The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: cikljamas on May 04, 2015, 08:19:13 AM

Title: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 04, 2015, 08:19:13 AM
Well, it has been quite a while since i visited this forum last time, and now i have to admit it gives me a great pleasure to read private messages like this:

Quote
I was looking for some stationary Earth proofs on youtube and came across your "zig-zag" explanation that although looked weird at first sight, after a little bit thinking became so obvious that I felt really bad for not noticing it before by myself.
Next thing I was here on this forum and registered just to say - thank you ... for opening my eyes and giving me (and probably the whole world if they only want to see) proof for something that always felt wrong ...

With hope that my english was not too confusing,
best regards and greetings from Serbia

Goran

THANKS GORAN!!!

Now, let's get to the point:

 IN THE SUMMER IN ANTARCTICA THE SUN IS NOT VISIBLE 24 HOURS A DAY!!!

"Turists from Haparanda (http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/sweden/haparanda/2015/december (http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/sweden/haparanda/2015/december)) prefer going to Avasaxa, a hill 680 feet above the sea, from which though eight or ten miles south of the arctic circle, they can see the midnight sun for three days. As the voyage drew to a close, and we approached the upper end of the Gulf of Bothnia the twilight had disappeared, and between the setting and rising of the sun hardly one hour elapsed.

Haparanda is in 65 degrees 31 minutes North latitude and 41 miles south of the arctic circle. It is 1 degree 18 minutes farther north than Archangel, and in the same latitude as the most northern part of Iceland. The sun rises on the 21st of June at 12:01 AM, and sets at 11:37 PM.

From the 22nd to the 25th of June the traveler may enjoy the sight of the MIDNIGHT SUN from Avasaxa, a hill six hundred and eighty feet high, and about 45 miles distant." -M Paul B. du Chaillu, "The Land of the Midnight Sun"

MIDNIGHT SUN IN KIRUNA SWEDEN : (http://)

                 ***********************************************************************************

Cook penetrated as far South as 71 degrees, Weddell in 1893 reached as far as 74 degrees, and Sir James C. Ross in 1841 and 1842 reached the 78th parallel, but I am not aware that any of these navigators have left it on record that the sun was seen at midnight in the south." THOMAS WINSHIP

CONTINUED DAYLIGHT IN THE EXTREME SOUTH : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm)

This is how Antarctic "Midnight Sun" really looks like : (http://i.imgur.com/1sQLqgr.jpg) ... This illustration has been taken out from the book "The Worst Journey in The World"


(http://i.imgur.com/hIBZ2z3.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Nts3gQX.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Dr5Fkzs.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/hMa8zCp.jpg)

ANTARCTIC "MIDNIGHT SUN" (AS IT IS) IS A SOLID PROOF AGAINST THE ROUND EARTH HYPOTHESIS AND PRESENTS TO US ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN!

BY SAYING "THE COIN" I HAVE IN MIND MY "ZIGZAG" ARGUMENT!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: FakeWorlder on May 04, 2015, 08:25:29 AM
I don't understand, why would the photographer have to look into the Center of Antarctica to see the sun at midnight?

Would you please link your "zig zag" argument for those of us who are new?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: FakeWorlder on May 04, 2015, 08:31:13 AM
Never mind, I understand why he has to look across Antarctica. However, how do you know the photographer is looking the way you show? There seem to be mountains in the distance. How can you prove the photo is real? That it is in Antarctica? At midnight? I will have to go there myself and demonstrate the results of a photoshoot to prove or disprove this argument. And if you say you can trust the photo, then why can't you trust NASA photos?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 04, 2015, 09:30:50 AM
Why did you not post the source of the pictures? The photographer looks to be facing land, not water. Further more without the date the pictures were taken this thread is useless.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 04, 2015, 09:47:35 AM
Actually, a quick Google search yielded this (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun) which clearly says that the midnight Sun happens in the Antarctic circle too.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 04, 2015, 11:45:46 AM
Now, let's get to the point:

 IN THE SUMMER IN ANTARCTICA THE SUN IS NOT VISIBLE 24 HOURS A DAY!!!

<stuff about seeing the Midnight Sun from the Arctic?>
                 ***********************************************************************************

Cook penetrated as far South as 71 degrees, Weddell in 1893 reached as far as 74 degrees, and Sir James C. Ross in 1841 and 1842 reached the 78th parallel, but I am not aware that any of these navigators have left it on record that the sun was seen at midnight in the south." THOMAS WINSHIP
OK. So? Maybe they did leave it on record but he's not aware of it. Maybe they saw it but didn't bother to write it down since it's expected. Maybe it was the wrong time of year to see a Midnight Sun from where they were. Who knows?

Quote
CONTINUED DAYLIGHT IN THE EXTREME SOUTH : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm)
The source quoted in the text is inconsistent, but that doesn't stop Mr. Rowbotham from cherry-picking the quotes he likes and discarding others. He is not reliable, anyway, so who knows if the quotes are accurate?

Quote
This is how Antarctic "Midnight Sun" really looks like : http://i.imgur.com/1sQLqgr.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/1sQLqgr.jpg) ... This illustration has been taken out from the book "The Worst Journey in The World"

<several more pretty pictures with no details>

ANTARCTIC "MIDNIGHT SUN" (AS IT IS) IS A SOLID PROOF AGAINST THE ROUND EARTH HYPOTHESIS AND PRESENTS TO US ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN!
Nope. Sorry. There's nothing in those pictures that casts any doubt on the behavior of the Sun at high southern latitudes as seen from a spherical earth. All you present are pictures of the Sun on or near the horizon from places that could be in or near the Antarctic Circle, with almost no additional context whatsoever. See if you can find better documented pictures, giving time of day and time zone, location, and direction.

Only the photo from Casey Station can you get the location. Even then, we don't have a date and time for this photo, nor a clear indication which way the camera is pointed.

(http://i.imgur.com/hMa8zCp.jpg)

You have your location in the wrong place on this map. Why didn't you draw your arrows from Casey Station? The big sign in the last picture clearly says "Casey" and gives coordinates well north of where your arrows start. Where are those mountains in the distance? There's nothing but ocean for hundreds of km northwest of Casey, but mountains further south. Why do you think the camera is pointed northwest, anyway?

Why would the Sun be in the northwest at midnight if the Earth were flat? Shouldn't it be due north? Why do you think the Sun would be in the southeast at midnight if the Earth is spherical? It will be due south.

Quote
BY SAYING "THE COIN" I HAVE IN MIND MY "ZIGZAG" ARGUMENT!
Why am I not surprised? There is no zig-zag in the daily motion of the Sun across the sky and none is expected. We've already discussed this at length.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 04, 2015, 11:57:55 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/hMa8zCp.jpg)
If the photographer is looking across the bay in the direction of the black arrow, then there would be water in the foreground with mountains in the background.  Just like the picture shows. 

You have failed yet again.

Quote
MY "ZIGZAG" ARGUMENT!
Which has also been explained away and is a dead issue.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 04, 2015, 01:03:28 PM
A source page for some of the photos which have been displayed in the first post : http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3001117 (http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3001117)

If the date is correct then it is not exactly midnight sun phenomena that has been shown in the pictures above, but it is still good representation of how the antarctic midnight sun really looks like, because what we can see in those pictures is absolutely in accordance with this illustration from the book "The worst journey in the world". About the book : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Journey_in_the_World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Journey_in_the_World)

(http://i.imgur.com/1sQLqgr.jpg)

Right below illustration above, in the book "The worst journey in the world" we can read these words:

The scene was incomparable. The northern sky was gloriously rosy and reflected in the calm sea between the ice, which varied from burnished copper to salmon pink;  bergs and pack to the north had a pale greenish hue with deep purple shadows, the sky shaded to saffron and pale green. We gazed long at these beautiful effects."[54]
But this was not always so. There was one day with rain, there were days of snow and hail and cold wet slush, and fog. "The position to-night is very cheerless.  All hope that this easterly wind will open the pack seems to have vanished.  We are surrounded with compacted floes of immense area.

Openings  appear between these floes and we slide crab-like from one to another with long delays between. It is difficult to keep hope alive. There are streaks of water sky over open leads to the north, but everywhere to the south we have the uniform white sky. The day has been overcast and the wind force 3 to 5 from the E.N.E.—snow has fallen from time to time. There could scarcely be a more dreary prospect for the eye to rest upon."[55]

Now, some real and exact representations of the Antarctic Midnight Sun phenomena :

(http://i.imgur.com/TmnLrfs.jpg)  ---- http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3001117 (http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3001117)

Key words : the midnight sun rises over ice and wandering icebergs.

If the photographer stands on the Antarctica soil/land/ice and he observes midnight sun facing South which direction is across the Antarctica (continent) then we should ask : how come that wandering icebergs are between him and the sun?

Same question goes for the situation displayed in the next picture:

(http://i.imgur.com/dh6w90q.jpg)   ----  http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/featured-columnists/antarctica-tourism-camping-in-antarctica-ronald-amundsen-ernest-shackleton-james-weddell-6397.php (http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/featured-columnists/antarctica-tourism-camping-in-antarctica-ronald-amundsen-ernest-shackleton-james-weddell-6397.php)

Now, i would like to repeat these words again:

The northern sky was gloriously rosy and reflected in the calm sea between the ice, which varied from burnished copper to salmon pink;  bergs and pack to the north had a pale greenish hue with deep purple shadows, the sky shaded to saffron and pale green. We gazed long at these beautiful effects."

There are streaks of water sky over open leads to the north, but everywhere to the south we have the uniform white sky

I believe you got the point!

For those who are not yet acquainted with my ZIGZAG argument : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: FakeWorlder on May 04, 2015, 01:20:01 PM
In all photos, the sun rises from mountains. The reason the sun comes out from icebergs is because Antarctica is not completely solid.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 04, 2015, 02:41:50 PM
A source page for some of the photos which have been displayed in the first post : http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3001117 (http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3001117)

If the date is correct then it is not exactly midnight sun phenomena that has been shown in the pictures above, but it is still good representation of how the antarctic midnight sun really looks like, because what we can see in those pictures is absolutely in accordance with this illustration from the book "The worst journey in the world". About the book : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Journey_in_the_World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worst_Journey_in_the_World)
That's a link to the image below, not the ones in your previous post. I did some looking around the "Polar Regions" gallery at that website, but couldn't find them.

So those were not the midnight sun, but looks kinda sorta like one? OK. What is your point?

Quote
http://i.imgur.com/1sQLqgr.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/1sQLqgr.jpg)

Right below illustration above, in the book "The worst journey in the world" we can read these words:

The scene was incomparable. The northern sky was gloriously rosy and reflected in the calm sea between the ice, which varied from burnished copper to salmon pink;  bergs and pack to the north had a pale greenish hue with deep purple shadows, the sky shaded to saffron and pale green. We gazed long at these beautiful effects."[54]
But this was not always so. There was one day with rain, there were days of snow and hail and cold wet slush, and fog. "The position to-night is very cheerless.  All hope that this easterly wind will open the pack seems to have vanished.  We are surrounded with compacted floes of immense area.

Openings  appear between these floes and we slide crab-like from one to another with long delays between. It is difficult to keep hope alive. There are streaks of water sky over open leads to the north, but everywhere to the south we have the uniform white sky. The day has been overcast and the wind force 3 to 5 from the E.N.E.—snow has fallen from time to time. There could scarcely be a more dreary prospect for the eye to rest upon."[55]
Again, where are they when these scenes are described? What are the dates? Why, in that last paragraph, is the sky being overcast with no evidence of large leads ("uniform white") to the south significant?

What's the point here?

Quote
Now, some real and exact representations of the Antarctic Midnight Sun phenomena :

<Picture that looks little like the previous one.>  ---- http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3001117 (http://twanight.org/newTWAN/photos.asp?ID=3001117)

Key words : the midnight sun rises over ice and wandering icebergs.

If the photographer stands on the Antarctica soil/land/ice and he observes midnight sun facing South which direction is across the Antarctica (continent) then we should ask : how come that wandering icebergs are between him and the sun?
Full caption: "In late spring above the Antarctic Ocean near the coastline of Antarctica, the midnight sun rises over ice and wandering icebergs."

You seem to have missed the part where the photographer is not standing on the Antarctic soil/land/ice, so I put that in bold for you. He's above the Antarctic Ocean near the coastline of Antarctica (it says so right in the caption that's part of your image). That's why wandering icebergs are between him and the Sun.

Quote
Same question goes for the situation displayed in the next picture:

<image> (http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/featured-columnists/antarctica-tourism-camping-in-antarctica-ronald-amundsen-ernest-shackleton-james-weddell-6397.php)
Same problem as originally: no context. Where, when (date and time), what direction are we looking?

If this image is from an article, can you link to it? I couldn't locate it from the home page from that URL.

[Edit to add] OK, I found it (http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/featured-columnists/antarctica-tourism-camping-in-antarctica-ronald-amundsen-ernest-shackleton-james-weddell-6397.php). It's taken from Peterman(n) Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petermann_Island), just off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. No indication of the date or time the picture was taken, but if it's truly near midnight, it must be close to the solstice since Peterman(n) Island is more than a degree north of the Antarctic Circle (which also means it's not a true "midnight sun", but pretty close, with the Sun skimming just below the southern horizon near the solstice).

Quote
Now, i would like to repeat these words again:

The northern sky was gloriously rosy and reflected in the calm sea between the ice, which varied from burnished copper to salmon pink;  bergs and pack to the north had a pale greenish hue with deep purple shadows, the sky shaded to saffron and pale green. We gazed long at these beautiful effects."

There are streaks of water sky over open leads to the north, but everywhere to the south we have the uniform white sky

I believe you got the point!
Why was repeating this needed? There's solid icepack (or grounded ice) to the south. No evidence for open leads they can sail through. Same as before. I still don't see your point.

Quote
For those who are not yet acquainted with my ZIGZAG argument :

<Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.> (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 04, 2015, 02:44:54 PM
cikjamas, do you realize if a person was taking a picture of a midnight sun in the direction you say, everywhere north of that position would also have a midnight sun?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 04, 2015, 03:09:40 PM
No, he doesn't realize this.  It's beyond his reasoning skills, I point toward's zig zag as evidence to his vastly underdeveloped reasoning center in his brain. 
Half of what most flat Earth supporters come up with break their other notions. 
I know this is just an angry rant of sorts.

If it is midnight in Antarctica, and you are facing north, across the ocean, to take a picture of the sun.  Then it must be a midnight sun higher in the sky above things to the North.  Odd, that doesn't happen.  Also in all the pictures I see he linked, there are mountains in the background.  How are they facing across the ocean to take these?  The distance that these mountains are makes them too large to be icebergs. 

Therefore, if they are in Antarctica, they must be facing South, since the mountains are present, and it breaks the Flat Earth notion.  Once again, he didn't think his "evidence" through thoroughly.  I await the conspiracy angle that these are not taken at midnight, or they are taken from elsewhere.  Since this is the only recourse available to him at this point.  So cik, lets see you reverse your claims.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 04, 2015, 03:45:52 PM
I await the conspiracy angle that these are not taken at midnight, or they are taken from elsewhere.  Since this is the only recourse available to him at this point.  So cik, lets see you reverse your claims.

He's already backing away from that, but now claiming it doesn't matter. Which begs the obvious question about what the significance of the whole exercise was.

If the date is correct then it is not exactly midnight sun phenomena that has been shown in the pictures above, but it is still good representation of how the antarctic midnight sun really looks like, because what we can see in those pictures is absolutely in accordance with this illustration from the book "The worst journey in the world".

Once again, he didn't think his "evidence" through thoroughly.

Yup.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 04, 2015, 07:28:52 PM
I think you need to be careful with North and South,  in historical accounts like that,   if they were using a compass,  from Casey Station the direction to the South Magnetic Pole is more like due East.  And if they were further south than that,  the direction to the South Magnetic Pole could easily be to the North.

Finally if you are actually at the geographic South Pole watching the midnight sun,  then EVERY direction is due North.   So yes,  strictly speaking the midnight sun in Antarctica is in the North. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 04, 2015, 07:47:55 PM
True, but his intention was to show that the Sun is always to the north of the "Antarctic Ice wall" and its small peninsulas where the bases are located.  It was a way for him to "prove" the midnight sun in Antarctica could work on a flat Earth.
I am seeing this quite a lot lately,  Instead of just claiming conspiracy, or faked, they are trying to incorporate what most people know as facts, as misinterpretations that still fit with the flat Earth notion.
The doing away with the conspiracy thread, how evolution disproves space flight, stratellites,  the dual Earth "theory", etc.  There are many things that the flat Earth notion cannot answer, so the newest trend seems to be just this.  Stop denying things people have seen and try to figure a way for it to fit with flat Earth.  Dual Earth came about, and he will argue with me about it, because of flight distances, southern circumpolar stars, midnight sun in the Antarctic, and length of day problems with the flat Earth notion.  Those were the main topics being discussed just before he started his first FAQ.  Others have now jumped on this bandwagon by trying to misrepresent observations in a way to try to shoehorn them into flat Earth.  These can't really work, and the discussions about them are getting rather tiresome and boring.  They end up being arguments about small details and the use of logic. 
Simply put, there are a lot of straws being grasped for, yet there are none there to reach. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 04, 2015, 08:01:48 PM
True, but his intention was to show that the Sun is always to the north of the "Antarctic Ice wall" and its small peninsulas where the bases are located.  It was a way for him to "prove" the midnight sun in Antarctica could work on a flat Earth.
I am seeing this quite a lot lately,  Instead of just claiming conspiracy, or faked, they are trying to incorporate what most people know as facts, as misinterpretations that still fit with the flat Earth notion.
The doing away with the conspiracy thread, how evolution disproves space flight, stratellites,  the dual Earth "theory", etc.  There are many things that the flat Earth notion cannot answer, so the newest trend seems to be just this.  Stop denying things people have seen and try to figure a way for it to fit with flat Earth.  Dual Earth came about, and he will argue with me about it, because of flight distances, southern circumpolar stars, midnight sun in the Antarctic, and length of day problems with the flat Earth notion.  Those were the main topics being discussed just before he started his first FAQ.  Others have now jumped on this bandwagon by trying to misrepresent observations in a way to try to shoehorn them into flat Earth.  These can't really work, and the discussions about them are getting rather tiresome and boring.  They end up being arguments about small details and the use of logic. 
Simply put, there are a lot of straws being grasped for, yet there are none there to reach.

But, If you are a paranoid delusional, that thinks the earth is flat,  then evidence means nothing, since anything that proves the earth is round can be faked.   
Of course that's only chipping away at the edges, the central issue is psychological.   Trouble with trust and reality.

 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 04, 2015, 08:37:50 PM
True, I cannot argue against that.

I guess the number of questions regarding the flat Earth notion may need to be answered for the delusion to continue for some.  Who knows, they may be right, but there may be unicorns in my backyard right now.  I'm not there to check, they must leave before I get home.  I could claim that I am the only person alive that has the ability to see them but they hide from me and don't show up in photographs.  How could you disprove thinking along those lines anyway?

I think I may start a thread about unicorns, it should fit in with the fairies are real discussions.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 04, 2015, 09:30:18 PM
True, I cannot argue against that.

I guess the number of questions regarding the flat Earth notion may need to be answered for the delusion to continue for some.  Who knows, they may be right, but there may be unicorns in my backyard right now.  I'm not there to check, they must leave before I get home.  I could claim that I am the only person alive that has the ability to see them but they hide from me and don't show up in photographs.  How could you disprove thinking along those lines anyway?

I think I may start a thread about unicorns, it should fit in with the fairies are real discussions.

Talking about fairies,  I sometimes think  JRowe is the cleverest troll of all time,  continually baiting  everyone with evermore absurd concepts.   But  I like him,  he is always challenging and original. 
Nothing like clearing out the mental cobwebs every now and then with a bit of lateral thinking. :)


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 05, 2015, 03:02:03 AM
Hey shills, i've destroyed your stupid RET theory many times so far, this is just another instance of the same kind. Why don't you show us any (i repeat : ANY) photographic evidence (which is not photoshoped) that Antarctica midnight sun appears due South?

Well, i mistakenly put the wrong (first) link in my previous post, sorry for that, we are going now to correct this error:

1. Sunset at Browning peninsula -- date 15 March 2013 --Exact sunrise time : 6h : 18min -- Exact sunset ime : 19h : 14min   --- http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-15-march-2013/4 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-15-march-2013/4)

(http://i.imgur.com/hIBZ2z3.jpg)

2. Sunset at Casey station -- date 31 May 2013 -- Estimated time for Sunset at that date : Around 4 PM (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=3&year=2014 (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=3&year=2014))

(http://i.imgur.com/Nts3gQX.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Dr5Fkzs.jpg)


http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-31-may-2013/4 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-31-may-2013/4)

3. This is the date we are looking for : 6 January 2012:

MIDNIGHT SUN - CASEY (WE ARE OBVIOUSLY WATCHING DUE NORTH) :

(http://i.imgur.com/r552qJR.jpg)   --- http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2012/this-week-at-casey-6-january-2012 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2012/this-week-at-casey-6-january-2012)

We are 66 degrees South latitude, and we don't see the sun at the horizon, it's just twilight, isn't it?

Now, see again this video: MIDNIGHT SUN IN KIRUNA SWEDEN : (http://)

The Sun is VERY, VERY, VERY (CLEARLY) ABOVE THE HORIZON!!!

On top of that :

Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

"Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and tumble over!" is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, what man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor himself says it "seems" to be. flat - and we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a globe.

"Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 05, 2015, 03:16:15 AM
I'm obviously missing something here,  31st of May, that's the last day of Autumn,  heading into Winter,  that's exactly where you would expect the sun to be.    From the South Pole the sun is pretty much ALWAYS in the north,  so what's your point?

I'll go a step further, and suggest that the sun would NEVER appear in the South,  certainly doesn't from where I live  Lattitude 36 South,  The sun is ALWAYS in the north.

The summer solstice in Antarctica   December 21st
(http://science-at-home.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/summer-solstice-antarctic.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 05, 2015, 03:27:49 AM
I'm obviously missing something here,  31st of May, that's the last day of Autumn,  heading into Winter,  that's exactly where you would expect the sun to be.    From the South Pole the sun is pretty much ALWAYS in the north,  so what's your point?

I'll go a step further, and suggest that the sun would NEVER appear in the South,  certainly doesn't from where I live  Lattitude 36 South,  The sun is ALWAYS in the north.

Once again, just for you:

(http://i.imgur.com/hMa8zCp.jpg)


You have to use your brain in order to understand an argument of any sort. This is nice example of that kind:


Quote
Offline FakeWorlder

    Posts: 28
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Offline)

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2015, 08:25:29 AM »

    Quote

I don't understand, why would the photographer have to look into the Center of Antarctica to see the sun at midnight?

Would you please link your "zig zag" argument for those of us who are new?
Scroll to Top | Report to moderator   Logged
Offline FakeWorlder

    Posts: 28
        View Profile
        Personal Message (Offline)

Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2015, 08:31:13 AM »

    Quote

Never mind, I understand why he has to look across Antarctica. However, how do you know the photographer is looking the way you show? There seem to be mountains in the distance. How can you prove the photo is real? That it is in Antarctica? At midnight? I will have to go there myself and demonstrate the results of a photoshoot to prove or disprove this argument. And if you say you can trust the photo, then why can't you trust NASA photos?

You see, FakeWorlder figured it out in just 6 minutes! How much do you think it is going to take for you to understand this argument?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 05, 2015, 03:35:04 AM
Casey station is too far north to see the midnight sun at any time of the year.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 05, 2015, 03:35:23 AM
Let me try again,  if you were standing  at the south pole,   which way is north?   At the summer solstice the sun goes around the horizon,  well with a slight tilt.  And that's exactly what we see.
Conclusively proves the earth is a globe.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 05, 2015, 03:43:31 AM
Let me try again,  if you were standing  at the south pole,   which way is north?   At the summer solstice the sun goes around the horizon,  well with a slight tilt.  And that's exactly what we see.
Conclusively proves the earth is a globe.

Casey station is not at "the south pole" (which btw doesn't exist in the first place)!
Conclusively proves you don't use your brain and it seems you don't intend to use it in near future....
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 05, 2015, 04:05:57 AM
Casey station is too far north to see the midnight sun at any time of the year.

You are correct,   but it doesn't miss by much.    Antarctic Circle is 66 Degrees 33 minutes 45.7 seconds South,  and  Casey is 66 Degrees 17 minutes South.   

So anywhere inside the Antarctic circle should see the midnight sun,  and the direction to the sun will depend on where you are and at what time.

Time lapse from South Pole, showing sun travelling horizontally.
(http://)

Here is a 360 degree view
(http://)

Since we like Casey Station,  here are their webcams,  http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/casey (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/casey)


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 05, 2015, 04:07:48 AM
If this picture is taken near midnight it disproves the flat earth map.   The sun is visible south of casey.  In FET it can only be visible north of Casey.

(http://i.imgur.com/Dr5Fkzs.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 05, 2015, 04:08:56 AM
Casey station is too far north to see the midnight sun at any time of the year.

You are correct,   but it doesn't miss by much.    Antarctic Circle is 66 Degrees 33 minutes 45.7 seconds South,  and  Casey is 66 Degrees 17 minutes South.   

So anywhere inside the Antarctic circle should see the midnight sun,  and the direction to the sun will depend on where you are and at what time.

Time lapse from South Pole, showing sun travelling horizontally.
(http://)



Here is a 360 degree view
(http://)

From near casey you can only see the midnight sun for a few days a year.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 05, 2015, 04:21:03 AM
Let me try again,  if you were standing  at the south pole,   which way is north?   At the summer solstice the sun goes around the horizon,  well with a slight tilt.  And that's exactly what we see.
Conclusively proves the earth is a globe.

Casey station is not at "the south pole" (which btw doesn't exist in the first place)!
Conclusively proves you don't use your brain and it seems you don't intend to use it in near future....

The south pole exists,  and you can prove it yourself.   Qantas have flights over Antarctica every New Years Eve,  flights leave from Melbourne.   
If you want to descend into insults, so be it,  because that's what you flat earthers do when you are losing. 

What was the answer to my earlier question,   Which way is North if you are standing at the South Pole?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 05, 2015, 04:37:41 AM
Let me try again,  if you were standing  at the south pole,   which way is north?   At the summer solstice the sun goes around the horizon,  well with a slight tilt.  And that's exactly what we see.
Conclusively proves the earth is a globe.

Casey station is not at "the south pole" (which btw doesn't exist in the first place)!
Conclusively proves you don't use your brain and it seems you don't intend to use it in near future....

The south pole exists,  and you can prove it yourself.   Qantas have flights over Antarctica every New Years Eve,  flights leave from Melbourne.   
If you want to descend into insults, so be it,  because that's what you flat earthers do when you are losing. 

What was the answer to my earlier question,   Which way is North if you are standing at the South Pole?
Tell me how you determine your standing at the pole with a compass that continusly wants to point to the N marker on it .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 05, 2015, 04:46:45 AM
The south pole exists,  and you can prove it yourself.   Qantas have flights over Antarctica every New Years Eve,  flights leave from Melbourne. flying   over small areas of Antarctica ,dosen't make Antarctica the south pole. Prove your logic ?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 05, 2015, 04:51:35 AM
casey summer solstice time lapse

(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-12981089.jpg)

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-image12981089 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-image12981089)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 05, 2015, 04:57:54 AM
Casey webcam with last two days recorded as video. Only  7 weeks  from today until only a few minutes of sun per day

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/casey (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/casey)

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 05, 2015, 05:06:30 AM
Timelapse video of 3 hours of sun each side of midnight sun from : Latitude 74° 51' S, 71° 34' W, Eastern Ellsworth Land

https://vimeo.com/114833121 (https://vimeo.com/114833121)

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/research_stations/skyblu/ (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/research_stations/skyblu/)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 05, 2015, 07:35:42 AM
The south pole exists,  and you can prove it yourself.   Qantas have flights over Antarctica every New Years Eve,  flights leave from Melbourne. flying   over small areas of Antarctica ,dosen't make Antarctica the south pole. Prove your logic ?

So,  you've been on one those flights have you?    Did you get a picture of the edge?

Here are some south pole videos for you.

(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)

https://www.google.com/maps/views/view/streetview/antarctica/dark-sector-laboratory-south-pole-antarctica/uZ7YCXJGSbyDxIbY-wPWow?gl=us&heading=271&pitch=90&fovy=75 (https://www.google.com/maps/views/view/streetview/antarctica/dark-sector-laboratory-south-pole-antarctica/uZ7YCXJGSbyDxIbY-wPWow?gl=us&heading=271&pitch=90&fovy=75)

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 05, 2015, 08:32:24 AM
Let me try again,  if you were standing  at the south pole,   which way is north?   At the summer solstice the sun goes around the horizon,  well with a slight tilt.  And that's exactly what we see.
Conclusively proves the earth is a globe.

Casey station is not at "the south pole" (which btw doesn't exist in the first place)!
Conclusively proves you don't use your brain and it seems you don't intend to use it in near future....

The south pole exists,  and you can prove it yourself.   Qantas have flights over Antarctica every New Years Eve,  flights leave from Melbourne.   
If you want to descend into insults, so be it,  because that's what you flat earthers do when you are losing. 

What was the answer to my earlier question,   Which way is North if you are standing at the South Pole?
Tell me how you determine your standing at the pole with a compass that continusly wants to point to the N marker on it .

It can't be done. This is why other methods are used. With a compass alone you can't determine where you are anywhere on earth since it only only gives general direction toward the magnetic poles. To use a compass to determine your location, you need additional information like an accurate map with recognizable landmarks and magnetic declination. Magnetic compasses are even less useful at very high latitudes; they do continue to align with the geomagnetic field lines, which causes them to point in the general direction of the magnetic pole, but that direction can vary wildly from true south or north (up to 180° off [this means they're pointing exactly the wrong way, charles]) over relatively short distances, depending on where you are, when near the geographic and magnetic poles.

Astronomical observation is the most direct way to do determine if you're at a geographic pole. Inertial navigation systems will also work, but they're expensive. About the easiest, most convenient (and inexpensive!), and quite precise way is to use a GPS system. In the case of the south pole, even easier is to walk over to the marker that's hammered into the snow.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 05, 2015, 09:00:43 AM
Hey shills, i've destroyed your stupid RET theory many times so far, this is just another instance of the same kind. Why don't you show us any (i repeat : ANY) photographic evidence (which is not photoshoped) that Antarctica midnight sun appears due South?

Well, i mistakenly put the wrong (first) link in my previous post, sorry for that, we are going now to correct this error:

1. Sunset at Browning peninsula -- date 15 March 2013 --Exact sunrise time : 6h : 18min -- Exact sunset ime : 19h : 14min   --- http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-15-march-2013/4 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-15-march-2013/4)

(http://i.imgur.com/hIBZ2z3.jpg)

2. Sunset at Casey station -- date 31 May 2013 -- Estimated time for Sunset at that date : Around 4 PM (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=3&year=2014 (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=3&year=2014))

(http://i.imgur.com/Nts3gQX.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Dr5Fkzs.jpg)


http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-31-may-2013/4 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-31-may-2013/4)

3. This is the date we are looking for : 6 January 2012:

MIDNIGHT SUN - CASEY (WE ARE OBVIOUSLY WATCHING DUE NORTH) :

(http://i.imgur.com/r552qJR.jpg)   --- http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2012/this-week-at-casey-6-january-2012 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2012/this-week-at-casey-6-january-2012)

We are 66 degrees South latitude, and we don't see the sun at the horizon, it's just twilight, isn't it?

Now, see again this video: MIDNIGHT SUN IN KIRUNA SWEDEN : (http://)

The Sun is VERY, VERY, VERY (CLEARLY) ABOVE THE HORIZON!!!

On top of that :

Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

"Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and tumble over!" is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, what man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor himself says it "seems" to be. flat - and we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a globe.

"Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.


ANOTHER CLASSIC CASEY SUNSET :

(http://i.imgur.com/5HhgCcr.jpg)

ONLY, IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND, CASEY SUNSETS SHOULD OCCUR IN THIS DIRECTION:

(http://i.imgur.com/MvT45qM.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 05, 2015, 09:08:43 AM
Quoting yourself endlessly with random pictures that have no context is bad manners.

I've already asked this question,  but I'll ask again in a different way.    How does the flat earth theory explain the sun traveling horizontally parallel to the horizon, never setting,  during the summer months in Antarctica.   

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 05, 2015, 09:39:34 AM
Kiruna is located in the north of Sweden, 145 kilometres (90 mi) north of the Arctic circle. The city centre is built on the Haukavaara hill at an altitude of 530 m, high above the Torne river to the north and the Kalix river to the south.


Now, see again this video: MIDNIGHT SUN IN KIRUNA SWEDEN : (http://)

The Sun is VERY, VERY, VERY (CLEARLY) ABOVE THE HORIZON!!!


You are comparing the sun's position in the sky at midnight from a place outside of the Antarctic circle by a few miles to the sun's position at midnight from a position that is roughly 100 miles north of the Arctic circle.  Here I give you a link to the time it shows the sun, not much above the horizon in the video you linked.
 (http://)


Hey shills, i've destroyed your stupid RET theory many times so far, this is just another instance of the same kind.
MIDNIGHT SUN - CASEY (WE ARE OBVIOUSLY WATCHING DUE NORTH) :

First, you have NEVER even properly been able to rebut an argument, much less destroyed the Round Earth Fact. 
Second, you are still saying that at midnight, nearly on the Antarctic circle, the sun is to the NORTH.

(http://i.imgur.com/hMa8zCp.jpg)
Your image.

Now, the images you posted were from late May 2013 and they were of the sunset, not the Midnight sun.  But you have never been one to understand validity of claims anyway.
So if it is midnight, in Antarctica, and you can see the sun or the twilight made by the sun being just behind the horizon (you can usually tell  where it is at this point.  How the hell can it be to the North of you if you are not standing directly at the South Pole?  Are you suggesting that everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere experiences midnight sun?  Because if the sun is to the North at midnight, from any spot along the coastline of Antarctica, that means it is even higher in the sky for things north of it (South America, Africa, Australia, South Pacific islands, etc.) at midnight their time.

Here is the Daylight map for midnight on May 31st 2013 for that area
(http://img.timeanddate.com/scripts/sunmap.php?iso=20130530T1720)


What you have done here, by bringing up the midnight sun in Antarctica is to destroy you own argument.  As  Aliveandkicking said, and I am paraphrasing a bit.  If the sun is able to be seen from Casey Station at midnight, it destroys FET completely. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 05, 2015, 09:46:11 AM
Quoting yourself endlessly with random pictures that have no context is bad manners.

I've already asked this question,  but I'll ask again in a different way.    How does the flat earth theory explain the sun traveling horizontally parallel to the horizon, never setting,  during the summer months in Antarctica.   

