reported (elevation profile of Kansas and surface rugosity of a flapjack) are probably factual, but "flat" in the context of Kansas' elevation profile is relative to datum; an ellipsoid. You simply misinterpret the terminology.
Experiments hat Texas State University have shown that Kansas is Flatter than a Pancake (http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html). In fact, the experimenters needed to go to great lengths to measure it because the high precision tools were reading that Kansas was nearly mathematically flat. If the earth were a globe and the continents were wrapped around its surface with "gravity", Kansas would similarly be curved.
Yes, like theseOTH radars don't use dish antennas. They use large arrays of antennas, but not dishes, because of the wavelengths involved.I have an alt on www.tfes.org (http://www.tfes.org). Can you name it?
Also, can you name any of these other organisations that have done the experiment
Sects of the Hollow Earth Society, the ones which believe that we live on the inside of a Hollow Earth, have conducted numerous water convexity experiments in their literature, seeing things that should not be visible, proving that the surface of the earth is not convex (although they just use it to conclude that RET is incorrect).
The US NAVY and other militaries across the world conduct Flat Earth Experiments every day. Consider Over the Horizon Radar. Radar dishes pointed at the horizon can see for thousands of miles over the horizon which should be impossible in Round Earth Theory.
You may want to read up on this stuff before saying anything about it.How dare you, that, sir, is not the flat earth way.
half hearted lol.Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.OTH radars don't use dish antennas. They use large arrays of antennas, but not dishes, because of the wavelengths involved. You may want to read up on this stuff before saying anything about it.I have an alt on www.tfes.org (http://www.tfes.org). Can you name it?
Also, can you name any of these other organisations that have done the experiment
Sects of the Hollow Earth Society, the ones which believe that we live on the inside of a Hollow Earth, have conducted numerous water convexity experiments in their literature, seeing things that should not be visible, proving that the surface of the earth is not convex (although they just use it to conclude that RET is incorrect).
The US NAVY and other militaries across the world conduct Flat Earth Experiments every day. Consider Over the Horizon Radar. Radar dishes pointed at the horizon can see for thousands of miles over the horizon which should be impossible in Round Earth Theory.QuoteThe simplest explanation to explain these observations is that the earth is flat and that the photons travel in straight lines.This explanation is not consistent with observations of electromagnetic radiation ("photons" if you want) at VHF and shorter wavelengths. Traditional radar uses much higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) because that allows it to have better resolution, but those short wavelengths restrict it to essentially line-of-sight distances consistent with the curvature of the earth. OTH radar uses shortwave (HF) and lower frequencies because these can follow the curvature of the Earth for great distances if conditions are right. The "Russian Woodpecker" OTH radar in the 1970s and '80s was a huge nuisance for shortwave users like ham radio operators, international broadcasters, and aircraft.QuoteBut to keep RET alive an excuse was made up that the photons are actually being broadcasted off of the dish and bounce along the sky and the ground like ricocheting billiard balls to their location, hit a body in the distance, and then return along their bouncing path and an image can be miraculously resolved and recognized back at the radar facility without significant scattering."Transmitted" is a better term than "broadcast" (and "broadcasted" is much less commonly used than "broadcast", if at all anymore). And, as already mentioned, neither the transmitting no receiving antenna is a dish. OTH radars don't form an image of their targets, either. They pretty much tell something is there and roughly how far away it is.QuotePhotons creating an image from light rays bouncing off of the ground and sky, and then back again! Can you believe that?No. Where did you get the idea that's what happens?Quote<Incorrectly interpreted image http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif (http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif)>Your reference is the Annals of Improbable Research, a spoof publication. The results reported (elevation profile of Kansas and surface rugosity of a flapjack) are probably factual, but "flat" in the context of Kansas' elevation profile is relative to datum; an ellipsoid. You simply misinterpret the terminology.
Experiments hat Texas State University have shown that Kansas is Flatter than a Pancake (http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html). In fact, the experimenters needed to go to great lengths to measure it because the high precision tools were reading that Kansas was nearly mathematically flat. If the earth were a globe and the continents were wrapped around its surface with "gravity", Kansas would similarly be curved.