No no, look up the CONSPIRACY thread he started a couple of months ago in the debate section here.  Look at his Zig Zag argument.  I hate to laugh at stupid, but when I need to laugh, I go back and read his "analysis".  It is an utter failure of spacial reasoning, yet he still claims to have destroyed RET with it.  It was refuted in so many different ways.  He tries to bury those in mountains of copy pasta.  He thinks that way he can just claim victory without even having to defend his position.  Kind of like a kid being scared of the "monster" in his closet so he hides under the covers so he can't see it.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 05, 2015, 10:48:57 AM
I've already asked this question,  but I'll ask again in a different way.    How does the flat earth theory explain the sun traveling horizontally parallel to the horizon, never setting,  during the summer months in Antarctica.   

So if it is midnight, in Antarctica, and you can see the sun or the twilight made by the sun being just behind the horizon (you can usually tell  where it is at this point.  How the hell can it be to the North of you if you are not standing directly at the South Pole?  Are you suggesting that everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere experiences midnight sun?  Because if the sun is to the North at midnight, from any spot along the coastline of Antarctica, that means it is even higher in the sky for things north of it (South America, Africa, Australia, South Pacific islands, etc.) at midnight their time.

At 3min 49sec in this video you can see approximate representation of the principle of  work of day and night on the Earth: (http://)

In this video i have also presented one another reason for unsustainability of Round Earth hypothesis (with or without the supposed tilt of the earth)....
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 05, 2015, 11:02:11 AM
Hey shills, i've destroyed your stupid RET theory many times so far,
Only in your dreams.

Quote
this is just another instance of the same kind. Why don't you show us any (i repeat : ANY) photographic evidence (which is not photoshoped) that Antarctica midnight sun appears due South?
You've seen it many times. You choose to deny it exists. That's your problem, not ours.

Quote
Well, i mistakenly put the wrong (first) link in my previous post, sorry for that, we are going now to correct this error:
No worries. It happens. That's why I mentioned it.

Quote
1. Sunset at Browning peninsula -- date 15 March 2013 --Exact sunrise time : 6h : 18min -- Exact sunset ime : 19h : 14min   --- http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-15-march-2013/4 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-15-march-2013/4)

<picture of sunset from Casey> (http://i.imgur.com/hIBZ2z3.jpg)
That's less than a week from the equinox! The Sun will be rising and setting almost due east and west at that time of year. What, exactly, do you think you're proving with these pictures?

Quote
2. Sunset at Casey station -- date 31 May 2013 -- Estimated time for Sunset at that date : Around 4 PM (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=3&year=2014 (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=3&year=2014))
That link is a great resource. Thanks! Bookmarked.

Those numbers in parentheses in the sunrise and sunset blocks in the table give the azimuth (direction: north is zero, due east, 90°, south 180°, west, 270°). For Mar 15 (Beware the Ides of March!) sunrise is 98° (8° south of due east) and sunset is 263° (7° south of due west), as expected. The little arrows depict (roughly) the direction toward sunrise and sunset on a Mercator-type map. Note that they are pointing right (east) and left (west) on the 15th.

Quote
http://i.imgur.com/Nts3gQX.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Nts3gQX.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/Dr5Fkzs.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Dr5Fkzs.jpg)


http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-31-may-2013/4 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2013/this-week-at-casey-31-may-2013/4)

3. This is the date we are looking for : 6 January 2012:

MIDNIGHT SUN - CASEY (WE ARE OBVIOUSLY WATCHING DUE NORTH) :

(http://i.imgur.com/r552qJR.jpg)   --- http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2012/this-week-at-casey-6-january-2012 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2012/this-week-at-casey-6-january-2012)

We are 66 degrees South latitude, and we don't see the sun at the horizon, it's just twilight, isn't it?
How is it obvious we're looking due north? At any rate, yes, it's twilight. According to the January table (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=1&year=2014) on the website you refer us to, the Sun sets at 12:03 the morning of the 6th and again at 11:57 PM that evening, and rises again almost an hour and a half later in both cases, but twilight lasts all night. On some nice day, go outside and, a few moments after sunset, look at the sky in directions other than where the Sun set. Nice bright blue sky, no? Getting outside and looking at reality instead of your computer screen will be good for you, too.

Perhaps more interesting, in that same table, look at the entry for Jan 3. This is the first day after the solstice that the sun sets. It lists sunset at 182° azimuth and sunrise, 14 minutes, later at 178°. 180° (due south) is midway between those. How 'bout that! The little arrows are pointing straight down (due south for all intents and purposes), too. This isn't photographic evidence, but a website you apparently trust says the Sun is due south at solar midnight (exactly 12 hours from solar noon) from Casey Station, Antarctica.

Quote
Now, see again this video: MIDNIGHT SUN IN KIRUNA SWEDEN : (http://)

The Sun is VERY, VERY, VERY (CLEARLY) ABOVE THE HORIZON!!!
According to the website you cite, the Sun remains above the horizon for about three weeks at Casey, too. Do you have a point?

Even though Casey is outside the Antarctic Circle (by about 1/4°) it still sees days without a sunset. This is because the Sun is larger than a point source (radius ~1/4° and the definition of sunset is when the top edge of the Sun drops below the horizon, so the center is actually about 1/4° below it), and our old friend refraction makes objects near the horizon appear slightly higher than they actually are (by about 1/2°), keeping the Sun visible when it "shouldn't" be geometrically.

Everything you have posted is routinely predicted using the oblate-spheroid-earth-with-atmosphere model, and, thus, supports that model since the predicted events are confirmed with high accuracy. Everything.

Quote
On top of that :

Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.)
Look up information about "Rhumb Line Navigation" and get back to us. Using straight line approximations for curved lines makes navigation problems manageable with relatively straightforward math.

Quote
Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one.
Again, you confuse uninformed opinion with fact. Curved lines are often represented by straight lines. The accuracy of the representation depends on the amount of curvature and the number of straight-line segments used in the approximation. If the curve is slight, a single straight line may suffice, depending on the precision needed.

Quote
And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Opinions are not proof of anything.

Quote
"Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and tumble over!" is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, what man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor himself says it "seems" to be. flat - and we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Armwaving. Who is "Mr. Proctor"? What does this person's opinion about something that has never been observed have to do with anything?

Quote
"Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe. [/i]
How so? Perhaps they didn't take a great-circle route. Do you think it's impossible to take a 1-mi (1.6 km) detour and end up a block away from your starting point?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 05, 2015, 11:08:02 AM
I've already asked this question,  but I'll ask again in a different way.    How does the flat earth theory explain the sun traveling horizontally parallel to the horizon, never setting,  during the summer months in Antarctica.   

So if it is midnight, in Antarctica, and you can see the sun or the twilight made by the sun being just behind the horizon (you can usually tell  where it is at this point.  How the hell can it be to the North of you if you are not standing directly at the South Pole?  Are you suggesting that everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere experiences midnight sun?  Because if the sun is to the North at midnight, from any spot along the coastline of Antarctica, that means it is even higher in the sky for things north of it (South America, Africa, Australia, South Pacific islands, etc.) at midnight their time.

At 3min 49sec in this video you can see approximate representation of the principle of  work of day and night on the Earth: (http://)

In this video i have also presented one another reason for unsustainability of Round Earth hypothesis (with or without the supposed tilt of the earth)....

Is that your video?  You have placed sydney where perth is.   

If it is mid summer in the southern hemisphere I do not see a problem for sun in sydney at noon in salt lake city

What point are you making with australia and senegal?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 05, 2015, 11:56:04 AM
I've already asked this question,  but I'll ask again in a different way.    How does the flat earth theory explain the sun traveling horizontally parallel to the horizon, never setting,  during the summer months in Antarctica.   

So if it is midnight, in Antarctica, and you can see the sun or the twilight made by the sun being just behind the horizon (you can usually tell  where it is at this point.  How the hell can it be to the North of you if you are not standing directly at the South Pole?  Are you suggesting that everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere experiences midnight sun?  Because if the sun is to the North at midnight, from any spot along the coastline of Antarctica, that means it is even higher in the sky for things north of it (South America, Africa, Australia, South Pacific islands, etc.) at midnight their time.

At 3min 49sec in this video you can see approximate representation of the principle of  work of day and night on the Earth: (http://)

Thanks for using my globe image without attribution. The music is nice, but did you get permission from MGM to use their soundtrack and cartoon footage?

Care to explain what would cause the patterns of light and dark on the disk as shown around 3:49? What would cause a moving "pool of dark" surrounded by light on a flat earth during the northern winter?

Quote
In this video i have also presented one another reason for unsustainability of Round Earth hypothesis (with or without the supposed tilt of the earth)....

As usual, your light source is way too close to the globe to illuminate half of it, so you jump to the wrong conclusion. The other illustrations are misinterpreted, too, as usual. For instance, the terminator illustrated in the polar projection around 1:15 is appropriate for an equinox, not the solstice you are arguing about. You apparently don't realize it, but that makes a significant difference in sunrise and sunset times around the world. Oops...

How long did you spend making this? Maybe you should find a more productive hobby, or learn more about the subject before wasting more time creating videos showcasing ignorance.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 05, 2015, 12:11:44 PM
I've already asked this question,  but I'll ask again in a different way.    How does the flat earth theory explain the sun traveling horizontally parallel to the horizon, never setting,  during the summer months in Antarctica.   

So if it is midnight, in Antarctica, and you can see the sun or the twilight made by the sun being just behind the horizon (you can usually tell  where it is at this point.  How the hell can it be to the North of you if you are not standing directly at the South Pole?  Are you suggesting that everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere experiences midnight sun?  Because if the sun is to the North at midnight, from any spot along the coastline of Antarctica, that means it is even higher in the sky for things north of it (South America, Africa, Australia, South Pacific islands, etc.) at midnight their time.

At 3min 49sec in this video you can see approximate representation of the principle of  work of day and night on the Earth: (http://)

In this video i have also presented one another reason for unsustainability of Round Earth hypothesis (with or without the supposed tilt of the earth)....

Is that your video?  You have placed sydney where perth is.   

No, while he has Sydney a bit far south, it's at least the right "end" of Australia. Australia is on the back side of that rather confusing wireframe globe, so it's reversed left-for-right in that view. Look how Tasmania is south of the left side (east when viewed from below) of the continent in the wireframe, the same as his location for Sydney.

Quote
If it is mid summer in the southern hemisphere I do not see a problem for sun in sydney at noon in salt lake city
There isn't one. There was a thread about this where he claimed this, but was shown he was wrong. Nonetheless, it's baaacccckkkkk....

Quote
What point are you making with australia and senegal?

For whatever reason he's convinced the Sun can't be setting in Dakar at the same time its rising in Sydney, ever. As usual, he's mistaken.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 05, 2015, 12:49:32 PM
I've already asked this question,  but I'll ask again in a different way.    How does the flat earth theory explain the sun traveling horizontally parallel to the horizon, never setting,  during the summer months in Antarctica.   

So if it is midnight, in Antarctica, and you can see the sun or the twilight made by the sun being just behind the horizon (you can usually tell  where it is at this point.  How the hell can it be to the North of you if you are not standing directly at the South Pole?  Are you suggesting that everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere experiences midnight sun?  Because if the sun is to the North at midnight, from any spot along the coastline of Antarctica, that means it is even higher in the sky for things north of it (South America, Africa, Australia, South Pacific islands, etc.) at midnight their time.

At 3min 49sec in this video you can see approximate representation of the principle of  work of day and night on the Earth: (http://)

In this video i have also presented one another reason for unsustainability of Round Earth hypothesis (with or without the supposed tilt of the earth)....

Is that your video?  You have placed sydney where perth is.   

No, while he has Sydney a bit far south, it's at least the right "end" of Australia. Australia is on the back side of that rather confusing wireframe globe, so it's reversed left-for-right in that view. Look how Tasmania is south of the left side (east when viewed from below) of the continent in the wireframe, the same as his location for Sydney.

Quote
If it is mid summer in the southern hemisphere I do not see a problem for sun in sydney at noon in salt lake city
There isn't one. There was a thread about this where he claimed this, but was shown he was wrong. Nonetheless, it's baaacccckkkkk....

Quote
What point are you making with australia and senegal?

For whatever reason he's convinced the Sun can't be setting in Dakar at the same time its rising in Sydney, ever. As usual, he's mistaken.

Ha!  Yes i had not noticed Australia was on the other side of that sea thru globe!

Dakar to Sydney is less than 180 degrees so it should be visible but i cannot see it on my globe.    I suppose with the two points being almost at a tangent to the line of sight it appears invisible.  Maybe in sunlight and using my binoculars i will be able to see them!   ;D

Edit;

Tried it at home again and found i need a more powerful magnification so i can be further away.  Definately marginal.   Again though the problem is the two places are sideways to my view and invisible to me. Probably not possible to see them unless both lit with a laser pencil............another try coming up

Edit2:  OK with one laser pensil I could confirm, for the same binocular view of the same globe position, each location was visible at mid summer :D
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 05, 2015, 01:48:13 PM
Alpha, you are bullshitting too much (as usual). Those arrows mean nothing, because they are purely artificial, that is to say: the spatial directions to which these arrows point to are determined so to conform to HC bullshit theory and to mislead honest thinker.


3. This is the date we are looking for : 6 January 2012:

MIDNIGHT SUN - CASEY (WE ARE OBVIOUSLY WATCHING DUE NORTH) :

(http://i.imgur.com/r552qJR.jpg)   --- http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2012/this-week-at-casey-6-january-2012 (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/2012/this-week-at-casey-6-january-2012)

We are 66 degrees South latitude, and we don't see the sun at the horizon, it's just twilight, isn't it?

Now, see again this video: MIDNIGHT SUN IN KIRUNA SWEDEN : (http://)

The Sun is VERY, VERY, VERY (CLEARLY) ABOVE THE HORIZON!!!

On top of that :

Mr. J. R. Young, in his work on Navigation, says. "Although the path of the ship is on a spherical surface, yet we may represent the length of the path by, a straight line on a plane surface." (And plane sailing is the rule.) Now, since it is altogether impossible to "represent" a curved line by a straight one, and absurd to make the attempt, it follows that a straight line represents a straight line and not a curved one. And, Since it is the surface of the waters of the ocean that is being considered by Mr. Young, it follows that this surface is a straight surface, and we are indebted to Mr. Young, a professor of navigation, for a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

"Oh, but if the Earth is a plane, we could go to the edge and tumble over!" is a very common assertion. This is a conclusion that is formed too hastily, and facts overthrow it. The Earth certainly is, what man by his observation finds it to be, and what Mr. Proctor himself says it "seems" to be. flat - and we cannot cross the icy barrier which surrounds it. This is a complete answer to the objection, and, of course, a proof that Earth is not a globe.

"Yes, but we can circumnavigate the South easily enough," is often said by those who don't know, The British Ship Challenger recently completed the circuit of the Southern region - indirectly, to be sure - but she was three years about it, and traversed nearly 69,000 miles - a stretch long enough to have taken her six times round on the globular hypothesis. This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.


ANOTHER CLASSIC CASEY SUNSET :

(http://i.imgur.com/5HhgCcr.jpg)

ONLY, IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND, CASEY SUNSETS SHOULD OCCUR IN THIS DIRECTION:

(http://i.imgur.com/MvT45qM.jpg)
[/quote]

When you find a photography in which midnight sun lit from behind Casey station (across Antarctica), let us know!

Until then, you can eat all those heliocentric arrows, so that you can become even smarter astronomer.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 05, 2015, 02:14:59 PM
The south pole exists,  and you can prove it yourself.   Qantas have flights over Antarctica every New Years Eve,  flights leave from Melbourne. flying   over small areas of Antarctica ,dosen't make Antarctica the south pole. Prove your logic ?

So,  you've been on one those flights have you?    Did you get a picture of the edge?

Here are some south pole videos for you.

(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)

https://www.google.com/maps/views/view/streetview/antarctica/dark-sector-laboratory-south-pole-antarctica/uZ7YCXJGSbyDxIbY-wPWow?gl=us&heading=271&pitch=90&fovy=75 (https://www.google.com/maps/views/view/streetview/antarctica/dark-sector-laboratory-south-pole-antarctica/uZ7YCXJGSbyDxIbY-wPWow?gl=us&heading=271&pitch=90&fovy=75)
Simply to chose referencing Antartica as being the south pole .Does not make Antartica the south pole . Now I will ask you again how you are determining Antartica is a pole , other then just calling it so.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 05, 2015, 02:17:53 PM
cikljamas, surely you are capable of answering simple questions. Do you have an answer for this?

...
Care to explain what would cause the patterns of light and dark on the disk as shown around 3:49? What would cause a moving "pool of dark" surrounded by light on a flat earth during the northern winter?

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 05, 2015, 02:28:34 PM

3. This is the date we are looking for : 6 January 2012:

MIDNIGHT SUN - CASEY (WE ARE OBVIOUSLY WATCHING DUE NORTH) :

(http://i.imgur.com/r552qJR.jpg)   

That picture does not look right

But the next week at casey finds

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/page?id=57545&st=Casey&dt=MjAxMi0wMS0xMw== (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/casey/this-week-at-casey/page?id=57545&st=Casey&dt=MjAxMi0wMS0xMw==)

there wasn’t much left to do but to climb in the bivvy and try to sleep. With the sun still high in the sky this was more of a challenge for some than for others

And pictures of fiona tim and jorg ready to sleep in the day

(http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0007/57562/varieties/antarctic-sml.jpg)

(http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0008/57563/varieties/antarctic-sml.jpg)

(http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0009/57564/varieties/antarctic-sml.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 05, 2015, 03:17:22 PM
cik, I asked before and you ignored me in your CONSPIRACY thread, but how does a spotlight sun do this

(http://i.imgur.com/ADTd486.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 06, 2015, 06:02:44 AM
This pictures has been taken at February 13:

ANTARCTICA at MIDNIGHT :

(http://i.imgur.com/8VykF2f.jpg)

ANTARCTICA - 2 AM :

(http://i.imgur.com/M1eui2K.jpg)
https://neverstoptravelling.wordpress.com/category/antarctica/ (https://neverstoptravelling.wordpress.com/category/antarctica/)

After seeing pictures above, it is going to be much easier to get your heads around/about what really happens down there (after midnight)...

Now, read this post again : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1684703#msg1684703 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1684703#msg1684703)

Pay special attention to this chapter : CONTINUED DAYLIGHT IN THE EXTREME SOUTH : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm)

Regarding this question (What would cause a moving "pool of dark" surrounded by light on a flat earth during the northern winter?), i suggest you to read/watch these:

1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677587#msg1677587 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677587#msg1677587)
2. square earth firmament - glass in the sky : (http://)

When the sun circles above the tropic of capricorn sun's rays hit the firmament under greater angle and that is why the sunlight is scattered more than when the sun circles above the tropic of cancer, and that also very probably causes 3 % greater angular size of the sun during southern summer.

I am just offering you some hints, don't expect of me to give you full explanation for the exact principle of work of day and night on the Earth.

I said this several times, but i can repeat it again: There is ABSOLUTELY no chance for successful defense of HC "explanation" of principle of work of day and night on the round/tilted Earth. I emphasize the word : ABSOLUTELY!!!

On the other hand, although we can't fully satisfy your curiosity, FET concept is the only one acceptable concept because this is the only way how we can PRINCIPALLY/GENERALLY (NOT IN DETAILS-at least not at this moment) explain day and night on the earth.

And finally, don't ask too much, rather try to find ANY evidence (pictures/videos) which could corroborate that Antarctic Midnight Sun lit across Antarctica. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 06, 2015, 06:11:25 AM
Ah...  It's  just dawned on me,   you don't know what the Antarctic Circle is, do you?

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 06, 2015, 06:13:26 AM
Thanks for giving the link so we can see how dishonest you are. The first picture is not what you claim it is. I personally think he should be banned for the blatant dishonesty.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 06, 2015, 06:24:36 AM
Thanks for giving the link so we can see how dishonest you are. The first picture is not what you claim it is. I personally think he should be banned for the blatant dishonesty.

O.K., i have mixed it up (dawn and midnight), now you can see everything in genuine order:

(http://i.imgur.com/XnbMMn9.jpg)

Are you satisfied now?

Why would i offer you a link, if i had bad intentions (to deceive you)???

Don't be so sad and pathetic!!!

P.S. If you don't know how to handle with your inferiority just ban yourself...  ;)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 06, 2015, 06:57:33 AM
Are you satisfied now?


1. Your latest pictures are taken 100miles north of the Antarctic circle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neko_Harbour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neko_Harbour)

2. By definition the Antarctic circle defines one day only of 24 hour sunshine on 21st of  December where no part of the sun is below the horizon.

3.  Other than at midsummer you have to be further south to see all of the sun 24 hours per day and as you get further from midsummer you have to be further and further south.

4. Casey Station is just outside the Antarctic circle so the midnight sun there on 21st of December will show the sun partly or fully dip below the horizon at sea level.

5. As for 3 outside of a few days at midsummer you cannot see the midnight sun at Casey
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 06, 2015, 07:08:36 AM
Are you satisfied now?


1. Your latest pictures are taken 100miles north of the Antarctic circle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neko_Harbour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neko_Harbour)

2. By definition the Antarctic circle defines one day only of 24 hour sunshine on 21st of  December where no part of the sun is below the horizon.

3.  Other than at midsummer you have to be further south to see all of the sun 24 hours per day and as you get further from midsummer you have to be further and further south.

4. Casey Station is just outside the Antarctic circle so the midnight sun there on 21st of December will show the sun partly or fully dip below the horizon at sea level.

5. As for 3 outside of a few days at midsummer you cannot see the midnight sun at Casey

Exactly, all agreed,  but going  back to the definition of Antarctic circle,   Below that latitude the sun stays above the horizon for 24 hours,  for at least one day, but longer as you go further south.
So, if the sun is above the horizon for 24 hours,  then logically it must be due south at some point of the 24 hour period.    Hence proving a spherical earth.   
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 06, 2015, 07:22:30 AM
Videos of Antarctic midnight sun

Midnight Sun at Sky Blu on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/114833121)

Antarctica Supply Ship Offload Time-Lapse 2012 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/38416148)

# (http://#)]

# (http://#)]

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 06, 2015, 07:28:33 AM
Are you satisfied now?


1. Your latest pictures are taken 100miles north of the Antarctic circle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neko_Harbour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neko_Harbour)

2. By definition the Antarctic circle defines one day only of 24 hour sunshine on 21st of  December where no part of the sun is below the horizon.

3.  Other than at midsummer you have to be further south to see all of the sun 24 hours per day and as you get further from midsummer you have to be further and further south.

4. Casey Station is just outside the Antarctic circle so the midnight sun there on 21st of December will show the sun partly or fully dip below the horizon at sea level.

5. As for 3 outside of a few days at midsummer you cannot see the midnight sun at Casey

Exactly, all agreed,  but going  back to the definition of Antarctic circle,   Below that latitude the sun stays above the horizon for 24 hours,  for at least one day, but longer as you go further south.
So, if the sun is above the horizon for 24 hours,  then logically it must be due south at some point of the 24 hour period.    Hence proving a spherical earth.   
Yes what is  the definition of Antarctic circle ? Its not on the map I have . So hence proving what ?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 06, 2015, 07:46:58 AM
Videos of Antarctic midnight sun

Midnight Sun at Sky Blu on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/114833121)

Antarctica Supply Ship Offload Time-Lapse 2012 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/38416148)

# (http://#)]

# (http://#)]
I'd trust that NSW uni clip , like id trust a dog  minding meat in a butcher shop.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 06, 2015, 08:03:57 AM
Videos of Antarctic midnight sun

Midnight Sun at Sky Blu on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/114833121)

Antarctica Supply Ship Offload Time-Lapse 2012 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/38416148)

# (http://#)]

# (http://#)]
I'd trust that NSW uni clip , like id trust a dog  minding meat in a butcher shop.

The midnight sun is only the conclusion of what you can see on midsummers day once you travel south from the equator.   I lived at 40S for many years in New Zealand.   The sun behaves the same there as it does in Spain.  As summer approaches the days get longer.     South america extends to about 55 degrees where the days  there are very long. and the sun sets and rises towards the south.

I am in helsinki at 60N where at midsummer the sun has an arc of about 250 degrees.   The sun sets in the northwest and rises in the north east.    It only gets fully dark for about an hour .

In southern south america they see the same thing almost.

But i am not sure what you are meaning about circles on a map.

Whatever map you are using,  on the Earths surface,  there are two circles where you can see the midnight sun on only one day per year.  One circle in the North and one circle in the South.

As you move away from the southern tropic (sun overhead) on midsummers day in the south,  the days get longer.  As you move away from the northern tropic on midsummers day in the north,  the days get longer.     Each side of the equator summer falls on different days.

Perhaps you have a question about this now?   
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: abaaaabbbb63 on May 06, 2015, 08:23:02 AM
Yes what is  the definition of Antarctic circle ? Its not on the map I have . So hence proving what ?

What map do you have?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 06, 2015, 10:47:52 AM
English is not my native tongue, however i have to warn you that you should be much more careful in distinguishing the true meanings of these two important words (written with big letters): "TOWARDS the south" vs "IN THE northwest"

I lived at 40S for many years in New Zealand. The sun behaves the same there as it does in Spain.  As summer approaches the days get longer. South America extends to about 55 degrees where the days  there are very long. and the sun sets and rises towards the south.

This ("TOWARDS the south") is the consequence of a much wider arc of the sun's path in the sky that sun makes traveling above the tropic of capricorn.

I am in Helsinki at 60N where at midsummer the sun has an arc of about 250 degrees. The sun sets in the northwest and rises in the north east.  It only gets fully dark for about an hour.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036)

Videos of Antarctic midnight sun

Midnight Sun at Sky Blu on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/114833121)

Antarctica Supply Ship Offload Time-Lapse 2012 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/38416148)

# (http://#)]

# (http://#)]
I'd trust that NSW uni clip , like id trust a dog  minding meat in a butcher shop.

;D  I fully agree with you!!!  ;D
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 06, 2015, 10:57:40 AM
English is not my native tongue, however i have to warn you that you should be much more careful in distinguishing the true meanings of these two important words (written with big letters): "TOWARDS the south" vs "IN THE northwest"

I lived at 40S for many years in New Zealand. The sun behaves the same there as it does in Spain.  As summer approaches the days get longer. South America extends to about 55 degrees where the days  there are very long. and the sun sets and rises towards the south.

This ("TOWARDS the south") is the consequence of a much wider arc of the sun's path in the sky that sun makes traveling above the tropic of capricorn.

[/quote]

On a flat earth,    in New Zealand the summer sun would not set in the south west or rise in the south east.

The sun would always be seen very comfortably well inside the northern part of the sky and well away from the southern part of the sky.

In the northern hemisphere the flat earth map works ok because you are inside the suns circle rather than outside of it as you are down south in NZ etc
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 06, 2015, 10:59:45 AM
Thanks for giving the link so we can see how dishonest you are. The first picture is not what you claim it is. I personally think he should be banned for the blatant dishonesty.

O.K., i have mixed it up (dawn and midnight), now you can see everything in genuine order:

(http://i.imgur.com/XnbMMn9.jpg)

Are you satisfied now?

Why would i offer you a link, if i had bad intentions (to deceive you)???

Don't be so sad and pathetic!!!

P.S. If you don't know how to handle with your inferiority just ban yourself...  ;)

Did you notice something very important and interesting in this picture?

First picture shows Antarctic Midnight
Second picture shows Antarctica at 2 AM
Third picture shows Antarctic Dawn

All these wonderful Antarctic phenomenas happen on the same side of the sky!!!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 06, 2015, 11:05:07 AM
On a flat earth,  in New Zealand the summer sun would not set in the south west or rise in the south east.

The sun would always be seen very comfortably well inside the northern part of the sky and well away from the southern part of the sky.

The summer sun above New Zealand doesn't set IN THE south west, but (apparently) TOWARDS south, and i explained why it seems so....Don't twist the words even after i warned you to pay attention to the true meanings of these important words!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 06, 2015, 11:06:58 AM
Thanks for giving the link so we can see how dishonest you are. The first picture is not what you claim it is. I personally think he should be banned for the blatant dishonesty.

O.K., i have mixed it up (dawn and midnight), now you can see everything in genuine order:

(http://i.imgur.com/XnbMMn9.jpg)

Are you satisfied now?

Why would i offer you a link, if i had bad intentions (to deceive you)???

Don't be so sad and pathetic!!!

P.S. If you don't know how to handle with your inferiority just ban yourself...  ;)

Did you notice something very important and interesting in this picture?

First picture shows Antarctic Midnight
Second picture shows Antarctica at 2 AM
Third picture shows Antarctic Dawn

All these wonderful Antarctic phenomenas happen on the same side of the sky!!!

That is correct.  The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so.     So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle.      Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 06, 2015, 11:11:47 AM
So by your yet again lack of response to my question about how a spotlight sun makes the day /night pattern in the picture I once again re-posted that you made.  I assume this means you want to say it just happens that way.  Which in my mind is just another idiot assigning properties to things they have no clue about. 

So the spotlight sun performs this magic just to hide the "true" shape of the Earth.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 06, 2015, 11:11:47 AM
On a flat earth,  in New Zealand the summer sun would not set in the south west or rise in the south east.

The sun would always be seen very comfortably well inside the northern part of the sky and well away from the southern part of the sky.

The summer sun above New Zealand doesn't set IN THE south west, but (apparently) TOWARDS south, and i explained why it seems so....Don't twist the words even after i warned you to pay attention to the true meanings of these important words!

??

I lived in New Zealand for 17 years.

I can assure you that the mid summer sun is very strongly setting and rising in the southern area of the sky.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 06, 2015, 11:17:30 AM
That is correct.  The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so.     So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle.      Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise

Either you are completly freaked out, or you consciously and blatantly lie!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 06, 2015, 11:21:11 AM
I lived in New Zealand for 17 years.

I can assure you that the mid summer sun is very strongly setting and rising in the southern area of the sky.

I just have caught you in one big lie, so i have to assume that you are ready to lie about everything, and now i am perfectly sure that you consciously lie all along!!!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 06, 2015, 11:39:38 AM
I lived in New Zealand for 17 years.

I can assure you that the mid summer sun is very strongly setting and rising in the southern area of the sky.

I just have caught you in one big lie, so i have to assume that you are ready to lie about everything, and now i am perfectly sure that you consciously lie all along!!!

All you have to do is look at pictures of summer time New Zealand with easily identifiable features.


 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 06, 2015, 01:51:56 PM
looking from Waikanai beach to South Island New Zealand with Sun setting in South West

(http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: FakeWorlder on May 06, 2015, 02:09:09 PM
That is correct.  The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so.     So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle.      Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise

Either you are completly freaked out, or you consciously and blatantly lie!
How is this lying? he is stating basic geographic facts.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 06, 2015, 02:29:14 PM
English is not my native tongue, however i have to warn you that you should be much more careful in distinguishing the true meanings of these two important words (written with big letters): "TOWARDS the south" vs "IN THE northwest"

TOWARDS and IN THE are three words, not two. Since you're warning people to be much more careful and all, I thought I'd point that out.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 06, 2015, 03:39:50 PM
Alpha, you are bullshitting too much (as usual). Those arrows mean nothing, because they are purely artificial, that is to say: the spatial directions to which these arrows point to are determined so to conform to HC bullshit theory and to mislead honest thinker.
In other words, those directions mean nothing because you're using them to make a strawman argument.

I still don't know why you didn't start them at Casey, though. But one of them isn't a globe model. You say it's what the flat earth would give, so you're either confused or lying in the above. Nor do I understand why you claim the Midnight Sun on a globe would be southeast of Casey (where that arrow is pointing) and not due south (straight down on the map). Do you not realize this, did you intentionally draw it pointing in the wrong direction?

Who's being dishonest?

3. This is the date we are looking for : 6 January 2012:

MIDNIGHT SUN - CASEY (WE ARE OBVIOUSLY WATCHING DUE NORTH) :
Did you ever answer the question how you know you're looking due north? If you did and I missed it, you could help by not repeating so much in your posts; it makes the new material harder to spot.

Your interminable walls of text and random (large) images look like you're trying this:
Quote from:  W.C.Fields
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
It mostly makes you look like a lunatic.

Quote
ANOTHER CLASSIC CASEY SUNSET :

http://i.imgur.com/5HhgCcr.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/5HhgCcr.jpg)
The Sun is well above the horizon in this picture. Why do you call it a sunset?

Quote
ONLY, IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND, CASEY SUNSETS SHOULD OCCUR IN THIS DIRECTION:
The interesting thing about sunsets in polar regions if that they can occur anywhere west of due north and south depending on the time of year! At Casey, it changes from almost due south at the December solstice, to almost due north at the June solstice. Cool, huh? So if that photo is looking any direction west of due north or south you're right!!

Quote
When you find a photography in which midnight sun lit from behind Casey station (across Antarctica), let us know!
Already done.

casey summer solstice time lapse

(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-12981089.jpg)

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-image12981089 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-image12981089)
The caption for this photo on the dreamstime.com link reads: "A time-lapse photo of the sun at mid-night on mid-summer day at Casey Station Antarctica."

Thanks, Aliveandkicking.

Quote
Until then, you can eat all those heliocentric arrows, so that you can become even smarter astronomer.
This had already been done before you wrote that. You might try a little humility. It could help make you look less like an ass when your arguments go down in flames.

[Edit] Correction in the "arrows" section, top.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 06, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
That is correct.  The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so.     So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle.      Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise

Either you are completly freaked out, or you consciously and blatantly lie!

How is that a lie?   
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 07, 2015, 01:48:52 AM
Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 02:00:51 AM
in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South in Midnight!

Even in new zealand at only 40S the sun sets south west in mid summer.

In this video the gap between the tiny islands of Tahoramaurea and Motungarara is always a south west view regardless of the observers position when looking south west.    Motungarara island is barely visible in front of the much larger Kapiti island.   Tahoramaurea is the little volcano like island.

The setting sun is many degrees to the left of Tahoramaurea island.