Anyway, maybe you can explain this picture. It's described as showing the tops of the highest skyscrapers in Chicago, taken from 46 miles away. It was submitted by one of the more prolific and adamant flat-earth proponents these days, cikljamas because he postulated (incorrectly) that none of these buildings should be visible at all if the Earth were spherical.
(http://www.zaslike.com/files/d4a3ooweayrf7h2y3970.jpg)
The photo is entirely consistent with the scene and horizon expected for Lake Michigan photographed from a few meters above lake level if the Earth were a sphere with diameter about 8,000 miles. After that was resolved, the question was asked of flat-earth proponents: how do you explain seeing only the upper reaches of the tallest buildings from 46 miles if the Earth were flat. Why can't you see the entire skyline down to the waterfront?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1662098#msg1662098 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1662098#msg1662098)
and restated here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1662517#msg1662517 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1662517#msg1662517)
There have been only a couple half-hearted answers - one where the responder pretty much walks away from his explanation in the middle of giving it, and another semi-coherent reply that the buildings are "camouflaged" by the rippled water surface, or something.
Care to take a crack at it, Tom?
*same tired old BS*
Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.
I see a sharp horizon some 10 miles distant, which suggests the earth drops away from me at that distance. Empirical evidence it's not flat, although other shapes such as a torus are possible. Got anything else?
There is empirical evidence of a Flat Earth all around. Just look out your window.
Additional evidence comes from Samuel Birley Rowbotham, who conducted water convexity experiments on the Bedford Canal. Repeats of his experiments were repeated by others.Yes they were. By Wallace, whose results showed convexity. And by Lady Blount, who showed flatness but was a close friend of Dr Rowbotham, and whose account of the experiment has more holes than Swiss cheese and is more inconsistent than the Star Wars Extended Universe. All other published accounts show convexity.
The experiments were also repeated by the Flat Earth society in the 70's, 80's, and Daniel Shenton performed one a few years ago.Really? Can you provide the results? And why do you neglect to mention that Daniel did not achieve any results agreeing with Dr Rowbotham?
the reason you dont see the bottom of the buildings & its not curviture .Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.
If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them to be? Which direction?
the reason you dont see the bottom of the buildings & its not curviture .Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.
If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them to be? Which direction?
Test Your Brain Perception - Different shade of g…: (http://)
if you in large that photo you will see a series of vertical & horizon lines scatered all though it . Hardly a photo of anything but a digital representation of what limited capability it had processing light freqences. Nice try in duping the ignorant , but no cigar !!!!.the reason you dont see the bottom of the buildings & its not curviture .Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.
If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them to be? Which direction?
Test Your Brain Perception - Different shade of g…: (http://)
Cool story, but maybe you would like to answer the question posed rather than posting a non sequitur?
if you in large that photo you will see a series of vertical & horizon lines scatered all though it . Hardly a photo of anything but a digital representation of what limited capability it had processing light freqences. Nice try in duping the ignorant , but no cigar !!!!.the reason you dont see the bottom of the buildings & its not curviture .Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.
If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them to be? Which direction?
Test Your Brain Perception - Different shade of g…: (http://)
Cool story, but maybe you would like to answer the question posed rather than posting a non sequitur?
Congratulations on discovering compression artifacts in JPEG images and welcome to the age of digital photography and the World Wide Web. Those artifacts are a byproduct of the techniques used to reduce the size of image files; the size is vastly reduced for efficient storage and transfer at the cost of lost fidelity. Did you really think you could fit a half-million pixel color photo into a 50-kilobyte file without giving something up?if you in large that photo you will see a series of vertical & horizon lines scatered all though it . Hardly a photo of anything but a digital representation of what limited capability it had processing light freqences. Nice try in duping the ignorant , but no cigar !!!!.the reason you dont see the bottom of the buildings & its not curviture .Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.
If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them to be? Which direction?
Test Your Brain Perception - Different shade of g…: (http://)
Cool story, but maybe you would like to answer the question posed rather than posting a non sequitur?