(http://)

The observer is on the north island looking towards the south island.  The sun is setting over queen charlotte sound in the south island

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Queen+Charlotte+sound,+New+Zealand/Waikanae+Beach,+Waikanae,+New+Zealand/@-40.9725508,174.5290813,9z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d3f2bc0074fd513:0x6b6b776c97f8fffc!2m2!1d174.332809!2d-41.08145!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d40a20383070a17:0x500ef6143a33000!2m2!1d175.0206267!2d-40.8638399 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Queen+Charlotte+sound,+New+Zealand/Waikanae+Beach,+Waikanae,+New+Zealand/@-40.9725508,174.5290813,9z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d3f2bc0074fd513:0x6b6b776c97f8fffc!2m2!1d174.332809!2d-41.08145!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d40a20383070a17:0x500ef6143a33000!2m2!1d175.0206267!2d-40.8638399)



Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 07, 2015, 05:28:15 AM
Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

That's exactly where would expect the sun to be  at 2:30am  ( 30 minutes after midnight ) on June 19 at Toolik lake,  almost due north.
The picture once again proves round earth.    The picture is from here http://archive.arcus.org/TREC/VBC/index.php?showtopic=322 (http://archive.arcus.org/TREC/VBC/index.php?showtopic=322)

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 05:39:24 AM
Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

That's exactly where would expect the sun to be  at 2:30am  ( 30 minutes after midnight ) on June 19 at Toolik lake,  almost due north.
The picture once again proves round earth.    The picture is from here http://archive.arcus.org/TREC/VBC/index.php?showtopic=322 (http://archive.arcus.org/TREC/VBC/index.php?showtopic=322)

Can you explain in detail how that picture proves a round earth?

On a flat earth the sun would be visible from anywhere on the surface - unless blocked by local obstructions.  ie 24 hour sun everywhere all of the time.

Allowing for flat earther physics and the spotlight sun it becomes less visible everywhere.

Can you work it out to make a proof?

I have no idea how flat earth system works so cannot even begin to consider the problem at the moment.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Flat%20Earth%20Model (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Flat%20Earth%20Model)

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 07, 2015, 06:26:48 AM
Here is the sunrise and sunset data for Toolik Lake Alaska on June 19 2005 at 2:30am
The yellow circle is the path of the sun. 

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/661/GgAC8j.jpg)

Here is the same plot, but for Casey Station at the summer solstice,  showing the sun rise and sunset in the south.
The plot matches the earlier time lapse picture pretty well.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/540/JGW5s1.jpg)

The program relies on the fact that the earth is a sphere,  it wouldn't predict the correct sun positions otherwise.

I have tried to unravel the flat earth explanation for this,  and come to the conclusion that it doesn't work.  Spherical earth works.

Program is here if you want to play around with different times and locations http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 07, 2015, 06:29:00 AM
in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South in Midnight!

Even in new zealand at only 40S the sun sets south west in mid summer.

In this video the gap between the tiny islands of Tahoramaurea and Motungarara is always a south west view regardless of the observers position when looking south west.    Motungarara island is barely visible in front of the much larger Kapiti island.   Tahoramaurea is the little volcano like island.

The setting sun is many degrees to the left of Tahoramaurea island.

(http://)

The observer is on the north island looking towards the south island.  The sun is setting over queen charlotte sound in the south island

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Queen+Charlotte+sound,+New+Zealand/Waikanae+Beach,+Waikanae,+New+Zealand/@-40.9725508,174.5290813,9z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d3f2bc0074fd513:0x6b6b776c97f8fffc!2m2!1d174.332809!2d-41.08145!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d40a20383070a17:0x500ef6143a33000!2m2!1d175.0206267!2d-40.8638399 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Queen+Charlotte+sound,+New+Zealand/Waikanae+Beach,+Waikanae,+New+Zealand/@-40.9725508,174.5290813,9z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d3f2bc0074fd513:0x6b6b776c97f8fffc!2m2!1d174.332809!2d-41.08145!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d40a20383070a17:0x500ef6143a33000!2m2!1d175.0206267!2d-40.8638399)

Look at this:

(http://i.imgur.com/J129wXe.jpg)

...Compare these angles with respect to the 40 degrees South-parallel, and you will notice that there is the difference of at least 50 degrees....So, maps are terribly wrong...The only way how we can determine in which direction the sun sets is by the use of a compass. Can you draw me on this map an exact path of the southern-solstice sun across Waikanae beach?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 07, 2015, 06:46:41 AM
Waikanae Beach Sun Path at the winter solstice June 21

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/673/1Hu2S4.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 07, 2015, 07:11:08 AM
Waikanae Beach Sun Path at the winter solstice June 21

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/673/1Hu2S4.jpg)

Thanks Rayzor, even guys like you (who don't know how to use their brain) can be of some use! Well, according to this illustration, the Sun rises at South-East, then crosses Waikanae beach in northern arc, and then sets at South-West.

Now, try to use your brain (at least once in your lifetime), and explain to me, how the sun can cross New Zealand in northern arc at all, since the tropic of capricorn stays north from New Zealand all the time?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 07, 2015, 07:29:04 AM

Thanks Rayzor, even guys like you (who don't know how to use their brain) can be of some use! Well, according to this illustration, the Sun rises at South-East, then crosses Waikanae beach in northern arc, and then sets at South-West.

Now, try to use your brain (at least once in your lifetime), and explain to me, how the sun can cross New Zealand in northern arc at all, since the tropic of capricorn stays north from New Zealand all the time?

What's with all the insults?   

You do realize you question makes no sense,  you are asking how can the sun be in the north when it's always north.    At the summer solstice the Sun is directly overhead at  the tropic of capricorn,  ( that's the definition of tropic!  )

In any case the sun path for Waikanae Beach show the sun always in the North in mid winter ( the top yellow line).     
The lower edge of the yellow area is the summer solstice path.

As far as the direction to the setting sun, and direction to sunrise,  every point south of the equator will have the sunrise in the south at the summer solstice.   Obviously the further south you go the further south the sunrise goes, until you reach the antarctic circle where the sunrise and sunset is at the same time and due south. 





Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 07:54:48 AM
in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South in Midnight!

Even in new zealand at only 40S the sun sets south west in mid summer.

In this video the gap between the tiny islands of Tahoramaurea and Motungarara is always a south west view regardless of the observers position when looking south west.    Motungarara island is barely visible in front of the much larger Kapiti island.   Tahoramaurea is the little volcano like island.

The setting sun is many degrees to the left of Tahoramaurea island.

(http://)

The observer is on the north island looking towards the south island.  The sun is setting over queen charlotte sound in the south island

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Queen+Charlotte+sound,+New+Zealand/Waikanae+Beach,+Waikanae,+New+Zealand/@-40.9725508,174.5290813,9z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d3f2bc0074fd513:0x6b6b776c97f8fffc!2m2!1d174.332809!2d-41.08145!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d40a20383070a17:0x500ef6143a33000!2m2!1d175.0206267!2d-40.8638399 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Queen+Charlotte+sound,+New+Zealand/Waikanae+Beach,+Waikanae,+New+Zealand/@-40.9725508,174.5290813,9z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d3f2bc0074fd513:0x6b6b776c97f8fffc!2m2!1d174.332809!2d-41.08145!1m5!1m1!1s0x6d40a20383070a17:0x500ef6143a33000!2m2!1d175.0206267!2d-40.8638399)

Look at this:

(http://i.imgur.com/J129wXe.jpg)

...Compare these angles with respect to the 40 degrees South-parallel, and you will notice that there is the difference of at least 50 degrees....So, maps are terribly wrong...The only way how we can determine in which direction the sun sets is by the use of a compass. Can you draw me on this map an exact path of the southern-solstice sun across Waikanae beach?

On gleasons map the sun sets along a line between about the south of the North Island of NZ and the large T near cape hudson of Antarctica.

On google on your two map picture the sun sets along a line between about the south of the North Island of NZ and the brass rivot of Gleasons latitude gadget 

These are eye balled approximations based on that video i provided.   
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 07, 2015, 08:06:56 AM
Here's Quito Equador,  at the summer solstice.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/540/wdvJ47.jpg)

Sunrise is bearing 103,  or 13 degrees south of east.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 07, 2015, 08:08:01 AM
You do realize you question makes no sense,  you are asking how can the sun be in the north when it's always north.    At the summer solstice the Sun is directly overhead at  the tropic of capricorn,  ( that's the definition of tropic!  )

You don't even know how to read? Let alone how to think...

Now let's see if you can make any progress regarding usage of your own brain:

First, we have to quote this post once again:

Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

Now, Rayzor, answer me: Where (at which side of the world) will be the Sun 12 hours later (at noon) according to the same compass (above)?

When you find (in your own brain or elsewhere) correct answer to this question, then ask Aliveandkicking, what was the point of this utterly stupid claim of him:

Quote
That is correct. The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so. So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle. Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1685282#msg1685282 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1685282#msg1685282)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 07, 2015, 08:16:30 AM
Now, Rayzor, answer me: Where (at which side of the world) will be the Sun 12 hours later (at noon) according to the same compass (above)?
This is the bit where you failed completely to understand that the sun moves parallel to the horizon,  completing a full 360 degrees in 24 hours,  so in 12 hours the sun will be due South.   
Do you get it yet?  Dumbass.


When you find (in your own brain or elsewhere) correct answer to this question, then ask Aliveandkicking, what was the point of this utterly stupid claim of him:
Quote
That is correct. The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so. So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle. Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1685282#msg1685282 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1685282#msg1685282)
Seems perfectly fine to me.  What is it that you are having trouble with?..  Still can't understand the difference North and South.  Let alone the difference between round and flat.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 08:18:32 AM
You do realize you question makes no sense,  you are asking how can the sun be in the north when it's always north.    At the summer solstice the Sun is directly overhead at  the tropic of capricorn,  ( that's the definition of tropic!  )

You don't even know how to read? Let alone how to think...

Now let's see if you can make any progress regarding usage of your own brain:

First, we have to quote this post once again:

Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

Now, Rayzor, answer me: Where (at which side of the world) will be the Sun 12 hours later (at noon) according to the same compass (above)?

When you find (in your own brain or elsewhere) correct answer to this question, then ask Aliveandkicking, what was the point of this utterly stupid claim of him:

Quote
That is correct. The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so. So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle. Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1685282#msg1685282 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1685282#msg1685282)

Gleasons map that you used shows the same sun times on the smaller pictures on that map that are visible in New Zealand by an ordinary person who lives there.

By the way, Ammundsen saw a 24 hour day when he was near the coast of Antarctica - documented elsewhere on this board in the 'midnight sun again' thread.

The problem for a flat earth map is that as you move south from the tropic of capricorn the summer solstice sun sets with a southerly component.

So focusing on Antarctica where it ultimately becomes a south midnight sun is unnecessary.

Videos of setting suns can be provided for any significantly south location to show a midsummer southerly sunset/sunrise component.

However because ordinary men and women are using the published sun tables of the kind Rayzor and Gleason used it seems a bit unnecessary to me

I got a bit confused by what you said here:


>>Now, Rayzor, answer me: Where (at which side of the world) will be the Sun 12 hours later (at noon) according to the same compass (above)?

When you find (in your own brain or elsewhere) correct answer to this question, then ask Aliveandkicking, what was the point of this utterly stupid claim of him:

Quote

    That is correct. The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so. So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle. Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise

I am not sure if you realise that the southern midnight sun is  6 months from the northern one?    Why are you talking about a 12 hour difference?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 07, 2015, 09:38:04 AM
Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:

http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)
I'm still not your slave.

Quote
Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!
You've already been provided a picture showing the Midnight Sun from Casey Station, Antarctica. What "impossible" picture is it that you (singular) are waiting for? Why do you think I should deliver anything to you just because you demand it?

Quote
P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)
Just out of curiosity, which way do you think is true north in your picture? I want to see if you understand what it's showing.

Compasses work just fine in the Southern Hemisphere. When you get to high latitudes, especially if they're close to the magnetic pole (Casey is), you need to be sure you recognize that they're aligning toward the magnetic pole, not the geographic pole. Casey Station (66° S, 110° E) is almost due west and slightly south of the South Magnetic Pole (roughly 63° S, 137° E), so the south end of a compass needle will point almost due east (actually, it would point about 10° north of due east). A picture showing this, if there is one (feel free to look if you want), would just confuse you.

This pdf map (http://ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMM2015/WMM2015_D_MERC.pdf) shows the difference between true north and magnetic north for most of the world. The red contour lines mean the north end of a compass needle points east of true north; blue contour lines mean the north end of a compass points west of true north (thus the south end of the needle points east of true south). If you are on a green line, your compass points true north. Casey is close to the -100° (blue) contour, so the south end of a compass needle is off by 100° at Casey; 90° would be due east and 100° is 10° beyond (north of) that.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 07, 2015, 10:13:08 AM
I got a bit confused by what you said here:

>>Now, Rayzor, answer me: Where (at which side of the world) will be the Sun 12 hours later (at noon) according to the same compass (above)?

When you find (in your own brain or elsewhere) correct answer to this question, then ask Aliveandkicking, what was the point of this utterly stupid claim of him:

Quote

    That is correct. The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so. So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle. Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise

I am not sure if you realise that the southern midnight sun is  6 months from the northern one?    Why are you talking about a 12 hour difference?

Although you are aware that at noon the sun is south of you (North Pole is behind your back), and that at midnight the sun is north of you (you have to watch across North Pole in order to see Sun at midnight), you still don't see any problem with your stupid claim according which "If you went on the roof you could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise" ??????

                                                            **************************************************************

@ Alpha, all you have to do is to reckon the exact theoretical position of an alleged south geographic pol (with respect to the position of the real south magnetic pole), and then try to aline a line of your sight, the position of the midnight sun, and the supposed position of the alleged south geographic pol, and voila... It wouldn't take to much effort to carry out such a simple procedure, am i right?

Only, this is a mission impossible , because South Pole doesn't exist!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 07, 2015, 10:23:52 AM
Although you are aware that at noon the sun is south of you (North Pole is behind your back), and that at midnight the sun is north of you (you have to watch across North Pole in order to see Sun at midnight), you still don't see any problem with your stupid claim according which "If you went on the roof you could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise" ??????

Wow,  after all that you STILL don't get it.  First you mixed up north and south,  now you mix up noon and midnight.   

 Here's the sun path for Helsinki at the summer solstice.   
The sun sets at around 10pm and rises at about 1am,  there's only about 70 or so degrees between sunset, midnight and sunrise.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/673/hQVB3N.jpg)


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 10:57:09 AM
I got a bit confused by what you said here:

>>Now, Rayzor, answer me: Where (at which side of the world) will be the Sun 12 hours later (at noon) according to the same compass (above)?

When you find (in your own brain or elsewhere) correct answer to this question, then ask Aliveandkicking, what was the point of this utterly stupid claim of him:

Quote

    That is correct. The sun only dips below the horizon for about an hour or so. So all three photos can be filmed from a similar  angle. Like here in helsinki at mid summer at 60n.   If i went on the roof i could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise

I am not sure if you realise that the southern midnight sun is  6 months from the northern one?    Why are you talking about a 12 hour difference?

Although you are aware that at noon the sun is south of you (North Pole is behind your back), and that at midnight the sun is north of you (you have to watch across North Pole in order to see Sun at midnight), you still don't see any problem with your stupid claim according which "If you went on the roof you could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise" ??????

                                                         

I am at a total loss to wonder why you are questioning my integrity and my observations of my life in NZ and again in Helsinki Finland where i am only 6 degrees of latitude from the arctic circle.

If i face my camera North, at noon the sun is behind me.   From memory the sun sets about 10-45pm and rises again about 2am.    Those kind of times.    A camera will show about 90 degrees of view.

Every hour of the day is 360/24 degrees = 15 degrees of longitude per hour.   So 3 hours 15 minutes is only an angle of 49 degrees.   Not very much at all.

If from my house i cannot get a picture of sunset midnight and sunset at solstice with a single camera position my failure will only be a matter of tiny amounts by my estimation.

As far as i can determine a single camera position will suffice with no special efforts required.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 11:07:17 AM
Although you are aware that at noon the sun is south of you (North Pole is behind your back), and that at midnight the sun is north of you (you have to watch across North Pole in order to see Sun at midnight), you still don't see any problem with your stupid claim according which "If you went on the roof you could point the camera in the same direction to see summer solstice sunset midnight and sunrise" ??????

Wow,  after all that you STILL don't get it.  First you mixed up north and south,  now you mix up noon and midnight.   

 Here's the sun path for Helsinki at the summer solstice.   
The sun sets at around 10pm and rises at about 1am,  there's only about 70 or so degrees between sunset, midnight and sunrise.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/673/hQVB3N.jpg)

Can you give me the link to that calculator please?   we are about 6 miles from the centre plus we are on a small hill
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 07, 2015, 11:16:45 AM
@ Alpha, all you have to do is to reckon the exact theoretical position of an alleged south geographic pol (with respect to the position of the real south magnetic pole), and then try to aline a line of your sight, the position of the midnight sun, and the supposed position of the alleged south geographic pol, and voila... It wouldn't take to much effort to carry out such a simple procedure, am i right?
The same principle applies in your picture (except it's the North Pole, not the South). You never answered the question, though, so it's hard to tell if you understand what your somewhat confused description means.

Which way is true north in this picture?

(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Quote
Only, this is a mission impossible , because South Pole doesn't exist!
It's pretty clear you have little idea where or what it is. That doesn't matter, though.

(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/summer-solstice-sunset-antarctic-circle-12981089.jpg)

Due south is in the direction of the Sun's lowest point in this picture from Casey Station. The South Pole is in that direction. Now you know.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 07, 2015, 12:04:08 PM
Aliveandkicking, technically you are right, but you are missing the main point of this argument. It doesn't matter if you can see sunset, midnight sun and sunrise from the same side of your house, what matters is this : can you see the noon sun also, from that very same side of your house?

Of course that you have to turn around for 180 degrees to be able to see the noon sun, because you are in the northern hemiplane.

However, in the Antarctic you don't have to turn around to be able to see the noon sun. That makes a huge difference. All phases of the Antarctic Midnight Sun (sunrise, noon, sunset, midnight sun) occur on the same side of the hypothetical Antarctic house.

That is why nobody can do the same kind of demonstration with compass pointing  South and Antarctic Midnight Sun in the same time so to align himself (the position from which he observes Midnight Sun), the position of the Antarctic Midnight Sun and non-existent position of the non-existent "South Pole".
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 12:21:32 PM
Aliveandkicking, technically you are right, but you are missing the main point of this argument. It doesn't matter if you can see sunset, midnight sun and sunrise from the same side of your house, what matters is this : can you see the noon sun also, from that very same side of your house?

Of course that you have to turn around for 180 degrees to be able to see the noon sun, because you are in the northern hemiplane.

However, in the Antarctic you don't have to turn around to be able to see the noon sun. That makes a huge difference. All phases of the Antarctic Midnight Sun (sunrise, noon, sunset, midnight sun) occur on the same side of the hypothetical Antarctic house.

That is why nobody can do the same kind of demonstration with compass pointing  South and Antarctic Midnight Sun in the same time so to align himself (the position from which he observes Midnight Sun), the position of the Antarctic Midnight Sun and non-existent position of the non-existent "South Pole".

Technically i am right?  I said if i stand facing north i will have the noon sun behind me.

However in reality my camera can only record something like 60 degrees of view so i doubt i will be able to take these pictures with a single position at 60N.

As i said earlier if i stand facing south in new zealand at 40S the noon sun is on my back but the solstice sunset and sunrise are in the southern part of the sky.   You will be able to find videos showing this from all around the southern hemisphere from at a guess about 35S where it can be noticed on a video.

As I said Gleasons flat earth map includes the ordinary sun tables used by ordinary people for centuries which give the same sort of results as Rayzors modern calculator

The antarctic stuff is just the same geography where as you go further south from the tropic the sun sets further to the south at the solstice.

By the way I found from the log of captain cooks  2nd voyage he said "we crossed the Antarctic Circle" on the 17th of January 1773 at longitude 39 degrees East.   Page 53 of 581 of:

http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-JOD-00020/53 (http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-JOD-00020/53) 

In another log of the same voyage i found that on 24th of January it was 'dark for 3 or 4 hours' at 58S Latitude. page 51 of 441 of:

http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-RGO-00014-00058/51 (http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-RGO-00014-00058/51)
 

Just to be clear you said:

>>However, in the Antarctic you don't have to turn around to be able to see the noon sun. That makes a huge difference. All phases of the Antarctic Midnight Sun (sunrise, noon, sunset, midnight sun) occur on the same side of the hypothetical Antarctic house.

You are making that claim but it is not supported by the videos of a rotating antarctic sun I provided and it is not supported by what i observed in NZ and what i showed was viewable on you tube from waikanae near where i used to go gliding.  And it is not supported by Cook and Amundsens voyages to the antarctic.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 07, 2015, 12:35:15 PM
Aliveandkicking, technically you are right, but you are missing the main point of this argument. It doesn't matter if you can see sunset, midnight sun and sunrise from the same side of your house, what matters is this : can you see the noon sun also, from that very same side of your house?

Of course that you have to turn around for 180 degrees to be able to see the noon sun, because you are in the northern hemiplane.

However, in the Antarctic you don't have to turn around to be able to see the noon sun. That makes a huge difference. All phases of the Antarctic Midnight Sun (sunrise, noon, sunset, midnight sun) occur on the same side of the hypothetical Antarctic house.

That is why nobody can do the same kind of demonstration with compass pointing  South and Antarctic Midnight Sun in the same time so to align himself (the position from which he observes Midnight Sun), the position of the Antarctic Midnight Sun and non-existent position of the non-existent "South Pole".
You've already heard first-hand reports from people describing summertime sunsets in the southwest from Australia and New Zealand, and I don't see any dispute from you about a northern noontime sun from those places. These observations are corroborated by countless people for centuries. Has there been a single credible report otherwise?

So let's see some actual conclusive evidence that both the noontime and midnight sun are in the north from the Antarctic Circle and south. You're the one saying that almost everyone else is wrong, so you need to provide convincing evidence. Good luck. So far, your pictures have been inconclusive, irrelevant, or - and you even admitted it - wrong. Do you have anything beyond your own wishful thinking that would make you think this is true?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 07, 2015, 03:02:27 PM
1. We may note that the Discovery, in settling down into winter quarters in February, 1902, was frozen in, "and endured a long dark winter, with a night of 122 days, when the temperature fell to 62 degrees below zero, and it was unsafe to venture from the ship, for even a mile, because of the blinding blizzard that raged almost continuously."

This quotation is an excerpt from the statement of Lieut. Shackleton, of the Discovery.

"Does the phrase, 'a night of 122 days' mean that the sun was not seen for that long period?"
was a question put to me ; and I replied, "Certainly."

And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Longyearbyen, Norway — Sunrise, sunset and daylength : http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen?month=10&year=2015 (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen?month=10&year=2015)

Discovery wasn't settled down at higher southern latitude than Longyearbyen is situated at north (78,13 degrees N), and Longyearbyen dark winter lasts for 112 days which is a whole 10 days less than reported (by Lieut. Shackleton) 122 days of a complete darkness!

2. Aliveandkicking, have you ever witnessed something similar to this:

(http://i.imgur.com/9WBuZRM.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 07, 2015, 03:14:36 PM
And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Because of Earth's axle tilt.  I am not going to explain it in a hope to get the rusty gears turning in the special reasoning part of your brain.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: The Truth Seeker on May 07, 2015, 03:40:47 PM
And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Because of Earth's axle tilt.  I am not going to explain it in a hope to get the rusty gears turning in the special reasoning part of your brain.

CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Lemmiwinks on May 07, 2015, 03:42:14 PM
And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Because of Earth's axle tilt.  I am not going to explain it in a hope to get the rusty gears turning in the special reasoning part of your brain.

CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL

Not related to the topic at all. Great contribution.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: The Truth Seeker on May 07, 2015, 03:44:45 PM
And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Because of Earth's axle tilt.  I am not going to explain it in a hope to get the rusty gears turning in the special reasoning part of your brain.

CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL

Not related to the topic at all. Great contribution.

this about the shape of the earth and i am spredinng truth about earths shape...
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 03:52:37 PM
1. We may note that the Discovery, in settling down into winter quarters in February, 1902, was frozen in, "and endured a long dark winter, with a night of 122 days, when the temperature fell to 62 degrees below zero, and it was unsafe to venture from the ship, for even a mile, because of the blinding blizzard that raged almost continuously."

This quotation is an excerpt from the statement of Lieut. Shackleton, of the Discovery.

"Does the phrase, 'a night of 122 days' mean that the sun was not seen for that long period?"
was a question put to me ; and I replied, "Certainly."

And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Longyearbyen, Norway — Sunrise, sunset and daylength : http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen?month=10&year=2015 (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen?month=10&year=2015)

Discovery wasn't settled down at higher southern latitude than Longyearbyen is situated at north (78,13 degrees N), and Longyearbyen dark winter lasts for 112 days which is a whole 10 days less than reported (by Lieut. Shackleton) 122 days of a complete darkness!

2. Aliveandkicking, have you ever witnessed something similar to this:

(http://i.imgur.com/9WBuZRM.jpg)

I dont have an answer for why Shackelton said 122 nights but since mcmurdo has been permanently manned for decades an answer can probably be provided.

Do you have a reference for him saying that?   So far i can only find that text in Earth from a scriptural point of view

http://library.tfes.org/library/Earth%20-%20Monthly%20Magazine%2047-48.pdf (http://library.tfes.org/library/Earth%20-%20Monthly%20Magazine%2047-48.pdf)

I have never been inside the arctic circle so cannot comment on the light there.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: The Truth Seeker on May 07, 2015, 04:07:05 PM
And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Because of Earth's axle tilt.  I am not going to explain it in a hope to get the rusty gears turning in the special reasoning part of your brain.
CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 07, 2015, 05:13:17 PM
And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Because of Earth's axle tilt.  I am not going to explain it in a hope to get the rusty gears turning in the special reasoning part of your brain.
CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL

Actually I think the proper term is "intelligent person".
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 07, 2015, 06:33:39 PM
1. We may note that the Discovery, in settling down into winter quarters in February, 1902, was frozen in, "and endured a long dark winter, with a night of 122 days, when the temperature fell to 62 degrees below zero, and it was unsafe to venture from the ship, for even a mile, because of the blinding blizzard that raged almost continuously."

This quotation is an excerpt from the statement of Lieut. Shackleton, of the Discovery.

"Does the phrase, 'a night of 122 days' mean that the sun was not seen for that long period?"
was a question put to me ; and I replied, "Certainly."

And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Longyearbyen, Norway — Sunrise, sunset and daylength : http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen?month=10&year=2015 (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen?month=10&year=2015)

Discovery wasn't settled down at higher southern latitude than Longyearbyen is situated at north (78,13 degrees N), and Longyearbyen dark winter lasts for 112 days which is a whole 10 days less than reported (by Lieut. Shackleton) 122 days of a complete darkness!
Methinks you're reading too much into some of these descriptions. Where does Mr. Shackleton say "complete darkness" for 122 days? According to the text above, he agreed that "the sun was not seen", but nothing more.

Referring to your http://www.timeanddate.com calendar (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/mcmurdo?month=4&year=2015) for McMurdo Station, Antarctica (Winter Quarters Bay is part of the "McMurdo metro area"), the last sunset this year was  Apr. 24 and the next sunrise will be  Aug 19. That's 117 days between sunset and sunrise.[nb]Is there any objection to using 2015 as a proxy for 1902? If so, you can look up those dates and times yourself and do your own calculation.[/nb] 

So why was the report 122 days without the sun, a whole 5 days more? This is some conjecture, but, during the very short times with sunlight just before and after the Austral Winter at McMurdo, the Sun briefly skims the northern horizon for only a short time. McMurdo (and Winter Quarters Bay) are on a spit of land extending from the south side of Ross Island, so the bulk of the island - including Mt. Erebus, a volcano topping out at 12,448' (3,794 m) - is north of the observation site. Perhaps the Sun, barely, and briefly, peeking above the ideal horizon, was still well below the higher elevations to the north? The really crappy weather (i.e. "the blinding blizzard that raged almost continuously") cited above is another entirely reasonable possibility for not seeing the Sun for the last and/or first few days it might have otherwise been visible as well. As I said, this is conjecture, but, IMO, entirely reasonable, for not seeing the Sun for a few days when you otherwise might have been able to. The lack of more detailed information leaves us guessing.

Why would 117 days without sun be longer than 112 days at a slightly higher northern latitude in Norway? Cast your mind back to the Equation of Time discussions some months ago. You were asserting (correctly) that the Earth is closest to the Sun near the southern solstice, and (incorrectly) that the southern hemisphere should be broiling. Remember that? Well, the reply was (also correctly) that, because the Earth is closest to the Sun then, it's also moving fastest in its orbit at the same time, so (again correctly) the southern summer is slightly shorter than the northern one. Remember?

If you look up the dates and times for the equinoxes this year, Mar. 20 22:45 and Sep 23, 08:20, that's 186.40 days the Sun is north of the Equator. Since the length of year is 365.25 days, that leaves 178.85 days for the Sun to be south of the Equator, a difference of 7.55 days. The Sun is "up" more in the northern hemisphere, than it is in the Southern hemisphere, so the number of sunless days are greater in the southern hemisphere at similar latitudes.

This is why I like hanging around this place; I learn stuff!

Quote
2. Aliveandkicking, have you ever witnessed something similar to this:

http://i.imgur.com/9WBuZRM.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/9WBuZRM.jpg)
This isn't addressed to me, but I've never seen the green flash although I've looked for it when I've had the opportunity. I'd still like to. The very long, slow sunrises and sunsets at high latitude are ideal for this if there's a good unobstructed horizon.
 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 07, 2015, 07:04:17 PM
Can you give me the link to that calculator please?   we are about 6 miles from the centre plus we are on a small hill

If you google "sun calculator"  you will get a number of different ones,  the one I liked best is  http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)

The polar day/night  lasts from equinox to equinox,   so from  September 22 to March 20 will be continuous night at the North Pole, and continuous daylight at the South Pole,  then from March 20 to September 22 the North Pole will have continuous daylight, and the South Pole continuous night.   With the Northern and Southern limits of 24 hour daylight/24 hour night being the Arctic and Antarctic circles respectively and those limits occur at the solstices.

Beautifully simple on a spherical earth,  god knows what geometric machinations are needed to make it work on a flat earth. 

Here's the full depth of what they are up against  (http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 07, 2015, 07:25:05 PM
All phases of the Antarctic Midnight Sun (sunrise, noon, sunset, midnight sun) occur on the same side of the hypothetical Antarctic house.
Why in the world would you think that? 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 07, 2015, 08:12:15 PM
While I think of it, does anyone know the flat earth explanation for the green flash at sunset?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 07, 2015, 08:21:46 PM
While I think of it, does anyone know the flat earth explanation for the green flash at sunset?

Flat earth answer: sunset?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 07, 2015, 09:02:19 PM
Sunrise nsw east cost http://www.planbooktravel.com.au/traveller/ExploreNSW/reviews/holiday-to-remember-at-crescent-head/images/sunrise.jpg?isImage=1 (http://www.planbooktravel.com.au/traveller/ExploreNSW/reviews/holiday-to-remember-at-crescent-head/images/sunrise.jpg?isImage=1)
Sunset  stkilda beach  melbourne ,beach faces south west .http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3094/3190360385_ce3d48039a_z.jpg?zz=1 (http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3094/3190360385_ce3d48039a_z.jpg?zz=1)
Now how is it you get to see the sun set on the west coast.
It just dosen't add up with the claimed spherical modle .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 07, 2015, 10:07:12 PM
Odd, That seems to be facing the St. Kilda Pavilion.  So this photo is almost due west.
Here is a link to the google map
https://www.google.com/maps/place/St+Kilda+VIC+3182,+Australia/@-37.8649263,144.9635299,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ad6686866392389:0x5045675218cdae0 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/St+Kilda+VIC+3182,+Australia/@-37.8649263,144.9635299,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ad6686866392389:0x5045675218cdae0)
Also, the door of that pavilion faces East, which you are clearly looking at in your photo from the pier there.

The shore of the other side of the Bay is roughly 3.19 miles away if we measure straight down the pier from the approx location this picture was taken from, The closest building on that same path is 3.46 miles away, but in the direction of the sunset there (which is almost due west), the shore is 3.59 miles away and barely catching the edge of that beach.  The closest building on that path is 9.74 miles away.  So I see why we cannot see the shoreline or buildings.  Thanks Charles for posting a picture that destroy's flat Earth.  Although you clearly lied and tried to misrepresent it. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 07, 2015, 10:44:20 PM
Realy ? Stkilda beach is a bay beach . So how do you manage to see the same sunset a few hours later on the broome west australia coast . http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~jenny/photos/Broome-GNH-WA/slides/sunset%20Broome%20Western%20Australia.JPG (http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~jenny/photos/Broome-GNH-WA/slides/sunset%20Broome%20Western%20Australia.JPG)
And darwin http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg (http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg)
http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg (http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg)

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 07, 2015, 10:57:55 PM
Scrotum , you realy need to buy your self a compass. You cant rely on Google map or phone apps there just not acurate .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 11:03:26 PM
Realy ? Stkilda beach is a bay beach . So how do you manage to see the same sunset a few hours later on the broome west australia coast . http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~jenny/photos/Broome-GNH-WA/slides/sunset%20Broome%20Western%20Australia.JPG (http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~jenny/photos/Broome-GNH-WA/slides/sunset%20Broome%20Western%20Australia.JPG)
And darwin http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg (http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg)
http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg (http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg)

Charles what point are you making please?

I cant follow what you are saying without more explanation of the pictures
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 07, 2015, 11:17:05 PM
Well, when you look at satellite images, and images of the area to match them up to the picture you posted, it is clearly almost due West.  So, if i do research into your BS, show you where you are wrong, I now have to fly to Australia with a compass to show you again that you are lying. 

You are so bad at this stuff dude.
Get a picture that someone with half brain cannot find other information on it you are going to lie about it.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 07, 2015, 11:34:33 PM
Well, when you look at satellite images, and images of the area to match them up to the picture you posted, it is clearly almost due West.  So, if i do research into your BS, show you where you are wrong, I now have to fly to Australia with a compass to show you again that you are lying. 

You are so bad at this stuff dude.
Get a picture that someone with half brain cannot find other information on it you are going to lie about it.

Mikey you are not being very helpful at all.    St kildas pier does face slightly south west and by yours, charles and my estimation the Sun is setting south west.

St Kildas is clearly a south west facing beach
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 12:14:21 AM
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see . 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 08, 2015, 12:27:27 AM
Realy ? Stkilda beach is a bay beach . So how do you manage to see the same sunset a few hours later on the broome west australia coast . http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~jenny/photos/Broome-GNH-WA/slides/sunset%20Broome%20Western%20Australia.JPG (http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~jenny/photos/Broome-GNH-WA/slides/sunset%20Broome%20Western%20Australia.JPG)
And darwin http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg (http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg)
http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg (http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg)

WA is 4 hours behind, so why wouldn't you expect to see the sun set  a few hours later,  I've missed your point.

Mikey,  no need to travel here,  explain what experiment you'd like and I'll see what I can do.  Although St Kilda is few hours drive.  My son used to live close to St Kilda Beach,  and we would wander down to the beach with the grandkids on long summer evenings, watching the sun set  in the south west. 


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 12:46:22 AM
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ

(http://www.ytravelblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Cottesloe-Beach-Best-Beaches-in-Australia.jpg)

https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0)

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 12:58:12 AM
Take a compass with you .Then tell me how the sun rises eastly ,then is seen to set south west at stkilda which is a bay beach.Then 4 hours later setting west in broome & darwin. So tommorow will you be selling anther lime .like the used car salemen you are .
http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg (http://www.webookaustralia.com/images/australiamap.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 01:03:46 AM
Take a compass with you .Then tell me how the sun rises eastly ,then is seen to set south west at stkilda which is a bay beach.Then 4 hours later setting west in broome & darwin. So tommorow will you be selling anther lime .like the used car salemen you are .

I do not understand.

We expect the sun to rise in the 'east' and set in the 'west'.  The precise angle that occurs depends on the time of the year

If in Australia the sunsets somewhere in Australia 4 hours after it rises somewhere in Australia then something is totally sticking out like dogs balls as an error in the round earth model.   To make a definative statement on what you are saying you will need to expand on where you have seen this happen.

This part of your statement fits the round earth model however:

>>then is seen to set south west at stkilda which is a bay beach.Then 4 hours later setting west in broome & darwin.

At the equator there is about 4000 miles difference East west in 4 hours.   It will be less miles than that as  you travel south.  At a guess it will be only 2000 east west a few hundred miles south of Tasmania

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 01:12:22 AM
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ

(http://www.ytravelblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Cottesloe-Beach-Best-Beaches-in-Australia.jpg)

https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0)

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.
tilt your street view up ward & theres the sun. So is sun set south west ? Or west ? From that location & if south west , how is it possible to see  a sun set in darwin .http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg (http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 01:18:28 AM
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ

(http://www.ytravelblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Cottesloe-Beach-Best-Beaches-in-Australia.jpg)

https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0)

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.
tilt your street view up ward & theres the sun. So is sun set south west ? Or west .

The shadows show the sun is in the north west and the sun itself is very high in the sky and far from sunset much later in the day.  It is early afternoon

In australia if you face the sun at noon you are looking north.   Compared to the noon direction the sun rises somewhere on your right in the east and tracks across the sky to set somewhere in the west.

So for the sunset picture you see more or less the same thing accept the sun has risen in the south east, moved across the sky leftwards thru north at noon and then set leftwards south west.  Our picture shows therefore we are looking at summer time (south of the equator).
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 01:20:53 AM
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ

(http://www.ytravelblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Cottesloe-Beach-Best-Beaches-in-Australia.jpg)

https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0)

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.
tilt your street view up ward & theres the sun. So is sun set south west ? Or west .

The shadows show the sun is in the north west and the sun itself is very high in the sky and far from sunset much later in the day.  It is early afternoon

In australia if you face the sun at noon you are looking north.    The sun rises somewhere on your right in the east and tracks across the sky to set somewhere in the west.

So for the sunset picture you see more or less the same thing accept the sun has risen in the south east, moved across the sky leftwards thru north at noon and then set leftwards south west.
huh !!!     http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg (http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 01:27:07 AM
I have worked all over Australia, seen plenty of coastal sun rises & sun sets . Travel no where with out 3 weeks worth of food & water &  a working compass in the ute aswell as a portable one. What they tell you & what you see dont match most of the time. Exaple I have had to recalibrate the homestead weather cock  to magnetic north 4 times in 18 years. Over all I have had to move it 6 degrees. Trying to debate reality  against
Google earth dogma is just a time waste . Take antatica on Google earth ,its just a straight out fabrication to suit their sales pitch model. I seen some photos of mars taken by a uni astronomy club. I recognised north america straight away . I inverted the colours then printed them off & asked others what they thought the photos of earth land mass they were of. They all responded with out hesitation north american. As soon as I informed them they where photos of mars. They couldn't make head nor tale of them. Do I have all the answers no. Do I want all the answers no .But I dont know about others. But Iv grown  tied of being sold the spinning spherical made up nonsensical  product . I just dont feel or see .

As I mentioned I do not understand what point you are making with the st kildas beach and NSW observations.   As for darwin, In the round earth model sunsets are separated by distance at about 1000 miles for every hour that passes.     What actually are you wanting to draw attention to??

Magnetic north is difficult to determine around a house because of the large amount of metal.    Plus southern australia is significantly south and so magnetic instability is going to be a factor.  Magnetic north is only a navigators guide to geographical north. The weather cock should be calibrated to geographical North.

Here is a photo of a south west Perth Sunset to go with your melbourne south west sunset and my observations of south west sunsets in NZ

(http://www.ytravelblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Cottesloe-Beach-Best-Beaches-in-Australia.jpg)

https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@-31.996278,115.751984,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s_tX4Y2vmEyeDoDihGTmDcA!2e0)

The photo is most likely taken from above the rock in front of the google view.
tilt your street view up ward & theres the sun. So is sun set south west ? Or west .

The shadows show the sun is in the north west and the sun itself is very high in the sky and far from sunset much later in the day.  It is early afternoon

In australia if you face the sun at noon you are looking north.    The sun rises somewhere on your right in the east and tracks across the sky to set somewhere in the west.

So for the sunset picture you see more or less the same thing accept the sun has risen in the south east, moved across the sky leftwards thru north at noon and then set leftwards south west.
huh !!!     http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg (http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/05/11/1226344/731418-darwin-sunset.jpg)

I dont understand once more.  Your picture comes from this page:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/gallery-fn2wzol2-1226353094566?page=11 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/gallery-fn2wzol2-1226353094566?page=11)

Mindil faces north west so we are looking at a sunset nearer to mid winter than midsummer.  Something like that.

Mindil Beach Sunset Market, Darwin NT operates from the last Thursday in April to the last Thursday in October annually.


This picture of mindil likely shows sunset around September

(http://www.australiasoutback.com/~/media/atdw/darwin-and-surrounds/events/9001524/images/tnt_landscape__9046495_nttc_mindil_beach_121312.ashx?bc=white)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 01:55:21 AM
What dont you understand . You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .  With the sun traverling as you RE are claiming.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 02:03:07 AM
What dont you understand . You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .  With the sun traverling as you RE are claiming.

Australia is a huge country.  the picture is complex because the tropic of capricorn is between darwin and southern australia.  If we are talking about summer solstice in southern australia, then Darwin is now north of the sun so will see northwest sunsets.

However we always expect to see summer south west sunsets in southern australia.  In Darwin there will be south west, west and north west summer sunsets depending on what day of summer it is.

We expect the sunsets to be separated by approximately 600 miles per hour east west in southern australia and by approximately about 900 miles per hour east west in northern australia

>>You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .

You need to expand a bit on what you are saying is not possible.



Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 02:33:01 AM
What dont you understand . You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .  With the sun traverling as you RE are claiming.

We expect to see summer south west sunsets in southern australia and westerly summer sunsets in darwin.

We expect the sunsets to be separated by approximately 600 miles per hour east west in southern australia and by approximately about 900 miles per hour east west in northern australia

>>You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .

You need to expand a bit on what you are saying is not possible.
Seems your just  playing games . Care to elaborate on the direction the sun travels in your spherical model. You know east west & the in between.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 02:49:45 AM
What dont you understand . You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .  With the sun traverling as you RE are claiming.

We expect to see summer south west sunsets in southern australia and westerly summer sunsets in darwin.

We expect the sunsets to be separated by approximately 600 miles per hour east west in southern australia and by approximately about 900 miles per hour east west in northern australia

>>You cant be looking at a sunset south west at stkilda then 4 hours later, one in Perth south west & then WEST!!! In Broome & Darwin .

You need to expand a bit on what you are saying is not possible.
Seems your just  playing games . Care to elaborate on the direction the sun travels in your spherical model. You know east west & the in between.

I am making quite a bit of effort to understand you, spending a great deal of time to find things for you to look at,  but  I overlooked the fact the tropic of capricorn is so much further south than darwin than i realised.  I have majorly edited the earlier reply.   

The tropic of capricorn falling between perth and darwin makes the picture complicated.

Perth will always see south west summer sunsets.  Darwin will see south west, west and North west summer sunsets.

The sun follows a line of latitude ie east to west line on a globe.     Depending upon the time of summer, darwin is south or north of a line of latitude the sun is following.  Perth is always south of the suns track along an east west latitude line in summer
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 02:59:51 AM
Incidently the line the sun follows on a globe is the same as for a flat earth model.    In both cases in summer darwin sees northwest southwest and west sunsets as the suns position at the overhead point on earth moves.  In Darwin at noon in summer on one day the sun is overhead. on other days in summer it is either north or south of the observer in darwin.  ( I am assuming the suns position on a flat earth changes to account for the overhead observation found all over the world between the two tropics for one day per year.)

The difference is on a flat earth perth will see summer north west sunsets
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 05:08:38 AM
You mean this crap
How can you rely on theses map for anything.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn)
On the map of new holland in 1794 ? amazing
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 05:31:25 AM
You mean this crap
How can you rely on theses map for anything.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn)
On the map of new holland in 1794 ? amazing

You are totally losing me again.

The tropic of capricorn is measureable with fairly simple equipment.   It is effectively a real line on the actual surface of the earth created by observing the directly overhead angle to the sun.   At all places further south than the tropic of capricorn the sun is never directly overhead at any time of the year.

You must be aware in a large part of australia, at only certain times of the year, the sun can be observed to be directly overhead??

The east west line where this begins is called the tropic of capricorn.

In principle the Aboriginals were aware of 'the tropic of capricorn of australia'  hundreds of thousands of years ago
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 08, 2015, 05:35:32 AM
Why would 117 days without sun be longer than 112 days at a slightly higher northern latitude in Norway? Cast your mind back to the Equation of Time discussions some months ago. You were asserting (correctly) that the Earth is closest to the Sun near the southern solstice, and (incorrectly) that the southern hemisphere should be broiling. Remember that? Well, the reply was (also correctly) that, because the Earth is closest to the Sun then, it's also moving fastest in its orbit at the same time, so (again correctly) the southern summer is slightly shorter than the northern one. Remember?


It would be better for you to skip that part (The equation of time), and you know why. Do i have to remind you? Because you asked for it : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652935#msg1652935 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652935#msg1652935)

"Every year the Sun is as long south of the Equator as he is north; and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being in consequence of the fact stated, -far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."

(http://i.imgur.com/fVcXqlu.jpg)

And now, something very interesting:

Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section of the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, was found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over A LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN TO BE AFLOAT."

(http://i.imgur.com/IRLLSmr.jpg)

If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?

On top of that:

(http://i.imgur.com/942qMP6.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 05:48:12 AM

 the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."


Sigh.

Rowbotham did not know the the rotating axis of the earth is tilted with respect to the sun.  Every 6 months the north pole is inclined away from the sun and 6 months later the north pole is inclined towards the Sun
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 06:20:36 AM
You mean this crap
How can you rely on theses map for anything.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Capricorn)
On the map of new holland in 1794 ? amazing

You are totally losing me again.

The tropic of capricorn is measureable with fairly simple equipment.   It is effectively a real line on the actual surface of the earth created by observing the directly overhead angle to the sun.   At all places further south than the tropic of capricorn the sun is never directly overhead at any time of the year.

You must be aware in a large part of australia, at only certain times of the year, the sun can be observed to be directly overhead??

The east west line where this begins is called the tropic of capricorn.

In principle the Aboriginals were aware of 'the tropic of capricorn of australia'  hundreds of thousands of years ago
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 08, 2015, 06:46:39 AM
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 08, 2015, 07:42:06 AM
Rayzor, what else could we expect of you REs, but parroting same phrases?

So an explanation for the astonishing flatness of the Suez Canal boils down to this:

>The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth<

Oddly, you haven't even tried to comment my "A huge iceberg" argument?

If you want to render your round-religion even more unbearable, read this:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925)

Aliveandkicking, this is for you:

1. No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever." Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659899#msg1659899)

2. Enter Airy

In 1871 G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Bošković. As already noted, if the experiment indeed would show a larger aberration then this hypothesis would have been logically and irrefutably verified. Its modus tollende tollens logic by denying the consequent would also definitely disprove the geocentric theory of an earth at rest. Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether. Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1661480#msg1661480)

3. Other experiments : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902)

Sigh!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 08, 2015, 08:07:26 AM
Cikljamas, in order to measure velocity then you need a frame of reference and if you are measuring the velocity of the Earth using the Earth as a frame of reference then of course you will get zero.  If you were on a car going 80 miles per hour on a strait road and there were no windows then from inside the car there would be no experiment you could do that would tell you how fast you are going.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 08:07:26 AM

Aliveandkicking, this is for you:

There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.

The facts should be describing the world rather than the opinions about it.
 
The same applies to the tropics either side of the equator.  They are observeable by an ordinary person regardless of whatever opinions might exist about them.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 08:38:28 AM
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 08:55:33 AM
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .

That map does not matter today. 

The tropic of capricorn is a simple observational reality that ordinary Australians experience every year by observing a tall objects shadow during sunlight.

If you are saying it does not exist then you should provide your reasons for saying that.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 08, 2015, 10:50:03 AM

Aliveandkicking, this is for you:

There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.

The facts should be describing the world rather than the opinions about it.
 
The same applies to the tropics either side of the equator.  They are observeable by an ordinary person regardless of whatever opinions might exist about them.

>There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.<

1. How could the sun cross New Zealand in northern arc at all, since the tropic of capricorn stays north from New Zealand all the time?

2. Look at this picture once again:
(http://i.imgur.com/XnbMMn9.jpg)

At that particular day (February 13 2012) the Sun sets at 0h 30m, and the Sun rises at 7,30...

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=2&year=2012 (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=2&year=2012)

In the third picture which shows the first glimpse of Sunrise you can even see the Full Moon. This is the sentence from that article (you can find it between second and third picture):

I drift back to sleep before the bright light of the morning wakes me a couple of hours later and I dig myself out of my sleeping bag to take a few snaps of the sun rising with the moon in the back drop.

So, if we see the Full Moon in front of us (at the exact place where the Sun has set a few hours ago) it means that in the moment of taking this picture, the Sun should be behind us.

Now, how can it be, how could he (the Sun) accomplish such a long journey in maximally 7 hours, having in mind that it should take 12 hours for carrying out such a (180 degrees) wide turn?

Beside that, at that very day, it should have been impossible to spot the Full Moon from that very position:

http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/antarctica/casey?year=2012 (http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/antarctica/casey?year=2012)

3. Since you have refered to what ordinary people know (if they were prepared to believe to their senses), i would like to see your own comment on this:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)

Or you are not ready (not any more) to believe in your own common sense and your senses?

4. What your common sense has to say on this:

And now, something very interesting:

Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section of the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, was found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over A LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN TO BE AFLOAT."

(http://i.imgur.com/IRLLSmr.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/OPE0xf1.jpg)

If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?

On top of that:

(http://i.imgur.com/942qMP6.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 08, 2015, 10:58:32 AM
There is no point in refuting your arguments because you never read what we post.  I can easily refute what you are saying but until you learn how to read I am not going to because there is no point.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 08, 2015, 11:08:20 AM
There is no point in refuting your arguments because you never read what we post.  I can easily refute what you are saying but until you learn how to read I am not going to because there is no point.

You can easily fuck Sharon Stone, also, but you don't want to, is that right? Don't worry, you can always dream of doing it. At least, you won't get any disease.  ;)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 11:10:38 AM

Aliveandkicking, this is for you:

There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.

The facts should be describing the world rather than the opinions about it.
 
The same applies to the tropics either side of the equator.  They are observeable by an ordinary person regardless of whatever opinions might exist about them.

>There is no need for any man made complexity to know what ordinary people know of the summertime sun setting and rising in the southwest in the most southerly parts of the world.<

1. How could the sun cross New Zealand in northern arc at all, since the tropic of capricorn stays north from New Zealand all the time?

2. Look at this picture once again:
(http://i.imgur.com/XnbMMn9.jpg)

At that particular day (February 13 2012) the Sun sets at 0h 30m, and the Sun rises at 7,30...

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=2&year=2012 (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/casey?month=2&year=2012)

In the third picture which shows the first glimpse of Sunrise you can even see the Full Moon. This is the sentence from that article (you can find it between second and third picture):

I drift back to sleep before the bright light of the morning wakes me a couple of hours later and I dig myself out of my sleeping bag to take a few snaps of the sun rising with the moon in the back drop.

So, if we see the Full Moon in front of us (at the exact place where the Sun has set a few hours ago) it means that in the moment of taking this picture, the Sun should be behind us.

Now, how can it be, how could he (the Sun) accomplish such a long journey in maximally 7 hours, having in mind that it should take 12 hours for carrying out such a (180 degrees) wide turn?

Beside that, at that very day, it should have been impossible to spot the Full Moon from that very position:

http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/antarctica/casey?year=2012 (http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/antarctica/casey?year=2012)

3. Since you have refered to what ordinary people know (if they were prepared to believe to their senses), i would like to see your own comment on this:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)

Or you are not ready (not any more) to believe in your own common sense and your senses?

4. What your common sense has to say on this:

And now, something very interesting:

Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section of the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, was found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over A LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN TO BE AFLOAT."

(http://i.imgur.com/IRLLSmr.jpg)

If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?

On top of that:

(http://i.imgur.com/942qMP6.jpg)



1. In summer the sun is north of new zealand for most of the journey across the sky so that is what you see - a northern arc.   It is only at the beginning and end of the journey that the sun is not north of NZ.   However  I cannot understand why you asked that question so you need to put a bit more flesh on why you would not expect a northern arc for looking at a northern object

2. As i mentioned before (and then forgot) your pictures are from near Neko harbour 100miles from casey.   It seems we both got muddled up when i said the three pictures could be from the same camera position.  The first picture is out of sequence i think because it shows the station whereas the others are said to be at paradise bay.

https://neverstoptravelling.wordpress.com/category/antarctica/ (https://neverstoptravelling.wordpress.com/category/antarctica/)

To begin with they are at this Antarctic station which is shown in the first picture you showed:

https://www.google.com/maps/@-64.8959504,-62.8704972,291m/data= (https://www.google.com/maps/@-64.8959504,-62.8704972,291m/data=)!3m1!1e3

In the final moon picture, the sun is shining on that distant mountain so the sun must be behind or nearly behind the observer?

(https://neverstoptravelling.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/img_5401.jpg?w=1200&h=672)

3. I do not understand why during a polar day you will see a reversal of the Sun if the earth rotates.   If you are on a rotating disk going around once per minute the sun appears to rotate around you in a continuous motion.  That is more or less what you experience during polar day.  The rotating earth is however at an angle to the sun so you go up and down and the sun appears to go up and down while remaining visible *if you kept turning your body to keep looking at it*

4. >>If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Whoever wrote that text is very muddled up.  The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together

same goes for the suez canal text.   The writer is very muddled up. 

Anyway at this point in time i do not want to distract from this southern sun thread
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 08, 2015, 01:29:18 PM
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain) is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

2. I would say that these 100 miles don't make significant difference regarding main part of my analysis.

3. Didn't i tell you that you were going to lose you common sense, suddenly and completely?

All i can do is to quote these words of an honest man again:

Quote
Well, it has been quite a while since i visited this forum last time, and now i have to admit it gives me a great pleasure to read private messages like this:

 
Quote
I was looking for some stationary Earth proofs on youtube and came across your "zig-zag" explanation that although looked weird at first sight, after a little bit thinking became so obvious that I felt really bad for not noticing it before by myself.
  Next thing I was here on this forum and registered just to say - thank you ... for opening my eyes and giving me (and probably the whole world if they only want to see) proof for something that always felt wrong ...

    With hope that my english was not too confusing,
    best regards and greetings from Serbia

    Goran


THANKS GORAN!!!

4. >Whoever wrote that text is very muddled up.  The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together<

Really now? The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together? Whoever said that, urgently needs medical help!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 08, 2015, 01:38:31 PM
There is no point in refuting your arguments because you never read what we post.  I can easily refute what you are saying but until you learn how to read I am not going to because there is no point.

You can easily fuck Sharon Stone, also, but you don't want to, is that right? Don't worry, you can always dream of doing it. At least, you won't get any disease.  ;)

Ummm...  What?

I guess I shouldn't be too too suppressed to see a post like this from you, everything you post is equally as nonsensical and illogical.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 08, 2015, 02:02:40 PM
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain) is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

2. I would say that these 100 miles don't make significant difference regarding main part of my analysis.

3. Didn't i tell you that you were going to lose you common sense, suddenly and completely?

All i can do is to quote these words of an honest man again:

Quote
Well, it has been quite a while since i visited this forum last time, and now i have to admit it gives me a great pleasure to read private messages like this:

 
Quote
I was looking for some stationary Earth proofs on youtube and came across your "zig-zag" explanation that although looked weird at first sight, after a little bit thinking became so obvious that I felt really bad for not noticing it before by myself.
  Next thing I was here on this forum and registered just to say - thank you ... for opening my eyes and giving me (and probably the whole world if they only want to see) proof for something that always felt wrong ...

    With hope that my english was not too confusing,
    best regards and greetings from Serbia

    Goran


THANKS GORAN!!!

4. >Whoever wrote that text is very muddled up.  The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together<

Really now? The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together? Whoever said that, urgently needs medical help!

I am spending hours and hours producing answers for you which you are not even reading and you began by calling me a liar.

The Sun is behind the observer in the picture you say is impossible

If you have so much faith you are right that you dont even need to read my replies, and want to play endless games of diverting this thread from the topic you began with,  then i can do no more
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 04:01:39 PM
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .

That map does not matter today. 

The tropic of capricorn is a simple observational reality that ordinary Australians experience every year by observing a tall objects shadow during sunlight.

If you are saying it does not exist then you should provide your reasons for saying that.
It does matter, it proves they simple guessed  before any  conformation . It would be the same as marking an internal  boundary on a map you  haven't  surveyed.  Now please explane how the sun after being seen seting south west, can travel back north to be seem setting west 4 hours later.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 08, 2015, 05:07:14 PM
Simple, the sun can be seen form 300 degrees of earths rotation.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 05:34:18 PM
Simple, the sun can be seen form 300 degrees of earths rotation.
When its setting .?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 08, 2015, 06:03:43 PM
Just imagine the sun in the video setting for 4 hours. This isn't rocket science.
(http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 06:38:46 PM
Just imagine the sun in the video setting for 4 hours. This isn't rocket science.
https://youtube.com/devicesupport (http://#ws)
No its shit talking shill talk.  Ever heard of mountainous hilly land mass being in the way , to make it imposible to see the sun set south west at stkilda bay beach , then 4 hours later see the sun set west at darwin & broome.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 08, 2015, 07:02:30 PM
Just imagine the sun in the video setting for 4 hours. This isn't rocket science.
https://youtube.com/devicesupport (http://#ws)
No its shit talking shill talk.  Ever heard of mountainous hilly land mass being in the way , to make it imposible to see the sun set south west at stkilda bay beach , then 4 hours later see the sun set west at darwin & broome.

No it's pretty normal.   RIght now it's  11:54 EST   and the sun is overhead, but it's overcast and drizzle,  so I can't give you an exact angle,  but, right at this minute it's 9:54am,  someone in Perth can look up and see the same sun,  just a bit lower in the sky.   Sunset is around  5:30 tonight,  So when the sun is setting in Melbourne,  it will be  3:30 in Perth, and sunset in Perth will be two hours later at 5:32.   No magic.
I could get exact directions to the setting sun if you need it.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 08, 2015, 07:06:11 PM
Just imagine the sun in the video setting for 4 hours. This isn't rocket science.
https://youtube.com/devicesupport (http://#ws)
No its shit talking shill talk.  Ever heard of mountainous hilly land mass being in the way , to make it imposible to see the sun set south west at stkilda bay beach , then 4 hours later see the sun set west at darwin & broome.

Hmm, after looking into google street images, other side of the bay form the vantage of the picture you lied about earlier is rather flat and pretty far away.  Like I said earlier.  This picture alone shows the sun setting to the west, verified by looking at the orientation of the St. Kilda Pavillion in the picture.  This means they were facing down the pier almost due West, the sun is a bit South but very near the horizon.  There are buildings between the sun and the vantage point about 12 miles away that should, if the Earth was flat, be casting shadows.  Instead the buildings are not very tall and they are over the round Earth horizon. 
Stop destroying yourself please.  Also how do you let an American tell you more about your country than you know anyway? 
But, even though, I can use google street view to look into every where I have ever been that they have covered, and verify those to be correct.  I have to make this one assumption.  That it is correct for that area also.  Which is actually a much smaller assumption than assuming it isn't correct as every test sample I have made with using google street view has been correct and there have been literally thousands of times i have used it.  To find houses I was looking for to install satellites, to look at houses that i was thinking about buying before I went to them, to just screw around to see decent beach spots to take my family to, etc.  So I believe my assumption that google is correct has much more validity than your assumption that google is not correct. 
I am sure you can find me one or two incorrect instances of google maps, but I bet you you cannot find even 1% of the ones I have found that were correct.  No worries though, I do have some friends that do travel to Melborne from time to time, I will ask one of them to verify the St. Kilda Pavilion for me.  Unless someone else on here would like to do so.

So for now, charles will go back into my little book of confused people who do not understand much about science and therefore is scared of it.  Good day sir.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 08, 2015, 07:34:16 PM

I am sure you can find me one or two incorrect instances of google maps, but I bet you you cannot find even 1% of the ones I have found that were correct.  No worries though, I do have some friends that do travel to Melborne from time to time, I will ask one of them to verify the St. Kilda Pavilion for me.  Unless someone else on here would like to do so.

So for now, charles will go back into my little book of confused people who do not understand much about science and therefore is scared of it.  Good day sir.

Beach views from Elwood webcams http://www.elwoodsc.com/blog/?p=502 (http://www.elwoodsc.com/blog/?p=502)
West Beach Pavillion webcam http://www.westbeachstkilda.com.au/ (http://www.westbeachstkilda.com.au/)   Scroll down a little for the live view.

Next time I'm down that way I'll take some pictures for you,   summertime topless season is probably best.   ( although taking pictures might get me arrested )  ;D

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 08, 2015, 07:51:09 PM
I was googling for Melbourne webcams with views of Port Philip Bay, when I check the Sandringham Yacht Club webcam.   If that picture doesn't convince you the earth is round I don't know what would.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/905/mJ8k6j.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 07:59:59 PM
I was googling for Melbourne webcams with views of Port Philip Bay, when I check the Sandringham Yacht Club webcam.   If that picture doesn't convince you the earth is round I don't know what would.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/905/mJ8k6j.jpg)
Your getting more desperate &  pathetic  by the day . Must be hard being big brothers bitch .
Fish eye lense
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 08, 2015, 08:05:49 PM

Your getting more desperate &  pathetic  by the day . Must be hard being big brothers bitch .
Fish eye lense

It was funny,  sorry you didn't get it.   You do realise they installed the camera upside down,  or forgot to flip the image during the capture process.

You have no sense of humor.  You need to back off and relax.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 08, 2015, 08:16:12 PM
LMAO, immediately without understanding what he was actually looking at, he went to the old standby of fish eye lens.
you say people should think for themselves, you should start to actually think there charles.
Man you get worse at this as time goes by.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 08, 2015, 08:41:13 PM
LMAO, immediately without understanding what he was actually looking at, he went to the old standby of fish eye lens.
you say people should think for themselves, you should start to actually think there charles.
Man you get worse at this as time goes by.

It's funny and sad at the same time,  that's almost the very definition of pathos,  and he calls me pathetic.   Now, what's the betting he comes back with even more insults. 

Go ahead charles,  let's hear those insults, tell us all how stupid and deluded you really are.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 09:58:47 PM
LMAO, immediately without understanding what he was actually looking at, he went to the old standby of fish eye lens.
you say people should think for themselves, you should start to actually think there charles.
Man you get worse at this as time goes by.

It's funny and sad at the same time,  that's almost the very definition of pathos,  and he calls me pathetic.   Now, what's the betting he comes back with even more insults. 

Go ahead charles,  let's hear those insults, tell us all how stupid and deluded you really are.
What !!!,you don't think  I knew what I was looking at . Lol you have just givein away .One of NASA famous  favorite trick in photography the upside down photo  . Oh look a satalite photo of earth from space . See how high we are above the earth. Lol .Well at lest I know your not a NASA stooge.  :)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 10:10:15 PM
Oh & I thought you would of caught on about the fish eye lense . Because that all NASA do then blaken the water in the photo.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 08, 2015, 10:13:50 PM
LOL, look at you failing to come up with a proper comeback, its so cute.
No that looks nothing like the pictures from orbit.  Much like the moon looks nothing like the Arctic or Antarctic, but with photo analysis chops like you have, I bet a picture of Elmo would make you think aliens were invading.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 08, 2015, 10:19:33 PM
Oh & I thought you would of caught on about the fish eye lense . Because that all NASA do then blaken the water in the photo.

Here's a direct link, to the Sandringham Yacht Club webcam  http://www.syc.com.au/weather/webcam/ (http://www.syc.com.au/weather/webcam/)   You have fish eye lenses on the brain.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 10:30:23 PM
LOL, look at you failing to come up with a proper comeback, its so cute.
No that looks nothing like the pictures from orbit.  Much like the moon looks nothing like the Arctic or Antarctic, but with photo analysis chops like you have, I bet a picture of Elmo would make you think aliens were invading.
Its not a comeback , its what NASA been doing for years. Fish eye lenses & blackening out the water . If the photo is taken in the right light, you even get the lovely blueish contrast happning  at the horizon. Black & whites even more convincing .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 08, 2015, 11:01:20 PM
NASA's favorite trick photography?  More conspiracy garbage.  Yes it is garbage.  So you lie about one photo of what direction it was facing, even though you didn't know what direction it was facing since you did not take it and did not even bother to do any research about the photo.  Then I am to take your word for photographic manipulation?  Which you solely base on a conspiracy angle that makes no sense.
Since you obviously are not any bit of an authority on anything from what I see, your explanation of what the moon is is laughable, your debating skills are poor, I am figuring out that you are also one of those people who have to feel like some unsung hero of the fight against the conspiracy also.  Complete and utter fabrication of details is what we normally call lies.   Lies are not what a hero trades in.  So next time you decide to step out here in the debate section, lets do some research and try to drop the "I'm a rebel hero" mindset.  Not everyone is out to get you, there are not government cameras that have been placed in your house to spy on you, and there are not teams of government people who are reading your emails. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 11:17:49 PM
How dare !!!!!you mock me , you genital wart .you sweaty ball sack shill of shill's & dill of dill's .Could you be any more borring then you all ready are. Be gone with you , before for your castrated with a sharp tongue lashing.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 08, 2015, 11:23:49 PM
You misspelled boring.  And your punctuation is all wrong. 
Also your anger is still showing.
You are not as fun as the racist troll, but I may make time for you.
BTW, you have to have a higher intelligence level to actually do any verbal lashing that means anything more than "well, well, your stupid"
I await your best efforts though and wish you luck.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 08, 2015, 11:28:57 PM
You misspelled boring.  And your punctuation is all wrong. 
Also your anger is still showing.
You are not as fun as the racist troll, but I may make time for you.
BTW, you have to have a higher intelligence level to actually do any verbal lashing that means anything more than "well, well, your stupid"
I await your best efforts though and wish you luck.
I will take  your word for it .You being an expert on boring & a nasty little grub at that.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 08, 2015, 11:39:27 PM
Nope, not your best.  Try harder, that was hardly worth a response.
Or we could just go on with discussing things like adults.  Still your choice at this point.
The only reason I even poked a little fun at you is because I knew what your response would be.  Would you care to cut your strings now and go back to reasonable discussions?  Or do you wish for me to make you dance more?  Here are the scissors.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 09, 2015, 12:10:18 AM
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .

That map does not matter today. 

The tropic of capricorn is a simple observational reality that ordinary Australians experience every year by observing a tall objects shadow during sunlight.

If you are saying it does not exist then you should provide your reasons for saying that.
It does matter, it proves they simple guessed  before any  conformation . It would be the same as marking an internal  boundary on a map you  haven't  surveyed.  Now please explane how the sun after being seen seting south west, can travel back north to be seem setting west 4 hours later.

I already explained this in some detail.  I mentioned the tropic of capricorn and you objected to that.  And now we are going around in what seems to be an endless game of objection for no purpose.

Any ordinary person can observe the tropic of capricorn just by observing shadows

Anybody in Australia should be aware the sun is directly overhead in some places at some times of the year.   What is the problem?

We are talking about a very very simple observation that anybody can do and you are objecting to it.     
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 09, 2015, 02:19:59 AM
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .

That map does not matter today. 

The tropic of capricorn is a simple observational reality that ordinary Australians experience every year by observing a tall objects shadow during sunlight.

If you are saying it does not exist then you should provide your reasons for saying that.
It does matter, it proves they simple guessed  before any  conformation . It would be the same as marking an internal  boundary on a map you  haven't  surveyed.  Now please explane how the sun after being seen seting south west, can travel back north to be seem setting west 4 hours later.

I already explained this in some detail.  I mentioned the tropic of capricorn and you objected to that.  And now we are going around in what seems to be an endless game of objection for no purpose.

Any ordinary person can observe the tropic of capricorn just by observing shadows

Anybody in Australia should be aware the sun is directly overhead in some places at some times of the year.   What is the problem?

We are talking about a very very simple observation that anybody can do and you are objecting to it.   
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin. 
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 09, 2015, 02:55:10 AM
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .

That map does not matter today. 

The tropic of capricorn is a simple observational reality that ordinary Australians experience every year by observing a tall objects shadow during sunlight.

If you are saying it does not exist then you should provide your reasons for saying that.
It does matter, it proves they simple guessed  before any  conformation . It would be the same as marking an internal  boundary on a map you  haven't  surveyed.  Now please explane how the sun after being seen seting south west, can travel back north to be seem setting west 4 hours later.

I already explained this in some detail.  I mentioned the tropic of capricorn and you objected to that.  And now we are going around in what seems to be an endless game of objection for no purpose.

Any ordinary person can observe the tropic of capricorn just by observing shadows

Anybody in Australia should be aware the sun is directly overhead in some places at some times of the year.   What is the problem?

We are talking about a very very simple observation that anybody can do and you are objecting to it.   
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin. 
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.

Drawing lines on a piece of paper is not going to help you understand the tropic of capricorn.

You seem though to be just fucking with me for no purpose at all.  So well done you had some fun at my expense. I suffered and you enjoyed it.   Congratulations.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 09, 2015, 03:39:20 AM
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .

That map does not matter today. 

The tropic of capricorn is a simple observational reality that ordinary Australians experience every year by observing a tall objects shadow during sunlight.