Well thats the point , the artifact byproduct shows the buildings are all vertically parallel. That shouldn't be the case if there was a curviture.Congratulations on discovering compression artifacts in JPEG images and welcome to the age of digital photography and the World Wide Web. Those artifacts are a byproduct of the techniques used to reduce the size of image files; the size is vastly reduced for efficient storage and transfer at the cost of lost fidelity. Did you really think you could fit a half-million pixel color photo into a 50-kilobyte file without giving something up?if you in large that photo you will see a series of vertical & horizon lines scatered all though it . Hardly a photo of anything but a digital representation of what limited capability it had processing light freqences. Nice try in duping the ignorant , but no cigar !!!!.the reason you dont see the bottom of the buildings & its not curviture .Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.
If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them to be? Which direction?
Test Your Brain Perception - Different shade of g…: (http://)
Cool story, but maybe you would like to answer the question posed rather than posting a non sequitur?
Repeating the question asked earlier, since you've replied to the post it was in twice without acknowledging it: If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them [the buildings 46 miles away] to be? Which direction? You brought this up, so you must think the image in question has an issue with this. All the information you need to answer the question is in this paragraph. What is the issue?
Well thats the point , the artifact byproduct shows the buildings are all vertically parallel. That shouldn't be the case if there was a curviture.
If there was a curvature what would to distances and angles be? Please show your workings.Well thats the point , the artifact byproduct shows the buildings are all vertically parallel. That shouldn't be the case if there was a curviture.Congratulations on discovering compression artifacts in JPEG images and welcome to the age of digital photography and the World Wide Web. Those artifacts are a byproduct of the techniques used to reduce the size of image files; the size is vastly reduced for efficient storage and transfer at the cost of lost fidelity. Did you really think you could fit a half-million pixel color photo into a 50-kilobyte file without giving something up?if you in large that photo you will see a series of vertical & horizon lines scatered all though it . Hardly a photo of anything but a digital representation of what limited capability it had processing light freqences. Nice try in duping the ignorant , but no cigar !!!!.the reason you dont see the bottom of the buildings & its not curviture .Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.
If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them to be? Which direction?
Test Your Brain Perception - Different shade of g…: (http://)
Cool story, but maybe you would like to answer the question posed rather than posting a non sequitur?
Repeating the question asked earlier, since you've replied to the post it was in twice without acknowledging it: If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them [the buildings 46 miles away] to be? Which direction? You brought this up, so you must think the image in question has an issue with this. All the information you need to answer the question is in this paragraph. What is the issue?
How far off do you think they should be? In which direction? How do you determine this? Would it be noticeable in that photo?Well thats the point , the artifact byproduct shows the buildings are all vertically parallel. That shouldn't be the case if there was a curviture.Congratulations on discovering compression artifacts in JPEG images and welcome to the age of digital photography and the World Wide Web. Those artifacts are a byproduct of the techniques used to reduce the size of image files; the size is vastly reduced for efficient storage and transfer at the cost of lost fidelity. Did you really think you could fit a half-million pixel color photo into a 50-kilobyte file without giving something up?if you in large that photo you will see a series of vertical & horizon lines scatered all though it . Hardly a photo of anything but a digital representation of what limited capability it had processing light freqences. Nice try in duping the ignorant , but no cigar !!!!.the reason you dont see the bottom of the buildings & its not curviture .Why are the buildings in that photo maintaning a 90o vertical to the horizon . They should be demonstrating your curvature.
If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them to be? Which direction?
Test Your Brain Perception - Different shade of g…: (http://)
Cool story, but maybe you would like to answer the question posed rather than posting a non sequitur?
Repeating the question asked earlier, since you've replied to the post it was in twice without acknowledging it: If the Earth were an 8000-mi-diameter sphere, how far off vertical would you expect them [the buildings 46 miles away] to be? Which direction? You brought this up, so you must think the image in question has an issue with this. All the information you need to answer the question is in this paragraph. What is the issue?
The US NAVY and other militaries across the world conduct Flat Earth Experiments every day.Nope. This claim is demonstrably false Tom. (Unless of course you'd be prepared to cite some empirical evidence that supports it.)
Radar dishes pointed at the horizon can see for thousands of miles over the horizon which should be impossible in Round Earth Theory.A couple of further points Tom: OTH radar "dishes" are not "pointed at the horizon". You may well think that OTH radar is "impossible" in/on the round earth model, but you'd be wrong. What "should"—or should not be—is ultimately irrelevant. As Stan Freberg said in his parody of Dragnet's Joe Friday: "Just the facts, ma'am".