If you are saying it does not exist then you should provide your reasons for saying that.
It does matter, it proves they simple guessed  before any  conformation . It would be the same as marking an internal  boundary on a map you  haven't  surveyed.  Now please explane how the sun after being seen seting south west, can travel back north to be seem setting west 4 hours later.

I already explained this in some detail.  I mentioned the tropic of capricorn and you objected to that.  And now we are going around in what seems to be an endless game of objection for no purpose.

Any ordinary person can observe the tropic of capricorn just by observing shadows

Anybody in Australia should be aware the sun is directly overhead in some places at some times of the year.   What is the problem?

We are talking about a very very simple observation that anybody can do and you are objecting to it.   
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin. 
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.

Drawing lines on a piece of paper is not going to help you understand the tropic of capricorn.

You seem though to be just fucking with me for no purpose at all.  So well done you had some fun at my expense. I suffered and you enjoyed it.   Congratulations.
I'm not fucking with anyone . What is claimed does not work out . Draw it on the map. Have someone in stkilda ,broome & darwin confirm . The directions of the sun sets on the same day.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 09, 2015, 03:52:23 AM
Gezz so they managed to pencil in the tropic of Capricorn neatly on the map of  new holland (australia) in1794 . but haven't figured out van diemans  land (Tasmanian) was not attached to the main land .  ::) yer right lol

They were smart enough to know the earth was a globe many years before that.   The Tropics were well known back in the days of the Spanish explorers.   What hadn't been mapped was Australia,  at least not much prior to Captain Cook.  Australia's coastline wasn't mapped properly till Flinders came along, and it was him who confirmed Van Diemens Land was an Island.

What's with all the Rowbotham quotes?  Don't tell me we are going to have to debate the discredited Rowbotham all over again.   He makes stuff up as he goes, and then calls it fact,  a bit like Heiwa.
At least start a new thread.   BTW The Suez canal curves with the surface of the earth, just like you would expect.
Well that makes a lot of sense .Not , if they hadn't maped New Holland ,Then they just made up a location for the line .

That map does not matter today. 

The tropic of capricorn is a simple observational reality that ordinary Australians experience every year by observing a tall objects shadow during sunlight.

If you are saying it does not exist then you should provide your reasons for saying that.
It does matter, it proves they simple guessed  before any  conformation . It would be the same as marking an internal  boundary on a map you  haven't  surveyed.  Now please explane how the sun after being seen seting south west, can travel back north to be seem setting west 4 hours later.

I already explained this in some detail.  I mentioned the tropic of capricorn and you objected to that.  And now we are going around in what seems to be an endless game of objection for no purpose.

Any ordinary person can observe the tropic of capricorn just by observing shadows

Anybody in Australia should be aware the sun is directly overhead in some places at some times of the year.   What is the problem?

We are talking about a very very simple observation that anybody can do and you are objecting to it.   
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin. 
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.

Drawing lines on a piece of paper is not going to help you understand the tropic of capricorn.

You seem though to be just fucking with me for no purpose at all.  So well done you had some fun at my expense. I suffered and you enjoyed it.   Congratulations.
I'm not fucking with anyone . What is claimed does not work out . Draw it on the map. Have someone in stkilda ,broome & darwin confirm . The directions of the sun sets on the same day.

I would not ask you show me how a flat earth behaves by demanding you draw lines on a ball

So why are you demanding I draw lines on a flat surface to show how a round world behaves??

I am telling you that if you want to understand why we believe what we believe you need to allow the tropic of capricorn to exist.

Even if you still believe the world is flat the tropic is just a simple observation of what we see from earth.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 09, 2015, 03:55:30 AM
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain) is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

2. I would say that these 100 miles don't make significant difference regarding main part of my analysis.

3. Didn't i tell you that you were going to lose you common sense, suddenly and completely?

All i can do is to quote these words of an honest man again:

Quote
Well, it has been quite a while since i visited this forum last time, and now i have to admit it gives me a great pleasure to read private messages like this:

 
Quote
I was looking for some stationary Earth proofs on youtube and came across your "zig-zag" explanation that although looked weird at first sight, after a little bit thinking became so obvious that I felt really bad for not noticing it before by myself.
  Next thing I was here on this forum and registered just to say - thank you ... for opening my eyes and giving me (and probably the whole world if they only want to see) proof for something that always felt wrong ...

    With hope that my english was not too confusing,
    best regards and greetings from Serbia

    Goran


THANKS GORAN!!!

4. >Whoever wrote that text is very muddled up.  The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together<

Really now? The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together? Whoever said that, urgently needs medical help!

As for the sentence written with red letters:

(http://i.imgur.com/alMSBHZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yfR9chn.jpg)

As for the sentence written with blue letters:

1. Some time since, it was a common practice amongst surveyors, and men laying out canals and railways to allow 8 inches for every mile, for the consideration of the convexity of the surface of the earth. It was supposed that if this were not done, the water in the canal would not remain stationary.

It has, however, since been discovered that things are more satisfactory when the allowance of 8 inches to the mile is not permitted to enter into the calculations at all
; in fact in those cases where an allowance is made, every thing turns out most unsatisfactory.

The allowing then for convexity, or what was called by engineers "forward levelling," has given way to the method of "back-and-fore" sight", or "double sight,", where no allowance whatever is made for convexity.

Those who argue in favor of the earth's surface being a plane, point proudly to the fact that all the most practical scientific men of the day totally disregard the sphericity of the earth's surface, and regard it, for all practical purposes, as if it were a plane.

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

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


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

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

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

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

3. On top of that: http://www.energeticforum.com/269599-post626.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/269599-post626.html)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 09, 2015, 03:57:43 AM
Quote
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain), it is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

2. I would say that these 100 miles don't make significant difference regarding main part of my analysis.

3. Didn't i tell you that you were going to lose you common sense, suddenly and completely?

All i can do is to quote these words of an honest man again:

Quote
Well, it has been quite a while since i visited this forum last time, and now i have to admit it gives me a great pleasure to read private messages like this:

 
Quote
I was looking for some stationary Earth proofs on youtube and came across your "zig-zag" explanation that although looked weird at first sight, after a little bit thinking became so obvious that I felt really bad for not noticing it before by myself.
  Next thing I was here on this forum and registered just to say - thank you ... for opening my eyes and giving me (and probably the whole world if they only want to see) proof for something that always felt wrong ...

    With hope that my english was not too confusing,
    best regards and greetings from Serbia

    Goran


THANKS GORAN!!!

4. >Whoever wrote that text is very muddled up.  The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together<

Really now? The iceberg is no different to millions of ships all connected together? Whoever said that, urgently needs medical help!

As for the sentence written with red letters:

(http://i.imgur.com/alMSBHZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yfR9chn.jpg)

As for the sentence written with blue letters:

1. Some time since, it was a common practice amongst surveyors, and men laying out canals and railways to allow 8 inches for every mile, for the consideration of the convexity of the surface of the earth. It was supposed that if this were not done, the water in the canal would not remain stationary.

It has, however, since been discovered that things are more satisfactory when the allowance of 8 inches to the mile is not permitted to enter into the calculations at all
; in fact in those cases where an allowance is made, every thing turns out most unsatisfactory.

The allowing then for convexity, or what was called by engineers "forward levelling," has given way to the method of "back-and-fore" sight", or "double sight,", where no allowance whatever is made for convexity.

Those who argue in favor of the earth's surface being a plane, point proudly to the fact that all the most practical scientific men of the day totally disregard the sphericity of the earth's surface, and regard it, for all practical purposes, as if it were a plane.

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

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


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

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

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

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

3. On top of that: http://www.energeticforum.com/269599-post626.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/269599-post626.html)

Now, how about this:

Polaris has been seen as far south as the tropic of Capricorn. I am given to understand that, in the "Naval and Military Intelligence" of the Times, of 13th May, 1862, it is distinctly stated that Captain Wilkins distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the Polar Star at midnight, in 23,53 degrees South lat., and 35,46 longitude. It would seem therefore, that this fact, with reference to the Polar Star being visible below the equator at such a distance, might form a strong argument against the rotundity of the earth.

(http://www.zaslike.com/files/zqumw2ph80a6jojd60y.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 09, 2015, 04:04:40 AM
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 09, 2015, 04:11:40 AM
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Mikey, just look at the evidence, and if you have to say something constructive and sanely, feel free to spell it out...since you like very much my copy pasta technique, voila, just for you:

Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section of the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, was found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over A LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN TO BE AFLOAT."

(http://i.imgur.com/IRLLSmr.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/OPE0xf1.jpg)

If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?

On top of that:

(http://i.imgur.com/942qMP6.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 09, 2015, 04:11:58 AM
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 09, 2015, 04:18:21 AM
Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

Still nothing?????????

So, who is a troll here?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 09, 2015, 04:27:46 AM
Well I will poke at cik from time to time, but he is in the same category as JRowe in not listening to anything but his own drivel, but cik then happily begins jacking off to what only he perceived as a victory.  Have you ever read his zig zag argument.  Funniest thing I have read in quite some time.
Do I try to discuss things with cik, no I get a better conversation talking to my dog.  The responses are vastly more intelligent.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 09, 2015, 04:36:05 AM
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...

(http://i.imgur.com/HuGXhT7.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/AjurZ1a.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/rrI1Jbr.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/zW2c9sq.jpg)
(http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 09, 2015, 04:37:01 AM
Well I will poke at cik from time to time, but he is in the same category as JRowe in not listening to anything but his own drivel, but cik then happily begins jacking off to what only he perceived as a victory.  Have you ever read his zig zag argument.  Funniest thing I have read in quite some time.
Do I try to discuss things with cik, no I get a better conversation talking to my dog.  The responses are vastly more intelligent.

The whole thing is a bit crazy.    Why go to the trouble of putting neat lines on gleasons flat earth map of the world and just keep on going for days and days when the only purpose is to fuck with peoples minds?

The whole thing is beyond me to understand
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 09, 2015, 04:59:29 AM
The whole thing is a bit crazy.    Why go to the trouble of putting neat lines on gleasons flat earth map of the world and just keep on going for days and days when the only purpose is to fuck with peoples minds?

The whole thing is beyond me to understand

You are right, someone is fucking with people's minds, only the question is: Who is fucking with whoes minds?

Maybe this can help you to figure it out: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 09, 2015, 05:33:11 AM
Well I will poke at cik from time to time, but he is in the same category as JRowe in not listening to anything but his own drivel, but cik then happily begins jacking off to what only he perceived as a victory. Have you ever read his zig zag argument.  Funniest thing I have read in quite some time.
Do I try to discuss things with cik, no I get a better conversation talking to my dog.  The responses are vastly more intelligent.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 09, 2015, 07:23:52 AM
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
(http://)

I'd believe your cat has the brains in your family,  do you seriously NOT see the flaws in that video.   What he calls a hot spot is reflection off the clouds,  you can see the exact same  thing from a plane. 
The relationship between the earth and the sun, don't change as the camera moves around, but in his model they do,  so he has no understanding of optics and perspective.

It reminds me of that Eric Dubay video where the sun is shining through the clouds and the rays of sunlight are at angle, and he mistakes this for the sun being really close, and just  above the clouds.
Some people have no clue.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 09, 2015, 08:14:38 AM
Now, how about this:

Polaris has been seen as far south as the tropic of Capricorn. I am given to understand that, in the "Naval and Military Intelligence" of the Times, of 13th May, 1862, it is distinctly stated that Captain Wilkins distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the Polar Star at midnight, in 23,53 degrees South lat., and 35,46 longitude. It would seem therefore, that this fact, with reference to the Polar Star being visible below the equator at such a distance, might form a strong argument against the rotundity of the earth.

(http://www.zaslike.com/files/zqumw2ph80a6jojd60y.jpg)
Fixed that for you.  Cpt. Wilkins did not state it was 'South'.  What he saw is possible from 23,53 north.  If it were possible from 23.53 south, can you find any other evidence of it?

If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!

Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?
Quite simple.  The ice sheet also curves with the ocean's curvature.


Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

Still nothing?????????

So, who is a troll here?
You are the troll (or have horrible reading comprehension.  Perhaps other issues).  The picture had been addressed earlier, but I'll explain further. 

On a round-Earth, the sun would appear north at that northern latitude at midnight.  There is no issue with what is seen in the picture.  At midnight the sun would be on the opposite side of the arctic circle from their location, which means the photographer would be looking north toward both it and the north pole at midnight.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 09, 2015, 11:29:49 AM
Why would 117 days without sun be longer than 112 days at a slightly higher northern latitude in Norway? Cast your mind back to the Equation of Time discussions some months ago. You were asserting (correctly) that the Earth is closest to the Sun near the southern solstice, and (incorrectly) that the southern hemisphere should be broiling. Remember that? Well, the reply was (also correctly) that, because the Earth is closest to the Sun then, it's also moving fastest in its orbit at the same time, so (again correctly) the southern summer is slightly shorter than the northern one. Remember?

It would be better for you to skip that part (The equation of time), and you know why. Do i have to remind you? Because you asked for it : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652935#msg1652935 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1652935#msg1652935)
Ah, yes. If you read the follow-up posts, you can see where your points are shown to be wrong, or were just abandoned. Why do you want people to look at this old stuff? It makes you look bad. Are you hoping they'll just look at the post you think is clever and insightful without bothering to look at the the follow-up that shows exactly where it's wrong?

Quote
"Every year the Sun is as long south of the Equator as he is north[citation needed];
You say this. Doing so doesn't make it true.

Can you go to a reliable source for the dates of a few March and September equinoxes in succession and determine the number of days between each, then report back here? Are the numbers of days between the equinoxes equal? If you would be so kind, please provide the source for the information (and whether it was cross-checked with other sources if you're suspicious), the dates of each equinox (and time in UTC if available), and the number of days between succeeding equinoxes. I'll wait for your answer. If you have Microsoft Excel available, it's really good at things like this; type in the dates (and times if you have them) in a format Excel recognizes as a date (and time), then subtract the earlier one from the later and display the result as a number - you will get the number of days (and fraction of a day, if you provided times) as the result! Easier and less error-prone than counting days!

Quote
and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being in consequence of the fact stated, -far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."

<More incorrect stuff from Rowbotham> http://i.imgur.com/fVcXqlu.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/fVcXqlu.jpg)
The basic premise of the text in the link is that some physical characteristics of New Zealand and England should be equivalent since they are at about the same latitudes in opposite hemispheres. The text claims that, but it's is wrong. All of England is further from the Equator than The most southerly points of the major islands of New Zealand. No part of the main islands of New Zealand, or even Stewart Island, are as far south as 50° South Latitude. Very little of England is less than 50° North Latitude, and the parts that are are just barely less than 50° N.  As usual, Mr. Rowbotham is either lying or simply mistaken. We'll probably never know which of these is right, but at this point it hardly matters. What does matter is that you cannot rely on anything he says as fact.

Anecdotal reports like those quoted here are of little to no value, even if they were factually correct. Rowbotham's florid language claims that New Zealand receives significantly less sunlight over the year than England does. Do you have any evidence to back that up? If so, let's see it. If not, why do you believe the claim?

Rowbotham asks "What can cause the twilight in New Zealand to be much more sudden, or the nights so much colder than England?" There are no details about how much is "much more sudden", so this statement is of little value. The North Island extends as far north as 34° South latitude, significantly closer to the Equator than England is, despite Rowbotham's claims otherwise. Twilight is shorter at lower latitude, so no surprise there. There is no quantitative data about how much shorter the twilight is in New Zealand, or where this observation is made, just the usual hand waving.

How much colder are the nights? Where are the comparisons being made? Parts of New Zealand are quite mountainous - far more than England, and it's well known that temperatures are lower at higher elevations, and well understood why. Probably more pertinent is the fact that climate is not dependent only on latitude; the real world is far more interesting than that. England is warmed by the Gulf Stream (a large-scale ocean current carrying warm, tropical, water northward); no warm current of that scale exists in the southern hemisphere. New Zealand is cooled by the Antarctic Current (a large-scale ocean current that circulates cold polar waters to lower latitudes), similarly absent from the Northern Hemisphere. This is just more anecdotal blather.

Quote
And now, something very interesting:

Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section of the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, was found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over A LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN TO BE AFLOAT."

(http://i.imgur.com/IRLLSmr.jpg)

If the earth were round, so that the Sea "Level" follows the curvature of the Earth, then at each end of an iceberg of such gigantic proportions (160 miles in diameter) we would be able to measure 5120 m high  ice-cliff, while in the middle of an iceberg the height difference between the Sea "Level" and the top of an iceberg would be just 1 meter!!!!
What's really interesting is how you manage to misunderstand or misrepresent the obvious.

Why do you presume the top of the iceberg is a straight line? The top of the iceberg will be a constant few meters above the sea level curve if it's as uniform as described. Your "Datum Line" is spurious, too. What do you think it represents in the real world? Meaningful datums are more or less concentric with sea level, so your 5120-meter assertion is simply a misconception on your part. A level plain has a constant elevation above sea level or similar equipotential datum (hint: these are curved); it's not a straight line or geometric plane (note the different spelling).

Don't you ever read and try to understand any responses to your posts? It appears not. Maybe someone does, so all is not lost even if you are.

Quote
Can anyone comprehend such an absurdity?
I really can't comprehend why you continue to struggle with this. You must want to misunderstand, but I can't comprehend why. Does it make you feel empowered or something to argue contrary to obvious fact?

Quote
On top of that:

http://i.imgur.com/942qMP6.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/942qMP6.jpg)
The "Datum Horizontal Line" is explained in the text as a constant elevation 26 feet below the [mean] level of the Mediterranean. Thus it's a constant 26 feet (approximately) below the surface of the water in the Suez Canal since the mean level of the surface of the Red Sea is within half a foot of the Med. Since the datum is a constant distance from sea level and sea level follows the curvature of the Earth, the datum line is also curved and concentric with sea level. This is pretty basic stuff. The text is insisting that this datum is a straight line in real life and arriving at a conclusion based on that assumption. The assumption is wrong, so the conclusion is wrong. This reads like more of Mr. Rowbotham's nonsense, so no surprise there.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 09, 2015, 11:38:43 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/SPSWsui.jpg)

The two basic types of iceberg forms are tabular and non-tabular. Tabular icebergs have steep sides and a flat top, much like a plateau, with a length-to-height ratio of more than 5:1.[12] This type of iceberg, also known as an ice island,[13] can be quite large, as in the case of Pobeda Ice Island. Antarctic icebergs formed by breaking off from an ice shelf, such as the Ross Ice Shelf or Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf, are typically tabular. The largest icebergs in the world are formed this way.

Non-tabular icebergs have different shapes and include:[14]

    Dome: An iceberg with a rounded top.
    Pinnacle: An iceberg with one or more spires.
    Wedge: An iceberg with a steep edge on one side and a slope on the opposite side.
    Dry-Dock: An iceberg that has eroded to form a slot or channel.
    Blocky: An iceberg with steep, vertical sides and a flat top. It differs from tabular icebergs in that its shape is more like a block than a flat sheet.

(http://i.imgur.com/MmUvONs.jpg)

The largest icebergs recorded have been calved, or broken off, from the Ross Ice Shelf of Antarctica. Iceberg B-15, photographed by satellite in 2000, measured 295 by 37 kilometres (183 by 23 mi), with a surface area of 11,000 square kilometres (4,200 sq mi). The largest iceberg on record was an Antarctic tabular iceberg of over 31,000 square kilometres (12,000 sq mi) [335 by 97 kilometres (208 by 60 mi)] sighted 150 miles (240 km) west of Scott Island, in the South Pacific Ocean, by the USS Glacier on November 12, 1956. This iceberg was larger than Belgium.

The Largest Iceberg in the World : (http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2015, 11:50:14 AM
Those icebergs would be big enough to curve with the earth.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 09, 2015, 12:04:42 PM
Quote
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain), it is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

As for the sentence written with red letters:

(http://i.imgur.com/alMSBHZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yfR9chn.jpg)
The last time you placed apparently random arrows on a map you conceded that they were meaningless. Does the same apply here?

Your top map shows two arrows pointing due west from the northern part of Australia and southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

The second, a different projection, shows two slightly-north-of-due-west arrows from the western part of Australia and, again, southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

What do these represent? What point are you trying to make? How do these images have anything to do with the red text?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 09, 2015, 12:36:45 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/SPSWsui.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/MmUvONs.jpg)

How about some data to go along with the pretty pictures? How wide (miles, km, or whatever) is the iceberg in the top picture? Since we don't even see the top surface of this 'berg, we can't say much of anything about its shape. We're looking at it from below the top, so the shape of the edge influences the profile; see how it appears to peak at the corner near the right side, where the sides bend sharply?

What's the length (again, in miles, etc.) of your purple line in the lower picture? How much curvature would there be on the surface of an 8,000-mile diameter sphere over that length? Would you be able to see it in that second photo?

Also, would you mind scaling routine images so they don't take up so much vertical space in your posts or need to be scrolled horizontally? If you don't know how to do this, you can Quote this message and look at the "width=" qualifier inside the img tags at the beginning. The number is the width in pixels; there's a space between "img" and "width", but no spaces inside the square brackets otherwise. Some pictures need to be larger to preserve needed details, but the vast majority don't, and scrolling past acres or useless imagery gets tiresome, especially after it's been copied and repeated for the dozenth time. Thanks in advance for considering this small courtesy.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 09, 2015, 01:12:16 PM
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
Ahh cik, my little puppet.  The weak minded never understand when their strings are being pulled to make them dance. 
Perhaps this is right, I have no idea how smart your cat is, but I do know your cat is smarter than you are.
Your high altitude balloon pictures do not show what you think they do.  The last picture shows the edge of the sun basically touching the edge of the Earth, being a 2 dimensional image, could be the sun just starting to go behind the horizon. 
Dance little puppet.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 09, 2015, 01:22:43 PM
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
Ahh cik, my little puppet.  The weak minded never understand when their strings are being pulled to make them dance. 
Perhaps this is right, I have no idea how smart your cat is, but I do know your cat is smarter than you are.
Your high altitude balloon pictures do not show what you think they do.  The last picture shows the edge of the sun basically touching the edge of the Earth, being a 2 dimensional image, could be the sun just starting to go behind the horizon. 
Dance little puppet.

Who actually is most crazy here?  Those who have a faith or  those who seek to force these faithful people to bow to their own versions of reality?

I think we must all be crazy to be here. 

I spent most of the day trying to organise my computers so it would be impossible to come back here and yet here i am once more.......
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 09, 2015, 04:59:57 PM
Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
Ahh cik, my little puppet.  The weak minded never understand when their strings are being pulled to make them dance. 
Perhaps this is right, I have no idea how smart your cat is, but I do know your cat is smarter than you are.
Your high altitude balloon pictures do not show what you think they do.  The last picture shows the edge of the sun basically touching the edge of the Earth, being a 2 dimensional image, could be the sun just starting to go behind the horizon. 
Dance little puppet.

Who actually is most crazy here?  Those who have a faith or  those who seek to force these faithful people to bow to their own versions of reality?

I think we must all be crazy to be here. 

I spent most of the day trying to organise my computers so it would be impossible to come back here and yet here i am once more.......
Your here because there is a niggling in you to find or confirming the  truth. Warning . Once you peer through the window of the matrix. You will realise there is no excaping the plantation. Only justling on who gets to be the house servents & who get to wear the chains & pick the cotten for the masters. If you decide to try & out run the blood hounds or standup to the masters.Once caught trying to escape it, Be prepared to cop the flogging of their whip your going to receive for the remainder of your days on the plantation.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 09, 2015, 11:48:16 PM
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 09, 2015, 11:59:27 PM
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

It is not possible to have two west (270 degree) sunsets at different East west lines on the same day in Australia.   The only time a 270 degree sunset is visible is when the sun is directly overhead at noon for that location.   

All East West lines north of about Rockhampton have the sun directly overhead one day per year and will all experience a West sunset on that day.


I was totally wrong about that claim.  All solstice sunsets are southwest
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 12:37:31 AM
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

The arrows are approximately what we expect to see.   When the sun is directly overhead at Noon in summer, as it will be in Northern Australia, the sun must set in a westerly direction.     On these days the Sun rises almost exactly East and sets almost Exactly West

At all points on east west lines in Australia, during Summer, the most southwest sunset is in the most southerly parts of Australia.   The amount of South then declines heading northwards where in parts of northern australia, the sun will set in the north west during summer at some times of the year.

In australia on the same day you can have southwest,  west and northwest sunsets in different locations all on the very same day.
But its 4 hours later you see the sun set west & north west . That makes no sence if you have seen it set south west 4 hours earlier at stkilda southern bay beach. Does it.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 10, 2015, 12:44:25 AM
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

The arrows are approximately what we expect to see.   When the sun is directly overhead at Noon in summer, as it will be in Northern Australia, the sun must set in a westerly direction.     On these days the Sun rises almost exactly East and sets almost Exactly West

At all points on east west lines in Australia, during Summer, the most southwest sunset is in the most southerly parts of Australia.   The amount of South then declines heading northwards where in parts of northern australia, the sun will set in the north west during summer at some times of the year.

In australia on the same day you can have southwest,  west and northwest sunsets in different locations all on the very same day.
But its 4 hours later you see the sun set west & north west . That makes no sence if you have seen it set south west 4 hours earlier at stkilda southern bay beach. Does it.

At summer solstice for southern Australia:

The sun sets southwest west at st kilda and west at Longreach Queensland and north west in Torres strait Queensland at the same time as st kilda in these locations north of St kilda

Four hours later...........

The sun sets southwest west at Perth and west at Exmouth WA and north west at Darwin at the same time as Perth in locations north of Perth

There is no mystery about this at all.


I was totally wrong about that claim.  All solstice sunsets are southwest


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 01:32:31 AM
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

The arrows are approximately what we expect to see.   When the sun is directly overhead at Noon in summer, as it will be in Northern Australia, the sun must set in a westerly direction.     On these days the Sun rises almost exactly East and sets almost Exactly West

At all points on east west lines in Australia, during Summer, the most southwest sunset is in the most southerly parts of Australia.   The amount of South then declines heading northwards where in parts of northern australia, the sun will set in the north west during summer at some times of the year.

In australia on the same day you can have southwest,  west and northwest sunsets in different locations all on the very same day.
But its 4 hours later you see the sun set west & north west . That makes no sence if you have seen it set south west 4 hours earlier at stkilda southern bay beach. Does it.

At summer solstice for southern Australia:

The sun sets southwest west at st kilda and west at Longreach Queensland and north west in Torres strait Queensland at the same time as st kilda in these locations north of St kilda

Four hours later...........

The sun sets southwest west at Perth and west at Exmouth WA and north west at Darwin at the same time as Perth in locations north of Perth

There is no mystery about this at all.
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.
.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 02:03:40 AM
Meanwhile cik returns with his copy pasta.

Yes.  It is clear we have:

1.  A  troll who allows the tropic to exist and refuses a southwest sunset writing as silkpajamas and


2. The same troll who writes as charles bloomington who allows southwest sunsets but refuses the tropic



Is there anybody on this board who actually believes the earth is flat?
Well I'm not silkpajamas & I'm not a troll . But I would like your opinion on the arrows indicating sunsets on that  Australian map .silkpajamas had provided.

The arrows are approximately what we expect to see.   When the sun is directly overhead at Noon in summer, as it will be in Northern Australia, the sun must set in a westerly direction.     On these days the Sun rises almost exactly East and sets almost Exactly West

At all points on east west lines in Australia, during Summer, the most southwest sunset is in the most southerly parts of Australia.   The amount of South then declines heading northwards where in parts of northern australia, the sun will set in the north west during summer at some times of the year.

In australia on the same day you can have southwest,  west and northwest sunsets in different locations all on the very same day.
But its 4 hours later you see the sun set west & north west . That makes no sence if you have seen it set south west 4 hours earlier at stkilda southern bay beach. Does it.

At summer solstice for southern Australia:

The sun sets southwest west at st kilda and west at Longreach Queensland and north west in Torres strait Queensland at the same time as st kilda in these locations north of St kilda

Four hours later...........

The sun sets southwest west at Perth and west at Exmouth WA and north west at Darwin at the same time as Perth in locations north of Perth

There is no mystery about this at all.
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.
.

You need to find somebody else to jerk off with.  If you want to play the penguin all day long with people you can go fuck yourself for all i care.
I rest my case you honour . Oh & fix that type o its an easy mistake to make .its an  a instead of u . Cant
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 10, 2015, 04:48:45 AM
Quote
What's really interesting is how you manage to misunderstand or misrepresent the obvious.

Why do you presume the top of the iceberg is a straight line? The top of the iceberg will be a constant few meters above the sea level curve if it's as uniform as described.

Alpha, are you talking to me?

1. Regarding "A HUGE ICEBERGS" argument, and your question above, i can only ask you this:

If the shapes of all other types of icebergs (NON-tabular icebergs) don't follow the supposed curvature of the Sea LEVEL ("the curvature of the LEVEL", it figures, it say it all, :facepalm:), then why would any sane person expect that the formation of the general shape of TABULAR icebergs has anything to do with the supposed curvature of the Sea LEVEL (even if the Sea LEVEL were not the LEVEL at all, but a CURVE)

Why do we say "Sea LEVEL", instead of "Sea CURVE", after all?

2. "A huge icebergs" argument is not the lonely argument in favor of FET, not at all, there are countless similar arguments:

A) ENGINEERING (Suez Canal - the best example of this kind)

The things are more satisfactory when the allowance of 8 inches to the mile is not permitted to enter into the calculations at all ; in fact in those cases where an allowance is made, every thing turns out most unsatisfactory.

The allowing then for convexity, or what was called by engineers "forward levelling," has given way to the method of "back-and-fore" sight", or "double sight,", where no allowance whatever is made for convexity.

It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!

B) OCEAN BEDS argument:

Not only that the Ocean Basin/Floor is not CONVEX shaped, it is not even FLAT shaped, but CONCAVE, exactly as we would expect from something that we call A BASIN!!!

Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807)

C) LIGHTHOUSES : http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html)

D) PLANE SAILING : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html)

E) SEE LEVEL AND RIVERS : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329)

F) GOCE GEOID : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185)

G) THE GREAT FLOOD : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638435#msg1638435 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638435#msg1638435)

H) TSUNAMI ARGUMENT : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526)

3.  Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)

    PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?

    If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

    Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

    My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)

Mikey, my cat is much smarter than you...
Who actually is most crazy here?  Those who have a faith or  those who seek to force these faithful people to bow to their own versions of reality?

I think we must all be crazy to be here. 

I spent most of the day trying to organise my computers so it would be impossible to come back here and yet here i am once more.......
Your here because there is a niggling in you to find or confirming the  truth. Warning . Once you peer through the window of the matrix. You will realise there is no excaping the plantation. Only justling on who gets to be the house servents & who get to wear the chains & pick the cotten for the masters. If you decide to try & out run the blood hounds or standup to the masters.Once caught trying to escape it, Be prepared to cop the flogging of their whip your going to receive for the remainder of your days on the plantation.

(http://i.imgur.com/zSzpq6Y.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/o4yGQHM.jpg)
  (http://)

(http://i.imgur.com/Mmjf97O.jpg)
  (http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 10, 2015, 04:50:00 AM
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 10, 2015, 05:03:12 AM
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)

Bloomington silkpajamas and sceptimatic are the same troll

th3rm0m3t3r0 and jroa are trolls.   

I find it hard to believe jrowesceptic is not a troll but who knows what is possible.

As far as i can see there are no honest flat earth believers on this board

I do not exclude that some of the round earth people are also trolls who are here to divert attention when the trolls time wasting ploy is obviously failing
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 05:22:29 AM
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)
Is that some sort of pathetic joke ?Why every world map you're looking at is WRONG: (http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 05:50:05 AM
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)

Bloomington silkpajamas and sceptimatic are the same troll

th3rm0m3t3r0 and jroa are trolls.   

I find it hard to believe jrowesceptic is not a troll but who knows what is possible.

As far as i can see there are no honest flat earth believers on this board

I do not exclude that some of the round earth people are also trolls who are here to divert attention when the trolls time wasting ploy is obviously failing
I dont think the judges are buying your plea bargan . You know the directions the sun to be setting . You know displaying a map of Australia with those direction  marked on it , puts what your claiming in to the realm of  totally unrationale . If pointing out the failings seen in your rational has upset you. Then maybe this forum is not for your temperament.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 10, 2015, 06:02:40 AM
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)

Bloomington silkpajamas and sceptimatic are the same troll

th3rm0m3t3r0 and jroa are trolls.   

I find it hard to believe jrowesceptic is not a troll but who knows what is possible.

As far as i can see there are no honest flat earth believers on this board

I do not exclude that some of the round earth people are also trolls who are here to divert attention when the trolls time wasting ploy is obviously failing
I dont think the judges are buying your plea bargan . You know the directions the sun to be setting . You know displaying a map of Australia with those direction  marked on it , puts what your claiming in to the realm of  totally unrationale . If pointing out the failings seen in your rational has upset you. Then maybe this forum is not for your temperament.

Lets see:

1.  You are a silly troll with nothing to do but bait people or

2. You are the most stupid Australian of all time who even though he has travelled all over Australia he cannot understand the sun can be seen directly overhead a large portion of Australia at certain times of the year.

So which is it?

Moron option 1 or moron option 2?

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 10, 2015, 06:09:16 AM
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)
Is that some sort of pathetic joke ?Why every world map you're looking at is WRONG: (http://)

You do know that video is based on the fact that the earth is a globe,  and the distortions come from the mercator projection onto a flat surface.

Sunset directions on December 21st   Summer Solstice
Broome Bearing 245 degrees.   25 degrees south of due west
Perth Bearing     242 degrees.    28 degrees south of due west
St Kilda Bearing 240 degrees.   30 degrees south of due west

Exactly as you would expect.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 07:08:45 AM
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)
Is that some sort of pathetic joke ?Why every world map you're looking at is WRONG: (http://)

You do know that video is based on the fact that the earth is a globe,  and the distortions come from the mercator projection onto a flat surface.

Sunset directions on December 21st   Summer Solstice
Broome Bearing 245 degrees.   25 degrees south of due west
Perth Bearing     242 degrees.    28 degrees south of due west
St Kilda Bearing 240 degrees.   30 degrees south of due west

Exactly as you would expect.
Care to draw that on the map so we can get a visual & then it canbe  compared to photo evidence .
You do realize that a mercator globe has distorted land mass . What is your calculate mapping using ?


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 10, 2015, 07:14:03 AM
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)
Is that some sort of pathetic joke ?Why every world map you're looking at is WRONG: (http://)

You do know that video is based on the fact that the earth is a globe,  and the distortions come from the mercator projection onto a flat surface.

Sunset directions on December 21st   Summer Solstice
Broome Bearing 245 degrees.   25 degrees south of due west
Perth Bearing     242 degrees.    28 degrees south of due west
St Kilda Bearing 240 degrees.   30 degrees south of due west

Exactly as you would expect.
Care to draw that on the map so we can get a visual & then it canbe  compared to photo evidence .
You do realize that a mercator globe has distorted land mass . What is your calculate mapping using ?

You can draw those directions on any map projection you like,   West is west.   
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 07:31:59 AM
No mystery , good then it wont be to hard for  you to post a direction drawing of the vewing points of theses sun sets. So we can all get a better grasp of mapping it.

Wow, Charles you really are an asshole.   here's the sun position calculator,  now prove your theory and post the results.   http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php)
Is that some sort of pathetic joke ?Why every world map you're looking at is WRONG: (http://)

You do know that video is based on the fact that the earth is a globe,  and the distortions come from the mercator projection onto a flat surface.

Sunset directions on December 21st   Summer Solstice
Broome Bearing 245 degrees.   25 degrees south of due west
Perth Bearing     242 degrees.    28 degrees south of due west
St Kilda Bearing 240 degrees.   30 degrees south of due west

Exactly as you would expect.
Care to draw that on the map so we can get a visual & then it canbe  compared to photo evidence .
You do realize that a mercator globe has distorted land mass . What is your calculate mapping using ?

You can draw those directions on any map projection you like,   West is west.   
Draw it on the map & we will compare it with the photograph evidence.  Its that simple
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 10, 2015, 08:02:23 AM
Draw it on the map & we will compare it with the photograph evidence.  Its that simple

So simple enough that a bogan ex-con like youself should be able to keep off the crystal meth long enough to draw it yourself.   Fuckwit.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 10, 2015, 08:55:11 AM
Quote
What's really interesting is how you manage to misunderstand or misrepresent the obvious.

Why do you presume the top of the iceberg is a straight line? The top of the iceberg will be a constant few meters above the sea level curve if it's as uniform as described.

Alpha, are you talking to me?
Since the entire post this quote came from was in reply to an earlier post by you, which was referenced and attributed to you, and the text you ask about immediately follows your own drawing, shouldn't that be obvious, even to you? You really must have difficulty grasping the obvious. Should I call you out each time, even though it should be clear enough? That gets a little tedious to read, as well as to write. Maybe you can work on comprehension and save everyone else here some tedium? It can help you in other areas of your life, too.

Please link back to the post(s) you are quoting from at least once, especially if it was from many pages, or even a several posts, back. It's a courtesy so your readers can easily see the context, or pick up the thread of discussion. Conversely, making the original text harder than necessary to find looks like you're trying to hide something. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

Quote
1. Regarding "A HUGE ICEBERGS" argument, and your question above, i can only ask you this:

If the shapes of all other types of icebergs (NON-tabular icebergs) don't follow the supposed curvature of the Sea LEVEL ("the curvature of the LEVEL", it figures, it say it all, :facepalm:),
For the same reason you don't think the tops of those icebergs are flat. They aren't parallel to the surface of the sea.

Quote
then why would any sane person expect that the formation of the general shape of TABULAR icebergs has anything to do with the supposed curvature of the Sea LEVEL (even if the Sea LEVEL were not the LEVEL at all, but a CURVE)
It's really obvious, but then, you obviously have problems grasping the obvious. The tabular icebergs spanning hundreds of km that you're carrying on about maintain more or less constant height above the level of the surrounding water. Constant height. Since the surface of the water is curved, then the surface of the ice is also curved. This curvature is too small to notice without careful measurement over short distances (i.e. several km).

Quote
Why do we say "Sea LEVEL", instead of "Sea CURVE", after all?
Because it's the datum that corresponds to the average level of the sea. The fact that this datum is curved is so obvious that there is no need to explicitly state it.

Quote
2. "A huge icebergs" argument is not the lonely argument in favor of FET, not at all, there are countless similar arguments:

A) ENGINEERING (Suez Canal - the best example of this kind)

The things are more satisfactory when the allowance of 8 inches to the mile is not permitted to enter into the calculations at all ; in fact in those cases where an allowance is made, every thing turns out most unsatisfactory.

The allowing then for convexity, or what was called by engineers "forward levelling," has given way to the method of "back-and-fore" sight", or "double sight,", where no allowance whatever is made for convexity.

It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!
If you're measuring your survey elevations in reference to a sea level or similar datum, the curvature is already accounted for. Adding it in again would be "most unsatisfactory".

Quote
B) OCEAN BEDS argument:

Not only that the Ocean Basin/Floor is not CONVEX shaped, it is not even FLAT shaped, but CONCAVE, exactly as we would expect from something that we call A BASIN!!!

Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807)

This is old news and long ago put to "bed" (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650862;topicseen#msg1650862). Why do you keep bringing this old crap back up. Nothing has changed. You're still wrong.

Quote
<obvious attempt at argument by fatigue, obnoxious comments, and random youtube links.>
The stuff omitted above are some old tired, and equally bogus, arguments. cikljamas (so you know who I'm talking to), if you really want to discuss any of old topics, please go back and read the replies already made to them first. Then, if you have any new insights or questions on one, resume it in the thread it was already in, or start a new one. This thread is supposed to be about the Antarctic Midnight Sun. Remember? You're the one who started it.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 10, 2015, 08:59:58 AM
Alpha, are you talking to me?

1. Regarding "A HUGE ICEBERGS" argument, and your question above, i can only ask you this:

(basically a bunch of dis-proven or already explained copy-pasta stuff)
I'm sure you worked hard to compile all that into one post, but I don't think linking to a bunch of threads in which you are shown to be wrong is going to help your cause much.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: BJ1234 on May 10, 2015, 09:12:02 AM
The south pole exists,  and you can prove it yourself.   Qantas have flights over Antarctica every New Years Eve,  flights leave from Melbourne. flying   over small areas of Antarctica ,dosen't make Antarctica the south pole. Prove your logic ?
And flying over small parts of an island doesn't make it Australia. Shill.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: BJ1234 on May 10, 2015, 09:18:55 AM

(http://i.imgur.com/Mmjf97O.jpg)
  (http://)
You really shouldn't believe every internet meme you come across cikl.  You realize that much on the internet is made up and those who don't dig deeper tend to fall for the tripe. 
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-theres-a-plot-in-this-country-to-enslave-every-man-woman-and-child-jfk.319/ (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-theres-a-plot-in-this-country-to-enslave-every-man-woman-and-child-jfk.319/)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 09:45:53 AM

(http://i.imgur.com/Mmjf97O.jpg)
  (http://)
You really shouldn't believe every internet meme you come across cikl.  You realize that much on the internet is made up and those who don't dig deeper tend to fall for the tripe. 
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-theres-a-plot-in-this-country-to-enslave-every-man-woman-and-child-jfk.319/ (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-theres-a-plot-in-this-country-to-enslave-every-man-woman-and-child-jfk.319/)

A you would trust what mick west ? Who funds his sight .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: BJ1234 on May 10, 2015, 09:48:51 AM

(http://i.imgur.com/Mmjf97O.jpg)
  (http://)
You really shouldn't believe every internet meme you come across cikl.  You realize that much on the internet is made up and those who don't dig deeper tend to fall for the tripe. 
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-theres-a-plot-in-this-country-to-enslave-every-man-woman-and-child-jfk.319/ (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-theres-a-plot-in-this-country-to-enslave-every-man-woman-and-child-jfk.319/)

A you would trust what mick west ? Who funds his sight .
Well, since he supports his argument with citations, instead of just asserting, I will trust him over cikl. Or you, you shill.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 10, 2015, 09:56:48 AM
A you would trust what mick west ? Who funds his sight .
So what is point 'B'?

Why are you asking Mick West what he would trust?  I'm sure he's not lurking on this site.

Why does he need his sight funded?  Did he have expensive eye surgery?  How do you know this?

You're not making any sense Charles.  ???
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: BJ1234 on May 10, 2015, 10:19:42 AM
A you would trust what mick west ? Who funds his sight .
So what is point 'B'?

Why are you asking Mick West what he would trust?  I'm sure he's not lurking on this site.

Why does he need his sight funded?  Did he have expensive eye surgery?  How do you know this?

You're not making any sense Charles.  ???
That is because he doesn't think about what his controllers tell him to say.  They just drop off an envelope with the cash and he gets text messages of how to respond.  He is nothing but a shill.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 10, 2015, 11:58:11 AM
>For the same reason you don't think the tops of those icebergs are flat. They aren't parallel to the surface of the sea.<

In the most cases, they are parallel (more or less). Haven't you seen those pictures? Should i put them here again?
(http://i.imgur.com/SPSWsui.jpg)

>The tabular icebergs spanning hundreds of km that you're carrying on about maintain more or less constant height above the level of the surrounding water. Constant height. Since the surface of the water is curved, then the surface of the ice is also curved. This curvature is too small to notice without careful measurement over short distances<

How is this in accordance with what you just have said (in a previous quote)? Are they parallel or not, at the end of the day? Alpha, what's going on with you? You are losing concentration, or what?

>If you're measuring your survey elevations in reference to a sea level or similar datum, the curvature is already accounted for. Adding it in again would be "most unsatisfactory".<

On several occasions the six miles of water in the old Bedford Canal have been surveyed by the so-called "forward" process of levelling, which consisted in simply taking a sight of, say 20 chains, or 440 yards, noting the point observed, moving the instrument forward to that point, and taking a second observation; again moving the instrument forward, again observing 20 chains in advance, and so on throughout the whole distance. By this process, without making allowance for convexity, the surface of the water was found to be perfectly horizontal. But when the result was made known to several surveyors, it was contended "that when the theodolite is levelled, it is placed at right angles to the earth's radius--the line of sight from it being a tangent; and that when it is removed 20 chains forward, and again 'levelled,' it becomes a second and different tangent; and that indeed every new position is really a fresh tangent--as shown in the diagram, fig. 9, T 1, T 2, and T 3, representing the theodolite levelled at three different positions, and therefore square to the radii 1, 2, 3. Hence, levelling forward in this way, although making no allowance for rotundity, the rotundity or allowance for it is involved in the process."

(http://i.imgur.com/2SSThMs.jpg)

This is a very ingenious and plausible argument, by which the visible contradiction between the theory of rotundity and the results of practical levelling is explained; and many excellent mathematicians and geodesists have been deceived by it. Logically, however, it will be seen that it is not a proof of rotundity; it is only an explanation or reconciliation of results with the supposition of rotundity, but does not prove it to exist. The following modification was therefore adopted by the author, in order that convexity, if it existed, might be demonstrated. A theodolite was placed at the point A, in fig. 10, and levelled; it was then directed over the flag-staff B to the cross-staff C--the instrument A, the flag-staff B, and the cross-staff C, having exactly the same altitude. The theodolite was then advanced to B, the flag-staff to C, and the cross-staff to D, which was thus secured .as a continuation of one and the same line of sight A, B, C, prolonged to D, the altitude of D being the same as that of A, B, and C. The theodolite was again moved forward to the position C, the flag-staff to D, and the cross-staff to the point E--the line of sight to which was thus again secured as a prolongation of A, B, C, D, to E. The process was repeated to F, and onwards by 20 chain lengths to the end of six miles of the canal, .and parallel with it.

By thus having an object between the theodolite and the cross-staff, which object in its turn becomes a test or guide by which the same line of sight is continued throughout the whole length surveyed, the argument or explanation which is dependent upon the supposition of rotundity, and that each position of the theodolite is a different tangent, is completely destroyed. The result of this peculiar or modified survey, which has been several times repeated, was that the line of sight and the surface of the water ran parallel to each other; and as the line of sight was, in this instance, a right line, the surface of the water for six miles was demonstrably horizontal.

(http://i.imgur.com/cyZ9Bbb.jpg)

This mode of forward levelling is so very exact and satisfactory, that the following further illustration may be given with advantage.
In fig. 11, let A, B, C, represent the first position, respectively of the theodolite, flag-staff, and cross-staff; B, C, D, the second position; C, D, E, the third position; and D, E, F, the fourth; similarly repeated throughout the whole distance surveyed.

(http://i.imgur.com/R1HsTXM.jpg)

The remarks thus made in reference to simple "forward" levelling, apply with equal force to what is called by surveyors the "back-and-fore-sight" process, which consists in reading backwards a distance equal to the distance read forwards. This plan is adopted to obviate the necessity for calculating, or allowing for the earth's supposed convexity.

You can also use this method:

(http://i.imgur.com/RkXdLAS.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: inquisitive on May 10, 2015, 12:19:14 PM
When was this experiment last repeated?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 10, 2015, 12:33:18 PM
I have been looking at my globe with a light to observe sunsets.   

I was wrong about westerly and north westerly sunsets at southern solstice

All sunsets south of the tropic of cancer are south western sunsets at southern solstice.

 :-[

From the calculator at solstice sunset degrees:

Darwin 247 degrees

Exmouth WA 246 degrees

Perth WA 242 degrees

St Kilda   SA 242 degrees

Albany WA 241 degrees

Southern tip of Tasmania 237 degrees

Southern tip of Stewart island NZ  233 degrees

Exmouth WA 246 degrees

Perth WA 242 degrees

St Kilda   SA 242 degrees

Albany WA 241 degrees

Southern tip of Tasmania 237 degrees

Southern tip of Stewart island NZ   233 degrees

Macquarie island Australia, half way between Australia and Antarctica at 54S 225 degrees

Macquarie station

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3976882-3x2-940x627.jpg)




Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 04:55:17 PM
A you would trust what mick west ? Who funds his sight .
So what is point 'B'?

Why are you asking Mick West what he would trust?  I'm sure he's not lurking on this site.

Why does he need his sight funded?  Did he have expensive eye surgery?  How do you know this?

You're not making any sense Charles.  ???
That is because he doesn't think about what his controllers tell him to say.  They just drop off an envelope with the cash and he gets text messages of how to respond.  He is nothing but a shill.
Will you stop it with this shill nonsense .no one pays me to post anything. This is how you agenda21 scum work .Anyone that doesn't yeld to your organization. Its lies & propergander, you hound harass intimidate & do your utmost to standover.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 10, 2015, 06:11:09 PM


On several occasions the six miles of water in the old Bedford Canal have been surveyed by the so-called "forward" process of levelling, which consisted in simply taking a sight of, say 20 chains, or 440 yards, noting the point observed, moving the instrument forward to that point, and taking a second observation; again moving the instrument forward, again observing 20 chains in advance, and so on throughout the whole distance. By this process, without making allowance for convexity, the surface of the water was found to be perfectly horizontal. But when the result was made known to several surveyors, it was contended "that when the theodolite is levelled, it is placed at right angles to the earth's radius--the line of sight from it being a tangent; and that when it is removed 20 chains forward, and again 'levelled,' it becomes a second and different tangent; and that indeed every new position is really a fresh tangent--as shown in the diagram, fig. 9, T 1, T 2, and T 3, representing the theodolite levelled at three different positions, and therefore square to the radii 1, 2, 3. Hence, levelling forward in this way, although making no allowance for rotundity, the rotundity or allowance for it is involved in the process."


According to the Flat Earth FAQ,  the definitive experiment on the Bedford Level was done by Henry Yule Oldham,  but what the FAQ doesn't say is that he confirmed Wallace's results proving the earth was round. 
I seriously doubt anyone would  seriously try to argue the discredited Rowbotham Bedford Level experiment.    So the flat earth FAQ implies the earth is a sphere. ;D

Biography: Henry Yule Oldham, was a teacher and geographer who, in 1901, conducted the definitive version of the Bedford Level experiment, a proof that the Earth is a sphere.
Born: December 14, 1862
Died: January 01, 1951 (age 88)


In any event these days you can prove the earth is round with modern precision differential levels.  Also it's common practice to make earth curvature corrections when doing geodetic surveys.   Large precision machine tool setup sometimes has to correct for earth's curvature. 

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 10, 2015, 06:43:35 PM
Will you stop it with this shill nonsense .no one pays me to post anything.

Thank you for saying this. Would you please encourage your "flat earth" friends to do likewise.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 10, 2015, 06:55:44 PM
I have been looking at my globe with a light to observe sunsets.   

I was wrong about westerly and north westerly sunsets at southern solstice

All sunsets south of the tropic of cancer are south western sunsets at southern solstice.

 :-[

From the calculator at solstice sunset degrees:

Darwin 247 degrees

Exmouth WA 246 degrees

Perth WA 242 degrees

St Kilda   SA 242 degrees

Albany WA 241 degrees

Southern tip of Tasmania 237 degrees

Southern tip of Stewart island NZ  233 degrees

Exmouth WA 246 degrees

Perth WA 242 degrees

St Kilda   SA 242 degrees

Albany WA 241 degrees

Southern tip of Tasmania 237 degrees

Southern tip of Stewart island NZ   233 degrees


I'm not 100% sure of this, but at the summer solstice, aren't all points in the southern hemisphere (bar the south pole)  going to see a south westerly sunset.   Because of the tilt in the earth's axis.
At the south pole, the sun rises due north,  is due north at noon, and midnight, and is due north at sunset. 

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 10, 2015, 07:17:24 PM
A you would trust what mick west ? Who funds his sight .
So what is point 'B'?

Why are you asking Mick West what he would trust?  I'm sure he's not lurking on this site.

Why does he need his sight funded?  Did he have expensive eye surgery?  How do you know this?

You're not making any sense Charles.  ???
That is because he doesn't think about what his controllers tell him to say.  They just drop off an envelope with the cash and he gets text messages of how to respond.  He is nothing but a shill.
Will you stop it with this shill nonsense .no one pays me to post anything. This is how you agenda21 scum work .Anyone that doesn't yeld to your organization. Its lies & propergander, you hound harass intimidate & do your utmost to standover.

Just think: if the government payed people like you to spread flat Earth nonsense it would distract from what's really going on.  They have motive and means.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 10, 2015, 08:52:31 PM
>For the same reason you don't think the tops of those icebergs are flat. They aren't parallel to the surface of the sea.<

In the most cases, they are parallel (more or less). Haven't you seen those pictures? Should i put them here again?
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Iceberg-cropped-cikljamas_zpsg5f0wrhu.jpg)

[Image cropped vertically as a courtesy to readers]
"Those icebergs" in the above from me refer to "other than tabular icebergs".  This picture looks like a tabular iceberg according to cikljamas' own definitions.

cikljamas (just so be sure you know that I'm talking to you): if it's not a tabular iceberg, according to your definition, what kind is it, and why? Can you repeat those definitions of iceberg types again? You don't seem to have any problem repeating stuff ad nauseum, even when you're wrong, so this should be little imposition.

Yo! cikljamas (just so be sure you know that I'm talking to you): what's the length from left to right in the photo above (in miles or km) of that iceberg? If you don't know, what are you trying to convince us of? If you do think you know, what is it, and, what evidence for this do you have to support this? The length of the iceberg matters. Does the perspective from below the top of the iceberg in the photo matter? If you don't understand why any of these is a question, since all has already been explained, you should not continue to argue. If you don't understand something, please just ask about that part rather than stubbornly insisting that ignorant bullshit is right. OK?

Quote
>The tabular icebergs spanning hundreds of km that you're carrying on about maintain more or less constant height above the level of the surrounding water. Constant height. Since the surface of the water is curved, then the surface of the ice is also curved. This curvature is too small to notice without careful measurement over short distances<
Quote
How is this in accordance with what you just have said (in a previous quote)? Are they parallel or not, at the end of the day? Alpha, what's going on with you? You are losing concentration, or what?
Yo, cikljamas (just so be sure you know that I'm talking to you): Why do you have a problem with the difference between a few km and hundreds of km? It's hard to tell the difference between a plane and the surface of a large sphere over a small area without careful measurement. No one disputes this, and it's a source of much of the ignorant "the Earth looks flat to me" nonsense, because most of the time, people can't see more than a few km, and the intellectually lazy aren't into subtlties. Similarly, it's difficult to tell the difference between parallel straight lines and concentric circles with a large, but close radii, over small distances. Because of this, even if something looks flat it may be subtly curved, you just wouldn't know the difference on casual examination, which you seem to specialize in. You do have a problem recognizing the obvious, so sorry for not making this obvious enough even for you. It's just hard to fathom how obvious I should make things; I'm not used to dealing with people who know almost nothing.

Quote
>If you're measuring your survey elevations in reference to a sea level or similar datum, the curvature is already accounted for. Adding it in again would be "most unsatisfactory".<

On several occasions the six miles of water in the old Bedford Canal have been surveyed by the so-called "forward" process of levelling, which consisted in simply taking a sight of, say 20 chains, or 440 yards, noting the point observed, moving the instrument forward to that point, and taking a second observation; again moving the instrument forward, again observing 20 chains in advance, and so on throughout the whole distance. By this process, without making allowance for convexity, the surface of the water was found to be perfectly horizontal. But when the result was made known to several surveyors, it was contended "that when the theodolite is levelled, it is placed at right angles to the earth's radius--the line of sight from it being a tangent; and that when it is removed 20 chains forward, and again 'levelled,' it becomes a second and different tangent; and that indeed every new position is really a fresh tangent--as shown in the diagram, fig. 9, T 1, T 2, and T 3, representing the theodolite levelled at three different positions, and therefore square to the radii 1, 2, 3. Hence, levelling forward in this way, although making no allowance for rotundity, the rotundity or allowance for it is involved in the process."

(http://i.imgur.com/2SSThMs.jpg)
Yo, cikljamas (just so be sure you know that I'm talking to you): How far would 20 chains be on the radius of the Earth be at the scale of this drawing? [Hint: the radius of the Earth is much greater than shown. It is 20 chains * 80 chains/mile * 4000 miles = 6,400,000 times as far as the distance between stations 1 and 2 (if they represent 20 chains) in figure 9. Almost flat. In other words, the difference in level between the two will be minuscule, not the obvious angle represented in the exaggerated drawing. This is the sort of deception Mr. Rowbotham engages in, so beware believing anything he writes.

Quote
This is a very ingenious and plausible argument,
Ingenious because it's subtly wrong. Not so plausible once yo know enough to recognize the sleight of hand.

Quote
by which the visible contradiction between the theory of rotundity and the results of practical levelling is explained; and many excellent mathematicians and geodesists have been deceived by it.
Yo, cikljamas (just so be sure you know that I'm talking to you): Nope. Sorry. This is what surveyors and geodesists do for a living. If they continually failed in their measurements, they would fail in their jobs. If they were using the wrong model (flat, for instance), they would continually fail because their measurements wouldn't match reality.

Quote
Logically, however, it will be seen that it is not a proof of rotundity; it is only an explanation or reconciliation of results with the supposition of rotundity, but does not prove it to exist.
There is no proof the world is very nearly spherical, but large-scale surveys would not work if we assume the Earth were flat, so we can throw that idea right out!

Quote
The following modification was therefore adopted by the author, in order that convexity, if it existed, might be demonstrated. A theodolite was placed at the point A, in fig. 10, and levelled; it was then directed over the flag-staff B to the cross-staff C--the instrument A, the flag-staff B, and the cross-staff C, having exactly the same altitude. The theodolite was then advanced to B, the flag-staff to C, and the cross-staff to D, which was thus secured .as a continuation of one and the same line of sight A, B, C, prolonged to D, the altitude of D being the same as that of A, B, and C. The theodolite was again moved forward to the position C, the flag-staff to D, and the cross-staff to the point E--the line of sight to which was thus again secured as a prolongation of A, B, C, D, to E. The process was repeated to F, and onwards by 20 chain lengths to the end of six miles of the canal, .and parallel with it.

By thus having an object between the theodolite and the cross-staff, which object in its turn becomes a test or guide by which the same line of sight is continued throughout the whole length surveyed, the argument or explanation which is dependent upon the supposition of rotundity, and that each position of the theodolite is a different tangent, is completely destroyed. The result of this peculiar or modified survey, which has been several times repeated, was that the line of sight and the surface of the water ran parallel to each other; and as the line of sight was, in this instance, a right line, the surface of the water for six miles was demonstrably horizontal.
How much difference, in inches or cm, would there be between flat and spherical (with a radius of 4000 miles) surfaces over a distance of 20 chains? Compare with the accuracy of a survey shot over this distance? If you don't know, then how can you evaluate the validity of this claim?

Quote
(http://i.imgur.com/cyZ9Bbb.jpg)

This mode of forward levelling is so very exact and satisfactory,
How exact? Specifically. Numbers, please, for 19th-Century instruments, with justification for your answer. Don't know? Well...

Quote
that the following further illustration may be given with advantage.[/b] In fig. 11, let A, B, C, represent the first position, respectively of the theodolite, flag-staff, and cross-staff; B, C, D, the second position; C, D, E, the third position; and D, E, F, the fourth; similarly repeated throughout the whole distance surveyed.

(http://i.imgur.com/R1HsTXM.jpg)

The remarks thus made in reference to simple "forward" levelling, apply with equal force to what is called by surveyors the "back-and-fore-sight" process, which consists in reading backwards a distance equal to the distance read forwards. This plan is adopted to obviate the necessity for calculating, or allowing for the earth's supposed convexity.

You can also use this method:

(http://i.imgur.com/RkXdLAS.jpg)
Question (for cikljamas, in case there's he's not sure) : have you done any land surveying? If so, what area (roughly) in hectares, acres, square miles, km 2, etc. was the survey? How many land surveys use "shots" three miles or more n length? What was the purpose, and accuracy, of any such surveys? What are the potential complications of using such long shots? How can those problems be mitigated? What is the typical length of the longer "shots" of a competently-executed land survey? Why?

[Edit to add] Why is this in the Antarctic Midnight Sun thread? Shouldn't your stuff about Bedford Level, etc. gone into "Complete Nonsense"?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 10, 2015, 09:02:53 PM
Could we please all focus on the topic of this thread?

The topics at hand are:

1.  The Antarctic midnight Sun is a natural consequence of what ordinary people can observe south of the equator in a very wide range of different ordinary locations

2   As you go further south the days get longer and the sunsets and sunrises are further towards the south.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 10, 2015, 09:04:29 PM
cikljamas (in case you aren't sure this is directed to you): You have responded to a post after this one. The nested quotes below have been fixed - if they confused you, my apologies.

Still, any answers to the questions below, cikljamas?

Quote
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain), it is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

As for the sentence written with red letters:

(http://i.imgur.com/alMSBHZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yfR9chn.jpg)
The last time you placed apparently random arrows on a map you conceded that they were meaningless. Does the same apply here?

Your top map shows two arrows pointing due west from the northern part of Australia and southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

The second, a different projection, shows two slightly-north-of-due-west arrows from the western part of Australia and, again, southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

What do these represent? What point are you trying to make? How do these images have anything to do with the red text?

[Edit] Oops... forgot to direct questions and comments explicitly to cikljamas.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 10, 2015, 11:28:35 PM
cikljamas (in case you aren't sure this is directed to you): You have responded to a post after this one. The nested quotes below have been fixed - if they confused you, my apologies.

Still, any answers to the questions below, cikljamas?

Quote
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain), it is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

As for the sentence written with red letters:

(http://i.imgur.com/alMSBHZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yfR9chn.jpg)
The last time you placed apparently random arrows on a map you conceded that they were meaningless. Does the same apply here?

Your top map shows two arrows pointing due west from the northern part of Australia and southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

The second, a different projection, shows two slightly-north-of-due-west arrows from the western part of Australia and, again, southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

What do these represent? What point are you trying to make? How do these images have anything to do with the red text?

[Edit] Oops... forgot to direct questions and comments explicitly to cikljamas.
well its pretty obvious . You wouldn't be seeing a sunset looking out to sea in darwin or broome. if it set 4 hours  earlier  off the southern coastline  in a south  west direction. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 01:25:53 AM
cikljamas (in case you aren't sure this is directed to you): You have responded to a post after this one. The nested quotes below have been fixed - if they confused you, my apologies.

Still, any answers to the questions below, cikljamas?

Quote
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain), it is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

As for the sentence written with red letters:

(http://i.imgur.com/alMSBHZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yfR9chn.jpg)
The last time you placed apparently random arrows on a map you conceded that they were meaningless. Does the same apply here?

Your top map shows two arrows pointing due west from the northern part of Australia and southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

The second, a different projection, shows two slightly-north-of-due-west arrows from the western part of Australia and, again, southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

What do these represent? What point are you trying to make? How do these images have anything to do with the red text?

[Edit] Oops... forgot to direct questions and comments explicitly to cikljamas.
well its pretty obvious . You wouldn't be seeing a sunset looking out to sea in darwin or broome. if it set 4 hours  earlier  off the southern coastline  in a south  west direction.

Perhaps this is why the Darwin picture you showed earlier is for a famous "sunset market" that only occurs from end april to end October??

Could that be connected to what you are saying is impossible?

How hard is it for you to check your facts first?

Darwin sunsets are famous in the dry season even in England!

http://www.travelunpacked.co.uk/2013/07/24/sunsets-over-darwin/ (http://www.travelunpacked.co.uk/2013/07/24/sunsets-over-darwin/)

(http://www.travelunpacked.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/D-Sunsets-010.jpg)

In any cases parts of Mindil beach are southwest facing
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 11, 2015, 03:14:27 AM

http://www.piecesofvictoria.com/2013/10/exploring-st-kilda-with-roberto-seba/ (http://www.piecesofvictoria.com/2013/10/exploring-st-kilda-with-roberto-seba/)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 03:21:31 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/nanfzSI.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 03:34:53 AM

http://www.piecesofvictoria.com/2013/10/exploring-st-kilda-with-roberto-seba/ (http://www.piecesofvictoria.com/2013/10/exploring-st-kilda-with-roberto-seba/)

The picture is exactly what you would expect for st kilda in october. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 03:36:09 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/nanfzSI.jpg)

What kind of a moron thinks they cannot see a west sunset from that beach??
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 03:43:05 AM
Who has ever said they can't see West Sunset? You are not just Simple Minded, you are a liar also, ha? If you are not a liar, then just show us that sentence in which someone claims that it is not possible to see West Sunset from Mindil Beach...
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 03:49:44 AM


On several occasions the six miles of water in the old Bedford Canal have been surveyed by the so-called "forward" process of levelling, which consisted in simply taking a sight of, say 20 chains, or 440 yards, noting the point observed, moving the instrument forward to that point, and taking a second observation; again moving the instrument forward, again observing 20 chains in advance, and so on throughout the whole distance. By this process, without making allowance for convexity, the surface of the water was found to be perfectly horizontal. But when the result was made known to several surveyors, it was contended "that when the theodolite is levelled, it is placed at right angles to the earth's radius--the line of sight from it being a tangent; and that when it is removed 20 chains forward, and again 'levelled,' it becomes a second and different tangent; and that indeed every new position is really a fresh tangent--as shown in the diagram, fig. 9, T 1, T 2, and T 3, representing the theodolite levelled at three different positions, and therefore square to the radii 1, 2, 3. Hence, levelling forward in this way, although making no allowance for rotundity, the rotundity or allowance for it is involved in the process."


According to the Flat Earth FAQ,  the definitive experiment on the Bedford Level was done by Henry Yule Oldham,  but what the FAQ doesn't say is that he confirmed Wallace's results proving the earth was round. 
I seriously doubt anyone would  seriously try to argue the discredited Rowbotham Bedford Level experiment.    So the flat earth FAQ implies the earth is a sphere. ;D

Biography: Henry Yule Oldham, was a teacher and geographer who, in 1901, conducted the definitive version of the Bedford Level experiment, a proof that the Earth is a sphere.
Born: December 14, 1862
Died: January 01, 1951 (age 88)


In any event these days you can prove the earth is round with modern precision differential levels.  Also it's common practice to make earth curvature corrections when doing geodetic surveys.   Large precision machine tool setup sometimes has to correct for earth's curvature.

http://www.energeticforum.com/264162-post361.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/264162-post361.html)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 03:51:46 AM
What kind of a moron thinks they cannot see a west sunset from that beach??

cyclejamas is just deliberately being confusing because he's lost the argument.   Not worth the time to try and correct him.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 03:53:56 AM
What kind of a moron thinks they cannot see a west sunset from that beach??

cyclejamas is just deliberately being confusing because he's lost the argument.   Not worth the time to try and correct him.

Probably why he placed a west arrow next to the wrong beach
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 04:03:05 AM
I saw from the ISS stupidity thread that Eric Dubai sounds like an Australian?

Given how few boards can provide entertainment for a retard like that it would not surprise me at all if it turns out the dynamic trio are the same fuckwit
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 04:12:35 AM
Hey fucking retards, i have never been there (at that beach), so why wouldn't you point us to the exact position of Mindil beach on that google map...and show us that sentence in which someone claims that it is not possible to see West Sunset from Mindil Beach...
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 04:15:32 AM
Hey fucking retards, i have never been there (at that beach), so why wouldn't you point us to the exact position of Mindil beach on that google map...and show us that sentence in which someone claims that it is not possible to see West Sunset from Mindil Beach...

How about you explain to all the fucktards here why you posted a picture of a beach with a west arrow on it?

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 05:15:36 AM
>For the same reason you don't think the tops of those icebergs are flat. They aren't parallel to the surface of the sea.<

In the most cases, they are parallel (more or less). Haven't you seen those pictures? Should i put them here again?
(http://i.imgur.com/SPSWsui.jpg)

>The tabular icebergs spanning hundreds of km that you're carrying on about maintain more or less constant height above the level of the surrounding water. Constant height. Since the surface of the water is curved, then the surface of the ice is also curved. This curvature is too small to notice without careful measurement over short distances<

How is this in accordance with what you just have said (in a previous quote)? Are they parallel or not, at the end of the day? Alpha, what's going on with you? You are losing concentration, or what?

>If you're measuring your survey elevations in reference to a sea level or similar datum, the curvature is already accounted for. Adding it in again would be "most unsatisfactory".<

On several occasions the six miles of water in the old Bedford Canal have been surveyed by the so-called "forward" process of levelling, which consisted in simply taking a sight of, say 20 chains, or 440 yards, noting the point observed, moving the instrument forward to that point, and taking a second observation; again moving the instrument forward, again observing 20 chains in advance, and so on throughout the whole distance. By this process, without making allowance for convexity, the surface of the water was found to be perfectly horizontal. But when the result was made known to several surveyors, it was contended "that when the theodolite is levelled, it is placed at right angles to the earth's radius--the line of sight from it being a tangent; and that when it is removed 20 chains forward, and again 'levelled,' it becomes a second and different tangent; and that indeed every new position is really a fresh tangent--as shown in the diagram, fig. 9, T 1, T 2, and T 3, representing the theodolite levelled at three different positions, and therefore square to the radii 1, 2, 3. Hence, levelling forward in this way, although making no allowance for rotundity, the rotundity or allowance for it is involved in the process."

(http://i.imgur.com/2SSThMs.jpg)

This is a very ingenious and plausible argument, by which the visible contradiction between the theory of rotundity and the results of practical levelling is explained; and many excellent mathematicians and geodesists have been deceived by it. Logically, however, it will be seen that it is not a proof of rotundity; it is only an explanation or reconciliation of results with the supposition of rotundity, but does not prove it to exist. The following modification was therefore adopted by the author, in order that convexity, if it existed, might be demonstrated. A theodolite was placed at the point A, in fig. 10, and levelled; it was then directed over the flag-staff B to the cross-staff C--the instrument A, the flag-staff B, and the cross-staff C, having exactly the same altitude. The theodolite was then advanced to B, the flag-staff to C, and the cross-staff to D, which was thus secured .as a continuation of one and the same line of sight A, B, C, prolonged to D, the altitude of D being the same as that of A, B, and C. The theodolite was again moved forward to the position C, the flag-staff to D, and the cross-staff to the point E--the line of sight to which was thus again secured as a prolongation of A, B, C, D, to E. The process was repeated to F, and onwards by 20 chain lengths to the end of six miles of the canal, .and parallel with it.

By thus having an object between the theodolite and the cross-staff, which object in its turn becomes a test or guide by which the same line of sight is continued throughout the whole length surveyed, the argument or explanation which is dependent upon the supposition of rotundity, and that each position of the theodolite is a different tangent, is completely destroyed. The result of this peculiar or modified survey, which has been several times repeated, was that the line of sight and the surface of the water ran parallel to each other; and as the line of sight was, in this instance, a right line, the surface of the water for six miles was demonstrably horizontal.

(http://i.imgur.com/cyZ9Bbb.jpg)

This mode of forward levelling is so very exact and satisfactory, that the following further illustration may be given with advantage.
In fig. 11, let A, B, C, represent the first position, respectively of the theodolite, flag-staff, and cross-staff; B, C, D, the second position; C, D, E, the third position; and D, E, F, the fourth; similarly repeated throughout the whole distance surveyed.

(http://i.imgur.com/R1HsTXM.jpg)

The remarks thus made in reference to simple "forward" levelling, apply with equal force to what is called by surveyors the "back-and-fore-sight" process, which consists in reading backwards a distance equal to the distance read forwards. This plan is adopted to obviate the necessity for calculating, or allowing for the earth's supposed convexity.

You can also use this method:

(http://i.imgur.com/RkXdLAS.jpg)

If in your simple minds still remains any doubt about the correctness of these procedures of levelling and their strength to prove that the surface of the earth is flat, then this video should dispel all your doubts : (http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 05:23:20 AM
Quote
Why do you presume the top of the iceberg is a straight line? The top of the iceberg will be a constant few meters above the sea level curve if it's as uniform as described.

Alpha, are you talking to me?

1. Regarding "A HUGE ICEBERGS" argument, and your question above, i can only ask you this:

If the shapes of all other types of icebergs (NON-tabular icebergs) don't follow the supposed curvature of the Sea LEVEL ("the curvature of the LEVEL", it figures, it say it all, :facepalm:), then why would any sane person expect that the formation of the general shape of TABULAR icebergs has anything to do with the supposed curvature of the Sea LEVEL (even if the Sea LEVEL were not the LEVEL at all, but a CURVE)

Why do we say "Sea LEVEL", instead of "Sea CURVE", after all?

2. "A huge icebergs" argument is not the lonely argument in favor of FET, not at all, there are countless similar arguments:

A) ENGINEERING (Suez Canal - the best example of this kind)

The things are more satisfactory when the allowance of 8 inches to the mile is not permitted to enter into the calculations at all ; in fact in those cases where an allowance is made, every thing turns out most unsatisfactory.

The allowing then for convexity, or what was called by engineers "forward levelling," has given way to the method of "back-and-fore" sight", or "double sight,", where no allowance whatever is made for convexity.

It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!

B) OCEAN BEDS argument:

Not only that the Ocean Basin/Floor is not CONVEX shaped, it is not even FLAT shaped, but CONCAVE, exactly as we would expect from something that we call A BASIN!!!

Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648925#msg1648925)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650478#msg1650478)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1649807#msg1649807)

C) LIGHTHOUSES : http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html)

D) PLANE SAILING : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html)

E) SEE LEVEL AND RIVERS : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648329#msg1648329)

F) GOCE GEOID : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1651185#msg1651185)

G) THE GREAT FLOOD : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638435#msg1638435 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638435#msg1638435)

H) TSUNAMI ARGUMENT : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1648526#msg1648526)

3.  Now, see this : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)

    PONDER ON THIS VERY CAREFULLY!!! THIS IS PURE LOGIC AND SCIENCE. THERE IS NO OPTION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPTIONS?

    If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

    Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

    My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)

A line of the surface of the earth allegedly curves 8 inches per mile, and pilots are still able to do this :

(http://i.imgur.com/FH5A3i0.jpg)

(http://)

(http://i.imgur.com/hWs4cP4.jpg)

Quote
Hey little children, why don't you go back to your playgrounds and resume your games for kids under 5 years? Or since you don't know how to use your own brain why don't you just ask this same question your guru Alpha2Omega?

Alpha, find me a picture like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!

P.S. If there is any doubt about the proper functioning of a compass in a high South latitudes, just read this: http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/255802-post1.html)

Still nothing?????????
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 11, 2015, 05:54:52 AM

http://www.piecesofvictoria.com/2013/10/exploring-st-kilda-with-roberto-seba/ (http://www.piecesofvictoria.com/2013/10/exploring-st-kilda-with-roberto-seba/)

The picture is exactly what you would expect for st kilda in october.

So in october same day .We have a sunset at stkilda bay beach south- west ,4hour later a sunset at a  darwin beach West . What you dont see a problem with that ?.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 06:28:43 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/dlx45lp.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 11, 2015, 06:42:58 AM
cikljamas, surely you are capable of answering simple questions. Do you have an answer for this?

...
Care to explain what would cause the patterns of light and dark on the disk as shown around 3:49? What would cause a moving "pool of dark" surrounded by light on a flat earth during the northern winter?

Still waiting.

If anyone has any doubt just look at the light and dark pattern which cikljamas requires for his claims.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 06:55:30 AM
FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JUNE :

(http://i.imgur.com/TfR2c6I.jpg)

FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JANUARY :

(http://i.imgur.com/Lmru6m2.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/8JK7OWy.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 11, 2015, 07:06:34 AM
If in your simple minds still remains any doubt about the correctness of these procedures of levelling and their strength to prove that the surface of the earth is flat, then this video should dispel all your doubts : (http://)
There are some questions you haven't answered about leveling in this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1687032#msg1687032), but why not answer those in a more appropriate thread. In case you haven't noticed, the topic of this thread is Antarctica Midnight Sun, not the BLE. Since you started it, it seems like you should know that.

You still have some questions from me more applicable to this thread that have not been answered yet. Please answer those here. I'll get the links to them so you don't have to bother your little head finding them.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 11, 2015, 07:09:34 AM
FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JUNE :

(http://i.imgur.com/TfR2c6I.jpg)

FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JANUARY :

(http://i.imgur.com/Lmru6m2.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/8JK7OWy.jpg)
Just like RET predicts.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 11, 2015, 07:23:56 AM
Still nothing?????????
There was this (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1685424#msg1685424).

You haven't answered this question from here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1685711#msg1685711) yet:

Which way do you think is true north in your picture? I want to see if you understand what it's showing.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: BJ1234 on May 11, 2015, 07:32:33 AM
A you would trust what mick west ? Who funds his sight .
So what is point 'B'?

Why are you asking Mick West what he would trust?  I'm sure he's not lurking on this site.

Why does he need his sight funded?  Did he have expensive eye surgery?  How do you know this?

You're not making any sense Charles.  ???
That is because he doesn't think about what his controllers tell him to say.  They just drop off an envelope with the cash and he gets text messages of how to respond.  He is nothing but a shill.
Will you stop it with this shill nonsense .no one pays me to post anything. This is how you agenda21 scum work .Anyone that doesn't yeld to your organization. Its lies & propergander, you hound harass intimidate & do your utmost to standover.
Oh the irony of this post.  You tell me to stop calling you a shill, then processto go and, basically, call me a shill.  That sounds exactly like something an anti-agenda 21 shill would say.  You hhaven't read anything I have posted.  Both sides of the agenda 21, and most other controversial issues, are controlled by The Rockefeller's.  This has been shown to be true by aabbbbaaaa.  I am professing the truth and trying to get both sides to see clearly.  The sooner you let go of these petty issues, the better.  Can't you see you are just being played like a fiddle?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 07:36:03 AM
I don't think silkpyjamas knows that June is mid winter,  although in Darwin, who would know,  they only have wet and dry seasons.   In any event, North West is about right for June sunset in Darwin.   

As to why the sun would set in the South West at St Kilda in Summer and the North West at Darwin in winter,  I don't really think that deserves an answer.

Also silkjammies,   if you want to debate the Bedford Level Experiment  I'd be more than happy to.   

Planes flying over water proves nothing,  other than that they are good pilots.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 07:47:06 AM
If in your simple minds still remains any doubt about the correctness of these procedures of levelling and their strength to prove that the surface of the earth is flat, then this video should dispel all your doubts : (http://)

You don't see the refraction is that video.   The presenter is deliberately trying to maximize refraction by having the camera only 2 ft above water level,  but if you look carefully you can see the optical distortion.

It reminds me of that Eric Dubay stuff about lighthouses where he fails to account for standard refraction corrections and the ship's bridge height.  Deliberately misleading people about lighthouse visibility distances.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 11, 2015, 08:03:50 AM
These questions still haven't been answered. This is repeated from here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1687034#msg1687034).

Any answers to the questions below, cikljamas? What the hell do those sets of nearly-parallel arrows on these maps represent?

Quote
1. If you apply this http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/256670-post75.html) to your case, what do you get?

- What you see in explanation above is the valid proof against the heliocentric theory, however the same description (of the Sun's path above the Northern Hemiplain) is in accordance with FET.
- Regarding your description (of the Sun's alleged path above the Southern Hemiplain), it is not in accordance neither with RET nor with FET.

As for the sentence written with red letters:

(http://i.imgur.com/alMSBHZ.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/yfR9chn.jpg)
The last time you placed apparently random arrows on a map you conceded that they were meaningless. Does the same apply here?

Your top map shows two arrows pointing due west from the northern part of Australia and southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

The second, a different projection, shows two slightly-north-of-due-west arrows from the western part of Australia and, again, southwestward-pointing arrows from southern Australia and the North Island of New Zealand.

What do these represent? What point are you trying to make? How do these images have anything to do with the red text?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 08:49:05 AM
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).

The best proof of the trueness of my words above is this:

FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JUNE :

(http://i.imgur.com/TfR2c6I.jpg)

FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JANUARY :

(http://i.imgur.com/Lmru6m2.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/8JK7OWy.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 11, 2015, 09:21:50 AM
You know you are played out when you can't even respond to the last 5 posts and can only repost what you posted before.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 09:28:27 AM
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).


Why shouldn't the sun set  south west.   Myself and Aliveandkicking have proven over and over again in this thread, that the sun sets in the south west in Australian and New Zealand Summer. 
You changed the wording to DUE south west, just now,   Even as far north as Darwin,  On the Summer Solstice sunset is at 246 degrees,   24 degrees south of west.   The text on your picture suggesting it's north west is wrong.  And not supported by any pictures.

If you go as far south as Hobart,  the furthest south,  the sun sets at 237 degrees on the summer solstice,  still not DUE south west  but only 12 degrees off.
The southernmost ip of New Zealand Jacquemart Island the summer solstice sunset is 229 degrees.

So since you changed the wording to DUE south west  ( 225 degrees )   I have to say that there is no part of New Zealand or Australia that the sun sets DUE south west. 

The closest  (Jacquemart Island)   is only 4 degrees off due south west however.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 09:49:28 AM
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).


Why shouldn't the sun set  south west.   Myself and Aliveandkicking have proven over and over again in this thread, that the sun sets in the south west in Australian and New Zealand Summer. 
You changed the wording to DUE south west, just now,   Even as far north as Darwin,  On the Summer Solstice sunset is at 246 degrees,   24 degrees south of west.   The text on your picture suggesting it's north west is wrong.  And not supported by any pictures.

If you go as far south as Hobart,  the furthest south,  the sun sets at 237 degrees on the summer solstice,  still not DUE south west  but only 12 degrees off.
The southernmost ip of New Zealand Jacquemart Island the summer solstice sunset is 229 degrees.

So since you changed the wording to DUE south west  ( 225 degrees )   I have to say that there is no part of New Zealand or Australia that the sun sets DUE south west. 

The closest  (Jacquemart Island)   is only 4 degrees off due south west however.

You must be a pomme.  Summer solstice in Australia is in december.  Northwest for june would be right.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 09:59:31 AM
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).


Why shouldn't the sun set  south west.   Myself and Aliveandkicking have proven over and over again in this thread, that the sun sets in the south west in Australian and New Zealand Summer. 
You changed the wording to DUE south west, just now,   Even as far north as Darwin,  On the Summer Solstice sunset is at 246 degrees,   24 degrees south of west.   The text on your picture suggesting it's north west is wrong.  And not supported by any pictures.

If you go as far south as Hobart,  the furthest south,  the sun sets at 237 degrees on the summer solstice,  still not DUE south west  but only 12 degrees off.
The southernmost ip of New Zealand Jacquemart Island the summer solstice sunset is 229 degrees.

So since you changed the wording to DUE south west  ( 225 degrees )   I have to say that there is no part of New Zealand or Australia that the sun sets DUE south west. 

The closest  (Jacquemart Island)   is only 4 degrees off due south west however.

You must be a pomme.  Summer solstice in Australia is in december.  Northwest for june would be right.

I already pointed that out a few posts ago.   On his Fannie Bay Map in  the overlaid text he says two things.

1.  June sunsets are north west,  which is correct.
2.  January Sunsets are also north west which is wrong.

If you've ever been to Darwin, there are only two seasons,  the wet season,  and the dry season.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 10:05:35 AM
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.


Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).


Why shouldn't the sun set  south west.   Myself and Aliveandkicking have proven over and over again in this thread, that the sun sets in the south west in Australian and New Zealand Summer. 
You changed the wording to DUE south west, just now,   Even as far north as Darwin,  On the Summer Solstice sunset is at 246 degrees,   24 degrees south of west.   The text on your picture suggesting it's north west is wrong.  And not supported by any pictures.

If you go as far south as Hobart,  the furthest south,  the sun sets at 237 degrees on the summer solstice,  still not DUE south west  but only 12 degrees off.
The southernmost ip of New Zealand Jacquemart Island the summer solstice sunset is 229 degrees.

So since you changed the wording to DUE south west  ( 225 degrees )   I have to say that there is no part of New Zealand or Australia that the sun sets DUE south west. 

The closest  (Jacquemart Island)   is only 4 degrees off due south west however.

You must be a pomme.  Summer solstice in Australia is in december.  Northwest for june would be right.

I already pointed that out a few posts ago.   On his Fannie Bay Map in  the overlaid text he says two things.

1.  June sunsets are north west,  which is correct.
2.  January Sunsets are also north west which is wrong.

If you've ever been to Darwin, there are only two seasons,  the wet season,  and the dry season.

I was bit slow picking that up.  I already posted this picture from a fannie bay/mindil beach sunset markets page 

(http://www.australiasoutback.com/~/media/atdw/darwin-and-surrounds/events/9001524/images/tnt_landscape__9046495_nttc_mindil_beach_121312.ashx?bc=white)

This moron earlier said he knew i was lying when i described my NZ experiences of south west sunset.   Now he wants us to believe some fuckwit on the internet has found a flaw in round earth theory!   ;D  ;D  ;D

Just too much.   :)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 11, 2015, 10:23:02 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/UCNxapk.jpg)

Only, in your impossible picture, compass should be able to point South at Midnight!

We are waiting (something that won't come-EVER)!
Still nothing?????????

Still nothing?????????

So, who is a troll here?
You are the troll (or have horrible reading comprehension.  Perhaps other issues).  The picture had been addressed earlier, but I'll explain further. 

On a round-Earth, the sun would appear north at that northern latitude at midnight.  There is no issue with what is seen in the picture.  At midnight the sun would be on the opposite side of the arctic circle from their location, which means the photographer would be looking north toward both it and the north pole at midnight.

Ckljamis, you really are terrible at this. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 11, 2015, 10:50:55 AM
Hey fucking retards,
That is not very christian of you.  No need to be a sore-loser you hypocrite.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 11, 2015, 10:56:11 AM
I was doing them a favor regarding this request:
Quote
How about you print off a map of new holland (australia) on to a 4a sheet of paper . Then  draw a line from the  stkilda beach location .south west . Then draw one from the broome location  in a west direction & then one from darwin in a west direction . Then draw a line from broome till it intercepts with the projected line of stkilda's south west sun set & then do the same from darwin.
Now kiddies dont try this at home,. You could be scarred for  life.  Leave it to the xspurts. What is an xspurt you ask .Well an x is a lover you got ridd of & a spurt. Well thats  a  drip under pressure.

Oh. That request was from charles bloomington (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1686578;topicseen#msg1686578). No wonder it made no sense.

I can't fathom what he was trying to show. What do you think the point of that exercise was, cikljamas?

Do you consider yourself scarred for life after drawing arrows on maps?  ;)

Quote
Regarding the sentence written with red letters: The sun shouldn't set (neither according to FET nor RET) due South-West, observing it from anywhere in New Zealand, or Australia. If it happens somehow, it can't be the consequence of any known astronomical rule (FET or RET), it can only be the consequence of messing up with maps of Southern regions (below the equator) which don't represent the reality (the real shape of southern continental masses).
The Sun does set closer to SW than WSW from the southernmost parts of New Zealand and Australia around the December solstice, so "setting in the southwest" is an accurate statement even if not terribly precise. You have to be slightly farther south to see sunsets at 225° azimuth (due SW), but so what? This is perfectly in accord with a spherical earth and known astronomy, and is seen from the real earth. It's caused by exactly the same reason as the Sun sets in the NW in similar northerly latitudes and has nothing to do with distortion associated with map projections.

It is very hard to explain assuming a flat earth, however. This is just one reason why the spherical Earth is much easier to believe than a flat earth.

Quote
The best proof of the trueness of my words above is this:

FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JUNE :

http://i.imgur.com/TfR2c6I.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/TfR2c6I.jpg)

FANNIE BAY SUNSET - JANUARY :

http://i.imgur.com/Lmru6m2.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Lmru6m2.jpg)

<map>
http://i.imgur.com/8JK7OWy.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/8JK7OWy.jpg)
Do you have any information where along the coast of Fannie Bay those photos were taken? It's several miles long. Were both taken from the same spot?

Do the arrows on the map actually originate from the site of the photos, or did you just plunk them down somewhere in an effort to make some point? What are they supposed to demonstrate? Why do you have the January arrow pointing the direction it is? Is that the direction you think the January sunset picture was taken? Why? The January Sun sets about 20° to 25° south of west at that latitude, not north of west like you say.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 11:00:54 AM
I was bit slow picking that up.  I already posted this picture from a fannie bay/mindil beach sunset markets page 

(http://www.australiasoutback.com/~/media/atdw/darwin-and-surrounds/events/9001524/images/tnt_landscape__9046495_nttc_mindil_beach_121312.ashx?bc=white)

That's North-West direction, you idiot!

Now he wants us to believe some fuckwit on the internet has found a flaw in round earth theory!   ;D  ;D  ;D

Just too much.   :)

Do you really believe that there is any difference between this guy: (http://)

and this guy:
(http://)




Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 11:24:21 AM
That's North-West direction, you idiot!
Spoken like someone who has never been there, and doesn't know that point (breakwater) in the middle of the picture is on the south end of the beach.
Anyone know what time of year it was taken?    Not a Darwin summer by the way they are dressed.

Do you really believe that there is any difference between this guy:
(http://)

and this guy:
(http://)

Yes I can see a difference,  the guy in the second video is what I imagine you act and sound like. 

EDIT:
Here's a video of sunset on Fannie Bay/Mindil Beach in January.    (http://)   skip to 1:30
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 11, 2015, 11:28:12 AM
Do you have any information where along the coast of Fannie Bay those photos were taken? It's several miles long. Were both taken from the same spot?

Do the arrows on the map actually originate from the site of the photos, or did you just plunk them down somewhere in an effort to make some point? What are they supposed to demonstrate? Why do you have the January arrow pointing the direction it is? Is that the direction you think the January sunset picture was taken? Why? The January Sun sets about 20° to 25° south of west at that latitude, not north of west like you say.

http://au.distancescalc.com/distance-from-wagait-beach-to-darwin (http://au.distancescalc.com/distance-from-wagait-beach-to-darwin)

The straight distance between Wagait Beach (Northern Territory) and Darwin (Northern Territory) is 6.61139 mi, and Wagait Beach is more or less exactly West from Fannie Beach, so why we can't see land on the horizon in the picture which shows Sunset in January if Sun sets due West (let alone South West) from Funnie Beach, instead of in the North-West direction, when looking from the same place???
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 11:30:50 AM
I was bit slow picking that up.  I already posted this picture from a fannie bay/mindil beach sunset markets page 

(http://www.australiasoutback.com/~/media/atdw/darwin-and-surrounds/events/9001524/images/tnt_landscape__9046495_nttc_mindil_beach_121312.ashx?bc=white)

That's North-West direction, you idiot!


Now he wants us to believe some fuckwit on the internet has found a flaw in round earth theory!   ;D  ;D  ;D

Just too much.   :)

Do you really believe that there is any difference between this guy: (http://)

and this guy:
(http://)

I am sorry.  My apologies.  I was thinking you were just a time wasting idiot troll.

This google picture has a compass on it to make it easier for you.

https://www.google.fi/maps/@-12.443515,130.83236,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szsbOjeiUT0jSWZbGDIy9bA!2e0 (https://www.google.fi/maps/@-12.443515,130.83236,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1szsbOjeiUT0jSWZbGDIy9bA!2e0)

or

https://goo.gl/maps/7xIRA (https://goo.gl/maps/7xIRA)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 11:38:48 AM
Here's a video of sunset on Fannie Bay/Mindil Beach in January.    (http://)   skip to 1:30

Clearly shows sunset in January is South West.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 11, 2015, 11:49:02 AM
so why we can't see land on the horizon in the picture which shows Sunset in January if Sun sets due West (let alone South West) from Funnie Beach, instead of in the North-West direction, when looking from the same place???
I see land on the horizon in that south-west sunset picture. 

Just to eliminate any confusion, the one from Mindil Beach with the people and the jetty that you claimed was "north-west"... lol. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 11, 2015, 01:25:01 PM
Do you have any information where along the coast of Fannie Bay those photos were taken? It's several miles long. Were both taken from the same spot?

Do the arrows on the map actually originate from the site of the photos, or did you just plunk them down somewhere in an effort to make some point? What are they supposed to demonstrate? Why do you have the January arrow pointing the direction it is? Is that the direction you think the January sunset picture was taken? Why? The January Sun sets about 20° to 25° south of west at that latitude, not north of west like you say.

http://au.distancescalc.com/distance-from-wagait-beach-to-darwin (http://au.distancescalc.com/distance-from-wagait-beach-to-darwin)

The straight distance between Wagait Beach (Northern Territory) and Darwin (Northern Territory) is 6.61139 mi, and Wagait Beach is more or less exactly West from Fannie Beach, so why we can't see land on the horizon in the picture which shows Sunset in January if Sun sets due West (let alone South West) from Funnie Beach, instead of in the North-West direction, when looking from the same place???
It does look like there is land on the horizon in the January sunset photo. The reason it's not more obvious is because it's more than 6 1/2 miles away (according to your overly-precise figure), not very high above sea level, and the photo was taken not far above sea level. Did you expect something like the Alps to be there?

Exactly how far away that land is depends on where the photo was taken from, which you never said.

If you're going to use photos as evidence for the direction of sunset, you need photos where the Sun is setting and the time of year is known, and camera direction is documented or can be unambiguously determined. Just posting yet another random photo of the Sun in the general vicinity of the horizon and saying SEE!!?! doesn't accomplish much. It's even worse for your case when the direction can be unambiguously determined, but you insist, without justification, that it's a different direction.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 11, 2015, 01:38:19 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/dlx45lp.jpg)
The fuzziness of the letters combined with the purple color make that too hard to read.  I'm not sure what you were saying there.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 11, 2015, 02:38:13 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/dlx45lp.jpg)
The fuzziness of the letters combined with the purple color make that too hard to read.  I'm not sure what you were saying there.
Concur. I wish he wouldn't put commentary and questions in images. Annotations are good, but make the commentary and questions text so they can be quoted (and read without going blind). The color and font choices here are atrocious.

Thanks for the reminder, though. cikljamas always tries to bring too many things up at once. Shit gets lost.

The question in purple is "Why don't we see this little cape in those photographs, if the Sun sets due south west?[lots more question marks]"

The Sun doesn't set due SW from here. It sets no more southerly than WSW from the Darwin area, roughly the direction of the lower arrow.

It depends on where the pictures were taken! It won't show up in a picture the direction of the arrow if it's taken from far enough north, like, say, by the town of Fannie Bay. I have asked for this information but you don't give it, probably because you don't have it.
 
Isn't that what we do see in the Mindil Beach photo, which is looking generally southwest from the area shown?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 11, 2015, 03:25:55 PM
Stkilda sunset is south west late oct , darwin sunset due west late oct.  Skilda beach has due south sunsets aswell . So cut out the manipulating & lets deal in truth & fact.

https://a1.cdn-hotels.com/cos/production167/d1106/573e30e0-ac67-11e4-99a1-d89d672bd508.jpg
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 11, 2015, 04:00:46 PM
Stkilda sunset is south west late oct , darwin sunset due west late oct.  Skilda beach has due south sunsets aswell[citation needed] . So cut out the manipulating & lets deal in truth & fact.
Yes, let's. Is "stkilda" St. Kilda (Melbourne area)? When has St. Kilda ever had a sunset due south? Please provide a verifiable account. "I seen it myself ." isn't good enough unless there's some independent (and reliable) confirmation.

In late October (I picked the 24th - is that late enough?) sunset in Darwin will be about 258° (12° south of due west). That same day, sunset will be at 254° (16° south of due west) from http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php). Both of these could be described as west-southwest. Darwin is just at the cusp between WSW and W, but calling that "due west" is a stretch. Why do you think this is significant?

The southernmost sunset at St. Kilda is 239° (still WSW) according to that website.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 11, 2015, 04:41:12 PM
 I often travel to bay side melbourne , I will take my trusty compass with me & take some bearings of the direction of fixed land markes like this boat ramp.
Could you please provide what maping data & other data has been compiled to produce sunearhtool.

 http://mikeandrewphotography.com/portfolio-view/st-kilda-beach-and-pier-hdr-image/ (http://mikeandrewphotography.com/portfolio-view/st-kilda-beach-and-pier-hdr-image/)

Oh citation iv fucken been to both those locations at sunset.Have you ?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 11, 2015, 05:03:11 PM
Stkilda sunset is south west late oct , darwin sunset due west late oct.  Skilda beach has due south sunsets aswell . So cut out the manipulating & lets deal in truth & fact.

https://a1.cdn-hotels.com/cos/production167/d1106/573e30e0-ac67-11e4-99a1-d89d672bd508.jpg

I often travel to bay side melbourne , I will take my trusty compass with me & take some bearings of the direction of fixed land markes like this boat ramp.
Could you please provide what maping data & other data has been compiled to produce sunearhtool.

 http://mikeandrewphotography.com/portfolio-view/st-kilda-beach-and-pier-hdr-image/ (http://mikeandrewphotography.com/portfolio-view/st-kilda-beach-and-pier-hdr-image/)

Oh citation iv fucken been to both those locations at sunset.Have you ?
Looks to be about 251 degrees for both of those sunset pictures.  That's not even directly South-West (225 degrees), let along due South (180). 

Got anything better?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 11, 2015, 05:55:20 PM
You will just have to wait till I get a chance to film it with a compass in the footage. Useing tools from the net , your reliance is on what mapping has been used  . I will be taking my bearings from compass . Not someones imaginary  axis  of a projection map .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Rama Set on May 11, 2015, 06:00:46 PM
You will just have to wait till I get a chance to film it with a compass in the footage. Useing tools from the net , your reliance is on what mapping has been used  . I will be taking my bearings from compass . Not someones imaginary  axis  of a projection map .

Sounds scary. Isn't.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 11, 2015, 06:20:18 PM


John Lennon, CIA, Flat Earth and the Position of …: (http://) :)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 06:28:34 PM
I often travel to bay side melbourne , I will take my trusty compass with me & take some bearings of the direction of fixed land markes like this boat ramp.

The pier direction runs close to due west.   So that sunset is nowhere near due south.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 06:59:04 PM


John Lennon, CIA, Flat Earth and the Position of …: (http://) :)

Just another youtube fruitcake.    Good music tho.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 11, 2015, 08:51:13 PM
I often travel to bay side melbourne , I will take my trusty compass with me & take some bearings of the direction of fixed land markes like this boat ramp.
Could you please provide what maping data & other data has been compiled to produce sunearhtool.
Quote from: http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php
The calculation of the position of the sun is based on equations from Astronomical Algorithms, by J.J. Michalsky.
Accuracy of 0.01 deg, the observed values may vary from calculations because they depend by: atmospheric composition, temperature, pressure and other conditions.
To reduce the atmospheric refraction in sunrise and sunset, we assume -0.833 degree in the calculated value.
The calculated results aren't certificated, than you can use for educational, work, research but not for litigation.
If you're worried about the reliability of the answers, why not compare the predictions with actual sunrises and sunsets yourself. That ought to be easy enough to do. You can check that you know how to use your compass, too.

Quote
http://mikeandrewphotography.com/portfolio-view/st-kilda-beach-and-pier-hdr-image/ (http://mikeandrewphotography.com/portfolio-view/st-kilda-beach-and-pier-hdr-image/)
That boat launch ramp is aligned about 240° azimuth (due west is 270°, due south is 180°). The sun is to the right of the ramp, so it's probably around 245° or so (WSW), consistent with a November sunset as described in the photo caption (245° on Nov 15). Is this what you think is due south?

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Sunearthtools-st-kilde_zpsmvtovyoi.jpg)
Quote
Oh citation iv fucken been to both those locations at sunset.Have you ?
Nope. We had to skip Melbourne entirely on our trip through that part of Australia in early November a few years ago - poor planning on our part didn't leave enough time for it, unfortunately. Quite honestly, I doubt we would have thought to check on the sunset direction from St.Kilde even if we had spent time in Melbourne, though. I do have some awesomely accurate and reliable tools available. They work because they're based on a spherical earth model and well-established astronomical principles. I trust them a lot more than I trust you.[nb]I'm not necessarily accusing you of lying. There's a very good chance you simply have no clue what's going on and really believe the stuff you post here.[/nb]

What you're saying is "I done seen it myself & heers a pitcher too proof itt ." The problem is that the pictures you've provided don't back up what you claim to have seen. At all.

Do go and take compass bearings on sunsets, though. Please report what you find. You may learn something and we'll see if you know how to use a compass. Fortunately for you, it will be more than six months until the Sun is at its southerly position again (I can confidently predict this because of well-established astronomical principles and the common sense spherical earth model), so you can practice in the meantime; maybe you can just quietly disappear by then and hope everyone has forgotten this discussion if you don't want to admit you're wrong.
 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 09:11:40 PM
You guys are being played by a troll.  Bloomington had no problem with a southwest sunset at Perth.  and provided a southwest picture at St Kilda.  You are just being messed with by the same time wasting retard.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 09:17:36 PM
You guys are being played by a troll.  Bloomington had no problem with a southwest sunset at Perth.  and provided a southwest picture at St Kilda.  You are just being messed with by the same time wasting retard.

I think you're right,  he has the knack of asking seemingly  genuine questions well phrased and formulated one minute and then next minute he reverts to a dribbling illiterate conspiracy idiot.  I'm guessing we are dealing not just with one troll but with multiple people using the same account.     Some of his idiosyncratic punctuation is the same as Papa Legba.   

I need to put  new batteries in the troll detector.  ;D

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 09:39:31 PM
You guys are being played by a troll.  Bloomington had no problem with a southwest sunset at Perth.  and provided a southwest picture at St Kilda.  You are just being messed with by the same time wasting retard.

I think you're right,  he has the knack of asking seemingly  genuine questions well phrased and formulated one minute and then next minute he reverts to a dribbling illiterate conspiracy idiot.  I'm guessing we are dealing not just with one troll but with multiple people using the same account.     Some of his idiosyncratic punctuation is the same as Papa Legba.   

I need to put  new batteries in the troll detector.  ;D

What about my idea he is Eric Dubay?      The guy must have quite a bit of time on his hands and only a tiny world of his own to live in.   It must be fairly lonely to have such weird fringe beliefs you cannot share with an ordinary person.     Arguing - even stupidly- with others helps define his existance by giving him a feeling of importance - something like that.   



Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 11, 2015, 09:54:38 PM
You guys are being played by a troll.  Bloomington had no problem with a southwest sunset at Perth.  and provided a southwest picture at St Kilda.  You are just being messed with by the same time wasting retard.

I think you're right,  he has the knack of asking seemingly  genuine questions well phrased and formulated one minute and then next minute he reverts to a dribbling illiterate conspiracy idiot.  I'm guessing we are dealing not just with one troll but with multiple people using the same account.     Some of his idiosyncratic punctuation is the same as Papa Legba.   

I need to put  new batteries in the troll detector.  ;D

What about my idea he is Eric Dubay?      The guy must have quite a bit of time on his hands and only a tiny world of his own to live in.   It must be fairly lonely to have such weird fringe beliefs you cannot share with anybody.    Arguing - even stupidly- with others helps define his existance by giving him a feeling of importance - something like that.    Without us, he risks a catastrophic breakdown due to the unbareable emptiness of his life.

It's possible,  I notice that  Eric Dubay has an definite overtones of an Australian accent.   But he claims to be an American living in Thailand.   

One thing is for sure, he doesn't like the Flat Earth Society  http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html)

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 11, 2015, 10:16:05 PM
You guys are being played by a troll.  Bloomington had no problem with a southwest sunset at Perth.  and provided a southwest picture at St Kilda.  You are just being messed with by the same time wasting retard.

I think you're right,  he has the knack of asking seemingly  genuine questions well phrased and formulated one minute and then next minute he reverts to a dribbling illiterate conspiracy idiot.  I'm guessing we are dealing not just with one troll but with multiple people using the same account.     Some of his idiosyncratic punctuation is the same as Papa Legba.   

I need to put  new batteries in the troll detector.  ;D

What about my idea he is Eric Dubay?      The guy must have quite a bit of time on his hands and only a tiny world of his own to live in.   It must be fairly lonely to have such weird fringe beliefs you cannot share with anybody.    Arguing - even stupidly- with others helps define his existance by giving him a feeling of importance - something like that.    Without us, he risks a catastrophic breakdown due to the unbareable emptiness of his life.

It's possible,  I notice that  Eric Dubay has an definite overtones of an Australian accent.   But he claims to be an American living in Thailand.   

One thing is for sure, he doesn't like the Flat Earth Society  http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html)

Thanks.

Dubay definately sounds american here.  No trace at all of 'strine.   

(http://)

Dubay does not sound crazy and comes over as being articulate and intelligent.  It is therefore doubly weird that he has such strange beliefs and does not allow them to be discussed

The plot thickens.............
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 12, 2015, 07:24:03 AM
Would you all agree that this is the final version of "Mindil beach - Sunset" case: (http://i.imgur.com/8kdpmAJ.jpg) ,having in mind what we can see in this video (http://) , provided by Rayzor)?

Now, we have to come back again to the foundation of modern astronomy which i have established by offering to the humanity absolutely irrefutable proof of the stability (motionless) of the Earth.

     Supposition 1. ROUND EARTH + HELIOCENTRISM

1. There would be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Arctic circle.
2. There would be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Antarctic circle, also.

THERE IS NO ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN WITHIN THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!

A consequence of that: HELIOCENTRISM IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS HYPOTHESIS WHICH I HAVE REFUTED ONCE AND FOR ALL WITH JUST ONE SIMPLE BUT UNDENIABLE ARGUMENT!!!

For those who are still not acquainted with this simple and devastating (for HC theory) proof, here it is once more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)

Now, if heliocentrism is wrong then Round Earth theory must be wrong, also, because without the alleged tilt of the earth, there is no way how someone could explain a principle of work of seasons (day and night map) on the Earth.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)

    Supposition 2. ROUND EARTH + GEOCENTRISM

1. There would NOT be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Arctic circle.
2. There would NOT be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Antarctic circle, also.

The Sun should be a much smaller body than the Earth, because smaller bodies have to circle around bigger bodies instead of vice-versa. Same goes for the stars and the moon.

A consequence of that: 1. All celestial bodies must be very, very close to the Earth.
2. The Sun's rays should penetrate through the Earth or bend around the Earth so to be able to illuminate large portions of the Earth simultanously. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659755#msg1659755 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659755#msg1659755)
3. Velocities of the supposed geocentric-daily motions of the celestial bodies around the motionless ROUND earth would be enormous.
4. There would be unexplainable, why the speeds of the Sun's motion are so different when comparing his motion above the tropic of capricorn vs his motion above the tropic of cancer. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677587#msg1677587 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677587#msg1677587)


    Supposition 3. THE EARTH IS FLAT

1. There would NOT be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Arctic circle.

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)

2. There would be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Antarctic circle if there were TRUE Midnight Sun phenomena down there, that is to say, if the Sun were CLEARLY visible for FULL 24 hours a day within the Antarctic circle, which has yet to be determine!

I have opened this thread in order to try to put this question beyond dispute.

This would be the best way how to render it: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1686598#msg1686598 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1686598#msg1686598)

While we are waiting for someone to bring forth such an evidence, we can try something else :

If anyone has the idea how to determine the direction of Sun's motion in this video, let us know:
ANTARCTICA LEMAIRE CHANNEL SUNSET : (http://)

(http://i.imgur.com/4Sz40wS.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg)

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 12, 2015, 08:08:08 AM
Midnight Sun in the Antarctic circle is impossible on a flat Earth.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: hoppy on May 12, 2015, 08:13:32 AM
If in your simple minds still remains any doubt about the correctness of these procedures of levelling and their strength to prove that the surface of the earth is flat, then this video should dispel all your doubts : (http://)

You don't see the refraction is that video.   The presenter is deliberately trying to maximize refraction by having the camera only 2 ft above water level,  but if you look carefully you can see the optical distortion.

It reminds me of that Eric Dubay stuff about lighthouses where he fails to account for standard refraction corrections and the ship's bridge height.  Deliberately misleading people about lighthouse visibility distances.
jamas has posted an excellent flat video. If you think that lighthouse sits on a ball you are not using your thought processes correctly.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 12, 2015, 08:59:58 AM
If in your simple minds still remains any doubt about the correctness of these procedures of levelling and their strength to prove that the surface of the earth is flat, then this video should dispel all your doubts : (http://)

You don't see the refraction is that video.   The presenter is deliberately trying to maximize refraction by having the camera only 2 ft above water level,  but if you look carefully you can see the optical distortion.

It reminds me of that Eric Dubay stuff about lighthouses where he fails to account for standard refraction corrections and the ship's bridge height.  Deliberately misleading people about lighthouse visibility distances.
jamas has posted an excellent flat video. If you think that lighthouse sits on a ball you are not using your thought processes correctly.

You might be well intentioned,  but the guy who did that video is being deliberately misleading, if not downright lying.  Refraction is a well know source of error in surveying.  Take 5 minutes and look up C&R correction in geodetic surveys.   Every single commercial surveying software package comes with C&R,  (curvature and refraction) correction.  And every surveyor knows that you don't take levels close to the ground, especially over water like that video does.   That video could be used as a classroom example of how NOT to take a sighting.   

This topic goes back to the original bedford level experiment, where Rowbotham,  who hasn't got a clue about surveying, shoots his levels close to the water and concludes the earth is flat,  only to be disproven by Wallace who shoots his levels  13 ft above the water and discovers the earth is curved exactly like it should be.  Finally Henry Yule Oldham, repeated it later confirming Wallace's results and ending the controversy.

We should debate the Bedford Level Experiment, but perhaps in a seperate topic.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 12, 2015, 09:13:39 AM
Midnight Sun in the Antarctic circle is impossible on a flat Earth.

That's the way I understand it as well.  Putting it simply,  you can't have a flat earth with two poles. 

silkpyjamas has failed to read ( or is deliberately ignoring )  any of the earlier postings on antarctic midnight sun.   But maybe he was distracted,  so here again, are two videos that he claims are impossible.

(http://)
(http://)

This is impossible on a flat earth.  So RIP flat earth theory,  for about the 1000th time.   


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 12, 2015, 09:29:44 AM
If anyone has the idea how to determine the direction of Sun's motion in this video, let us know:
(http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg)

Identified.  That is about 11-30PM with the sun travelling right to left

(http://)

(http://)

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 12, 2015, 10:50:02 AM
I'm not going over the Mindil beach thing again,  you just keep deliberately restating it incorrectly.   

The zigzag idea is just wrong,  the earth doesn't move in a circle each 24 hours,  it rotates on it's axis every 24 hours.   That's what gives us day and night.  And the tilt of the axis gives us the seasons.
Your video purports to show what would happen on a round earth, when in fact it's the flat earth that has the sun moving in circles.   

You've confused rotation on an axis with moving in a circle.   In this video of yours (http://)  you should be spinning around, not moving the camera in circles.

And Aliveandkicking has nailed the Lemaire Channel directions nicely.   More nails in the flat earth coffin.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 12, 2015, 11:09:20 AM
Almost solstice time lapse at Davis station  ;D

(http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 12, 2015, 11:24:31 AM
If anyone has the idea how to determine the direction of Sun's motion in this video, let us know:
(http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg)

Identified.  That is about 11-30PM with the sun travelling right to left

(http://)

Below that video we can read these words:

The Lemaire Channel is a spectacular sight with enormous sheer cliffs falling straight into the sea. Affectionately known as "Kodak Gap," this narrow 7 mile long waterway flows between the 3,000-foot peaks of Booth Island and the peninsula Glaciers and cliffs reflected in still waters at the south end of the channel. We dropped anchor at the southern end of the channel at about 10 pm and waited for the sun to set slowly at midnight. We could see the Quark Sea Adventurer also anchored near Pleneau Island and their yellow jacketed passengers walking on a nearby ridge.

(http://i.imgur.com/YSqKRdb.jpg)

Does this mean that the Sun sets at the Northern end of Lemaire channel?

What do you think?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 12, 2015, 11:35:21 AM
Would you all agree that this is the final version of "Mindil beach - Sunset" case:
(http://i.imgur.com/8kdpmAJ.jpg)
,having in mind what we can see in this video (http://) , provided by Rayzor)?
The Sun is setting south of due west in the video, so no issues there. Since it's clear, apparently even to you now, that the Sun sets in the WSW to WNW range, why don't you just discard those maps? If you insist that you need one, replace it with one with the arrows pointing in the WSW and WNW directions and labeled as such. That will be less confusing than labeling a WSW arrow as "west" for some reason, and a due west arrow as "northwest". Get rid of the purple text and graphics while you're at it, too, please!

Quote
Now, we have to come back again to the foundation of modern astronomy which i have established
Oh, please...  ::)

Quote
by offering to the humanity absolutely irrefutable proof of the stability (motionless) of the Earth.

     Supposition 1. ROUND EARTH + HELIOCENTRISM

1. There would be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Arctic circle.
2. There would be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Antarctic circle, also.
You have never successfully explained why this would be so. In order for this to be the case, the Earth would have to be much, much closer to the Sun than the Heliocentric model has it.

Quote
THERE IS NO ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN WITHIN THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!
You see... we told you! Your strawman argument is exposed for what it is.

Quote
A consequence of that: HELIOCENTRISM IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS HYPOTHESIS WHICH I HAVE REFUTED ONCE AND FOR ALL WITH JUST ONE SIMPLE BUT UNDENIABLE ARGUMENT!!!
Nope. cikljamas' completely bogus representation of the the Heliocentric model is undeniably wrong. Are you still confused about the Heliocentric model, or are you intentionally misrepresenting what it says? The latter is called lying.

Quote
For those who are still not acquainted with this simple and devastating (for HC theory this idea) proof, here it is once more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)

Now, if heliocentrism is wrong then Round Earth theory must be wrong,
Even if the condition were true (it's not, as is clearly shown if you follow those threads), how does that conclusion necessarily follow?

Quote
also, because without the alleged tilt of the earth, there is no way how someone could explain a principle of work of seasons (day and night map) on the Earth.
Which is how we know the Earth rotates and its axis is tilted. Simple and elegant, this accurately explains millennia of observations.

Quote
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62998.msg1667067#msg1667067)

    Supposition 2. ROUND EARTH + GEOCENTRISM

1. There would NOT be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Arctic circle.
2. There would NOT be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Antarctic circle, also.
Since there would not be in this model or the actual Heliocentric model, this is ambiguous.

Quote
The Sun should be a much smaller body than the Earth, because smaller bodies have to circle around bigger bodies instead of vice-versa. Same goes for the stars and the moon.
If you're going to argue about orbital mechanics, you may want to learn something about it first. When you say "smaller" here, you mean "less massive". Even so, the "smaller" body doesn't "circle around" the "bigger" body, they both orbit their common center of mass. Orbits are not necessarily perfect circles; in fact, they're very seldom, if ever, perfect circles.

Quote
A consequence of that: 1. All celestial bodies must be very, very close to the Earth.
Why? How can you determine the size of the Sun based only on the assumption that it is less massive than the Earth. You have to make another assumption about its density to do that. This is why your earlier fuzzy thinking about the linear size instead of mass of orbiting bodies is leading you astray.

Quote
2. The Sun's rays should penetrate through the Earth or bend around the Earth so to be able to illuminate large portions of the Earth simultanously. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659755#msg1659755 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1659755#msg1659755)
3. Velocities of the supposed geocentric-daily motions of the celestial bodies around the motionless ROUND earth would be enormous.
4. There would be unexplainable, why the speeds of the Sun's motion are so different when comparing his motion above the tropic of capricorn vs his motion above the tropic of cancer. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677587#msg1677587 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1677587#msg1677587)
OK. I'm convinced. The Geocentric Universe is impossible! Welcome to the 17th Century!

Quote
    Supposition 3. THE EARTH IS FLAT

1. There would NOT be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Arctic circle.

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)

2. There would be a ZIGZAG motion of the Sun within the Antarctic circle if there were TRUE Midnight Sun phenomena down there, that is to say, if the Sun were CLEARLY visible for FULL 24 hours a day within the Antarctic circle, which has yet to be determine!
Well, there you go, then! We do see a true midnight sun from within the Antarctic circle and no "zigzag".
Quote
I have opened this thread in order to try to put this question beyond dispute.
And it is beyond dispute.

Let's review:
cikljamas' strawman substitute for the Heliocentric model of the solar system is nothing but a strawman.
The Geocentric model of the solar system is clearly shown to be impossible (some of cikljamas' reasons are even correct).
The flat-earth model of the universe is wrong (fails on cikljamas' own "Antarctic zig-zag" requirement).

This pretty much leaves us with the Heliocentric model of the solar system that does work. That's the one with a large (on a human scale) rotating spherical earth, orbiting a much more massive sun at great distance compared with earth's size, and the stars at even vastly greater distances. This expects no "zig-zag" motion of the Sun from anywhere on earth (check!), the Sun appearing to move along a constant line through the backdrop of stars from anywhere on earth (check!), daily motion of the Sun and stars across the sky in a way that depends on latitude (check!), northern and southern circumpolar stars (check!), including the Sun at high enough latitudes at certain times of year (check!), seasons depending on the position of the sun through the year (check!).

If there are any other possibilities that successfully explain all of the above, let's hear them! Notions that fail any of these need not apply. There are additional observations that also need to be addressed by competing models, but none presented so far address even the obvious basics.

Quote
This would be the best way how to render it: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1686598#msg1686598 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1686598#msg1686598)
Render what? You still haven't explained what this picture is telling you. I'll repeat the question again: Which way is true north in this picture. How do you know?

I'll add this: How do you know what time it was when the picture was taken? [Yes, I know there's a watch in the picture.]

Quote
While we are waiting for someone to bring forth such an evidence, we can try something else :
What evidence are you waiting for? Antarctic midnight sun? It's been provided numerous times.

Quote
If anyone has the idea how to determine the direction of Sun's motion in this video, let us know:
ANTARCTICA LEMAIRE CHANNEL SUNSET : (http://)

http://i.imgur.com/4Sz40wS.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/4Sz40wS.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg)
Lovely pictures. Do you have some reason to believe the sunset is in the north? Don't be shy. Let's hear it! [OK, I see you are just now attempting that. Stay tuned...]

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 12, 2015, 12:31:18 PM
If anyone has the idea how to determine the direction of Sun's motion in this video, let us know:
(http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg)

Identified.  That is about 11-30PM with the sun travelling right to left

(http://)

Below that video we can read these words:

The Lemaire Channel is a spectacular sight with enormous sheer cliffs falling straight into the sea. Affectionately known as "Kodak Gap," this narrow 7 mile long waterway flows between the 3,000-foot peaks of Booth Island and the peninsula Glaciers and cliffs reflected in still waters at the south end of the channel. We dropped anchor at the southern end of the channel at about 10 pm and waited for the sun to set slowly at midnight. We could see the Quark Sea Adventurer also anchored near Pleneau Island and their yellow jacketed passengers walking on a nearby ridge.

(http://i.imgur.com/YSqKRdb.jpg)

Does this mean that the Sun sets at the Northern end of Lemaire channel?

What do you think?

It sets at the southern end.

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)

Timelapse of almost one day of cruise in southwest direction

(http://)

Similar trip thru same south west neuymayer channel and onwards into southern sunset.

(http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 12, 2015, 12:40:48 PM
If anyone has the idea how to determine the direction of Sun's motion in this video, let us know:
http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg)

Identified.  That is about 11-30PM with the sun travelling right to left

(http://)

Below that video we can read these words:

The Lemaire Channel is a spectacular sight with enormous sheer cliffs falling straight into the sea. Affectionately known as "Kodak Gap," this narrow 7 mile long waterway flows between the 3,000-foot peaks of Booth Island and the peninsula Glaciers and cliffs reflected in still waters at the south end of the channel. We dropped anchor at the southern end of the channel at about 10 pm and waited for the sun to set slowly at midnight. We could see the Quark Sea Adventurer also anchored near Pleneau Island and their yellow jacketed passengers walking on a nearby ridge.
Unless you have a real location (an accurate latitude and longitude would be best), you're just speculating.

Quote
http://i.imgur.com/YSqKRdb.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/YSqKRdb.jpg)

Does this mean that the Sun sets at the Northern end of Lemaire channel?
Not when viewed from the south end of the channel.

Quote
What do you think?

You need to do better research before just plunking locations and arrows on maps.

Quote from: Antarctic Treaty Visitor Site Guide
Pleneau Island
65˚06’S, 64˚04’W - Located west of Booth Island at the southern end of the Lemaire Channel.
Pleneau Island Visitor Site Guide [pdf] (http://www.ats.aq/siteguidelines/documents/2014/Pleneau%20Island_e.pdf).

Based on the description you quote, you've got them on the wrong side of Booth Island. Your speculation about their location is obviously wrong.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 12, 2015, 01:06:16 PM
Just to clarify the zigzag misconception,  since that seems to be at the heart of your misunderstanding.   

Instead of moving the camera in circles, you should be rotating on an axis,   a bit like this,  where you are rotating about a central axis.

(http://)

Best video I could find on short notice to illustrate the motion.   Please notice NO ZIGZAG. sorry.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 12, 2015, 02:41:45 PM
If anyone has the idea how to determine the direction of Sun's motion in this video, let us know:
(http://i.imgur.com/q9YW5Hn.jpg)

Identified.  That is about 11-30PM with the sun travelling right to left

(http://)

Below that video we can read these words:

The Lemaire Channel is a spectacular sight with enormous sheer cliffs falling straight into the sea. Affectionately known as "Kodak Gap," this narrow 7 mile long waterway flows between the 3,000-foot peaks of Booth Island and the peninsula Glaciers and cliffs reflected in still waters at the south end of the channel. We dropped anchor at the southern end of the channel at about 10 pm and waited for the sun to set slowly at midnight. We could see the Quark Sea Adventurer also anchored near Pleneau Island and their yellow jacketed passengers walking on a nearby ridge.

(http://i.imgur.com/YSqKRdb.jpg)

Does this mean that the Sun sets at the Northern end of Lemaire channel?

What do you think?

It sets at the southern end.

(http://)

(http://i.imgur.com/3qaxQBB.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 12, 2015, 04:53:54 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/3qaxQBB.jpg)
That looks like it's misidentified. Where are other land features, like the large promontory partway up the narrow channel on the east side, and where on the map are those low hills in front of the Sun in the photo you are showing?

Why do you think the photo is taken from where the pin is instead of where it's described? "We could see the Quark Sea Adventurer also anchored near Pleneau Island and their yellow jacketed passengers walking on a nearby ridge." Pleneau Island is in the area of the map covered by the overlapping photo in your image, above. Most of the island, certainly all of the northern part where the landing sites are, would not be visible from your speculative location.

Unless we have an accurate location for the ship, we can only guess at its location based on the description given, and clues from the photos. It's described as "near Pleneau Island", and the picture of people traipsing around support the remark about them "walking on a nearby ridge". While not absolutely confirmed, this alone strongly suggests the sunset was viewed from further west than you suppose, which forecloses a clear shot up the narrow channel.

Most likely, the mountain you have picked out is east of the red arrowhead in the map view below (right of the arrowhead on the map since north is top; it's left in the photo since we're looking south). The ship would probably probably be positioned somewhere around the top of the red arrow because that's where he sunset (to the south) would be most visible, and this fits the description regarding Pleneau Island. 

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/Lemaire%20Channel%20Sunset%20GE%20600_zpsfvyaucwi.jpg)

Seriously, why wouldn't the makers of these videos, or, for that matter, any of what must be thousands of people to take these cruises, ever say "much to our astonishment, the Sun set in the northeast!!!" Are they all in on The ConspiracyTM? Rather than keep all those people quiet, wouldn't it would be "more secure" to simply ban tourist travel to high southern latitudes? This is all very far-fetched, and is probably the biggest weakness in your current already very weak line of argument.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 12, 2015, 05:48:09 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/3qaxQBB.jpg)

The right image is from Google Earth meaning that it was taken by satellites orbiting the Earth.  To call that image legitimate is to accept that satellites exist.  Also, the mountain in the left photo clearly bears more resemblance to the mountain below the marked point in the right image, and it's size better matches that of the mountain in the left photo too.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 12, 2015, 08:43:12 PM
Well, that was easy to prove wrong, just like your zigzag.  Got anything harder?
(http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag167/jeffro556/lemaire_zpsjr9hihrn.gif)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 12, 2015, 09:52:01 PM
These videos show boats en route to le maire channel situated amongst the islands on the western coast of the mainland of antarctica.

The route goes thru gerlache channel into neuymayer channel and then onwards in the direction of le maire channel.   The route shown in the videos is generally south west

The first of these videos begins heading towards south west towards paradise bay, shows the boat going into Paradise bay and then coming out the same direction and going into Neumayer channel.   Neuymayer channel has a zig zag but begins and ends in a southwest direction for this direction of travel.


1. Timelapse of almost one day of cruise in southwest direction.  30th of december 

(http://)

2. Similar trip thru same south west neuymayer channel and onwards into southern sunset.

(http://)


North bound thru Le maire channel

(http://)

Star princess heading southwest down Neuymayer channel  and then onwards  20 miles  (not shown) to within one mile of Le maire channel (shown) beyond which the large ship is not allowed to travel further south due to the antarctic treaty limiting large passenger ships carrying more than 500 passengers from going over the line of 65S.   Detailed explanation given by the captain near end of video.

(http://)

------------------------

Interestingly you can get the entire trip thru neuymayer and lemaire channel with these two time lapse videos

Already shown, in this view you have the long journey southwest to the end of neuymayer channel with palmer station on the right on anvers island.

(http://)

And in this view the journey continues from palmer station on another trip in the morning with the sun shining from the north down le maire channel.

(http://)

In this video the man is holding a GPS showing their location at the northern end of le maire channel with a view of 'Unas tits' (0.12 and 4.04)) on the mainland at the northern end of le maire channel with the boat travelling southwest. 

(http://)

Le Maire channel Northern end

Unas tits

(http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/unas-tits.jpg)

(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/499505771-antarctica-mountain-range-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=S%2fUSiTiPlzAEhxEnuLJ%2b%2fWHxqC8iO55JBdTCdeClmOnR6Zn5%2fUZqwueE4AwunTKu)

http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-725164-stock-footage-una-s-tits-at-lemaire-chanel-on-a-beautiful-day-in-antarctica.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-725164-stock-footage-una-s-tits-at-lemaire-chanel-on-a-beautiful-day-in-antarctica.html)

Looking east in le maire channel showing unas tits at left

(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/91277915-unas-tits-unas-peaks-lemaire-channel-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=ptvJSN77H5C0iTfz3WZE%2fv%2fm03SdoZjk8p5DJU%2f6cXFPjH5C2f9Z%2fm7kxKgDnWX%2f)

(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/463033419-reflections-of-cliffs-and-mountains-in-the-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=mUN6mz18s1YBvTIcfZ9IAEZXkaNqCC3IIZo95fkerF0w2ehXQzNkfRoAo8RaKfOu)

Le Maire channel Southern end

The steep cliff at the southern end of the channel is the east side of booth island.  Wandel peak there is 750m high going more or less straight up. 

(http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/wp-content/gallery/cache/1789__800x800_wandel-peak-booth-island-lamaire-channel-antarctica.jpg?w=1200&h=672)
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/photo_gallery/ay/images/AY_001.jpg)

Climbers route up east face of booth island

http://aac-publications.s3.amazonaws.com/aaj-12201019302-1394122615.jpg (http://aac-publications.s3.amazonaws.com/aaj-12201019302-1394122615.jpg)

(http://us.123rf.com/450wm/cascoly2/cascoly20703/cascoly2070300416/847019-sunset--rays-of-setting-sun-sneak-thru-jagged-peaks-reflecting-on-dark-seas-lemaire-channel-antarcti.jpg)



 


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 13, 2015, 02:47:19 AM
North bound thru Le maire channel

(http://)

You are right, it is northbound trip through Lemaire channel.
That settles the matter!

Of course, this is a much better representation of the northbound trip thru Lemaire channel: (http://)

By carefully watching video above, everybody can easily discern all land features which Alpha and 29silhouette have tried (unsuccessfully) to muddle them up. Sorry guys, but it seems that we just have proved (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Antarctica google maps are "so accurate" that you can throw them in the garbage right away.

Now, it is obvious that Lemaire channel (a.k.a. Kodak gap) streches from the East to the West, instead of from the South to the North.

We gotcha you!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 13, 2015, 02:52:58 AM
North bound thru Le maire channel

(http://)

You are right, it is northbound trip through Lemaire channel.
That settles the matter!

Of course, this is a much better representation of the northbound trip thru Lemaire channel: (http://)

By carefully watching video above, everybody can easily discern all land features which Alpha and 29silhouette have tried (unsuccessfully) to muddle them up. Sorry guys, but it seems that we just have proved (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Antarctica google maps are "so accurate" that you can throw them in the garbage right away.

Now, it is obvious that Lemaire channel (a.k.a. Kodak gap) streches from the East to the West, instead of from the South to the North.

We gotcha you!

My videos show you are a troll.

Likely the same idiot troll as all of the rest of the silly flat earthers appearing on this thread.

What a stupid pointless game you are playing
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 13, 2015, 03:00:53 AM
North bound thru Le maire channel

(http://)

You are right, it is northbound trip through Lemaire channel.
That settles the matter!

Of course, this is a much better representation of the northbound trip thru Lemaire channel: (http://)

By carefully watching video above, everybody can easily discern all land features which Alpha and 29silhouette have tried (unsuccessfully) to muddle them up. Sorry guys, but it seems that we just have proved (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Antarctica google maps are "so accurate" that you can throw them in the garbage right away.

Now, it is obvious that Lemaire channel (a.k.a. Kodak gap) streches from the East to the West, instead of from the South to the North.

We gotcha you!

My videos show you are a troll.

Likely the same idiot troll as all of the rest of the silly flat earthers appearing on this thread.

What a stupid pointless game you are playing

What is going on with you? Are you blind or absolutely dishonest person, or just totally retarded?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 13, 2015, 03:03:14 AM
North bound thru Le maire channel

(http://)

You are right, it is northbound trip through Lemaire channel.
That settles the matter!

Of course, this is a much better representation of the northbound trip thru Lemaire channel: (http://)

By carefully watching video above, everybody can easily discern all land features which Alpha and 29silhouette have tried (unsuccessfully) to muddle them up. Sorry guys, but it seems that we just have proved (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Antarctica google maps are "so accurate" that you can throw them in the garbage right away.

Now, it is obvious that Lemaire channel (a.k.a. Kodak gap) streches from the East to the West, instead of from the South to the North.

We gotcha you!

My videos show you are a troll.

Likely the same idiot troll as all of the rest of the silly flat earthers appearing on this thread.

What a stupid pointless game you are playing

What is going on with you? Are you blind or absolutely dishonest person, or just totally retarded?

What a sad silly person you have become
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 13, 2015, 03:19:04 AM
What kind of a person are you?

Do you really believe that you can trick everyone with your stupid - simple minded, naive scams?

How can you disprove this:

(http://i.imgur.com/wcSYMtf.jpg)

Screenshot above has been taken from this video:

Northbound thru Lemaire channel -- (http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 13, 2015, 03:32:08 AM
What kind of a person are you?

Do you really believe that you can trick everyone with your stupid - simple minded, naive scams?

How can you disprove this:

(http://i.imgur.com/wcSYMtf.jpg)

Screenshot above has been taken from this video:

Northbound thru Lemaire channel -- (http://)

Liar
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 13, 2015, 04:41:58 AM

Of course, this is a much better representation of the northbound trip thru Lemaire channel: (http://)

By carefully watching video above, everybody can easily discern all land features which Alpha and 29silhouette have tried (unsuccessfully) to muddle them up. Sorry guys, but it seems that we just have proved (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Antarctica google maps are "so accurate" that you can throw them in the garbage right away.

Now, it is obvious that Lemaire channel (a.k.a. Kodak gap) streches from the East to the West, instead of from the South to the North.

We gotcha you!

silkpajamas, you are mistaken,  ( maybe deliberately ) that video is southbound through the Lemaire Channel,   If you do a google earth fly through , you can match the mountains on the sides to the video as the ship sails south.

Where did you get the idea it was  northbound?    (http://)
Was it a deliberate attempt at confusion?

Not only wrong about that,  but you're also wrong about the direction of the Lemaire channel,  it's 213 degrees,  which is south of south west.  Where did the east-west idea come from?

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 13, 2015, 05:22:40 AM
Just in case you choose to dispute that video,  ( that you yourself posted )   here's another Southbound timelapse through the Lemaire Channel

https://vimeo.com/114222586   If you pause it at 0:35 you can locate the landmarks in that other sunset picture.   



Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 13, 2015, 05:47:31 AM
What kind of a person are you?

Do you really believe that you can trick everyone with your stupid - simple minded, naive scams?

How can you disprove this:

(http://i.imgur.com/wcSYMtf.jpg)

Screenshot above has been taken from this video:

Northbound thru Lemaire channel -- (http://)

Rayzor, i've got a question for you:

Which entrance into Lemaire channel is narrower?

Can this enlarged picture help you somehow:

(http://i.imgur.com/ka9X7jH.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 13, 2015, 05:57:21 AM
Why does the width of the entrance matter?  they are  roughly  the same and the width along the channel is fairly constant. 

Here is a google earth  view looking SSW from the south end of the channel,  ( which matches the description given of the sunset picture )  Google earth terrain isn't all that accurate, but it's good enough to match up with the major features in the picture.    The red line is bearing 213 degrees,  along the channel.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/537/dY22Ao.jpg)

So that's multiple pictures, video, and maps that all prove the sunset  in Antarctic summer is in the south.   Sorry about the flat earth theory.   Time you got a new hobby.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 13, 2015, 06:03:23 AM
Why does the width of the entrance matter?  they are  roughly  the same and the width along the channel is fairly constant. 

You are roughly completely ready for a serious medical treatment!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 13, 2015, 06:24:03 AM
Why does the width of the entrance matter?  they are  roughly  the same and the width along the channel is fairly constant. 

You are roughly completely ready for a serious medical treatment!

I'll retract that statement,  they aren't roughly the same, I measure both north and south entrances at  0.6 km. 

So they are the same width.   


(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/537/bGQ1nA.jpg)

What was your point?   As if I think you might have a shred of honesty left.



Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 13, 2015, 06:27:00 AM
By carefully watching video above, everybody can easily discern all land features which Alpha and 29silhouette have tried (unsuccessfully) to muddle them up. Sorry guys, but it seems that we just have proved (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Antarctica google maps are "so accurate" that you can throw them in the garbage right away.

No rebuttal to the description that you quoted of the ship being anchored near Pleneau Island? That puts it well away from where you say it was.

Quote
Now, it is obvious that Lemaire channel (a.k.a. Kodak gap) streches from the East to the West, instead of from the South to the North.

Please describe how you concluded this? Which way do you think the Sun is setting now? Is it in the east or west?

Why does the video maker you quoted describe being anchored at the south end of the channel?

You're the one that brought this up; why the sudden change?

Quote
We gotcha you!

We?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 13, 2015, 06:54:52 AM
Northbound thru Lemaire channel -- (http://)
Wait... just half an hour and a few posts earlier you said:

Now, it is obvious that Lemaire channel (a.k.a. Kodak gap) streches from the East to the West, instead of from the South to the North.
Is it north-south again, or still obviously east-west? It seems like it's reverted, but it's hard to say. If so, that was quick!

Hey, why don't you sign up for Itchy_Arris' Voyage of DiscoveryTM. He's looking for a navigator and your directional sense may be just what they need! You're not Chinese, Russian, North Korean, middle eastern, or a U.S. Citizen, as required, and your written English is quite good. 

Apply here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63535.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63535.0)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Saros on May 13, 2015, 07:21:07 AM
Wow, people still argue here! My question is why so many RE'ers respond to obvious attempts of trolling?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 13, 2015, 07:59:35 AM
Wow, people still argue here! My question is why so many RE'ers respond to obvious attempts of trolling?

Good question,  is silkpajamas a troll?  To be honest,  it's hard to tell,  he  acts so dumb, that he's easily mistaken for a real flat earther.   

Of course,  that doesn't exclude the possibility that he really is as dumb as a bag of rocks, and therfore could be a real flat earther.  Proving him wrong is fun,  but not very challenging.

What about you,  Saros,  are you another troll?   Or just another flat earther?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 13, 2015, 09:09:54 AM
Good question,  is silkpajamas a troll?  To be honest,  it's hard to tell,  he  acts so dumb, that he's easily mistaken for a real flat earther.   

Of course,  that doesn't exclude the possibility that he really is as dumb as a bag of rocks, and therfore could be a real flat earther.  Proving him wrong is fun,  but not very challenging.

What about you,  Saros,  are you another troll?   Or just another flat earther?

I think that, unlike most of the flat earth proponents, he actually does believe a lot of the stuff he says here. He sure puts a lot of effort into it, anyway, what with all those videos he makes and searches out, annotated images, and experiments.

The experiments so far have always failed to prove his point, but at least he is trying something, which is good, unlike, say, sceptimatic, who professes to "use his logic [sic] and think about things" to understand the world[nb]sceptimatic also claims to build models and conduct research, but I can't recall where he ever presented any evidence that he actually has done more than sit on his butt. But then he claims a lot of implausible things, some of which he later denies saying.[/nb]. At any rate, unlike some, at least cikljamas is entertaining and even thought-provoking at times, especially when he devises a "devastating" new argument or experiment that can't be dismissed in a trice.

The frequent attempts at reanimating long-ago debunked topics with huge slabs of copy-pasta and/or dozens of links to thoroughly discredited ideas do get tedious.
 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 13, 2015, 09:21:35 AM
Good question,  is silkpajamas a troll?  To be honest,  it's hard to tell,  he  acts so dumb, that he's easily mistaken for a real flat earther.

Rayzor perhaps you are the troll for keeping this thread going?  You are muddled up perhaps?

Lemaire channel is said to be 11km long and is said to be marked at the northern end by Unas tits.  Just click here to see the tits from above.

https://www.google.fi/maps/place/Lemaire+Channel/@-65.0250061,-63.7805653,938m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0xbc7f7d6ecd404b3b:0x9fee3d4e6a7b5454!6m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.fi/maps/place/Lemaire+Channel/@-65.0250061,-63.7805653,938m/data=)

And here you can see them at the left of the picture at the northern end of the channel

(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/463033419-reflections-of-cliffs-and-mountains-in-the-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=mUN6mz18s1YBvTIcfZ9IAEZXkaNqCC3IIZo95fkerF0w2ehXQzNkfRoAo8RaKfOu)

The northern southern end of the channel ends at the northern southern end of booth island.  Booth island is 8km long.  And is 'Y' shaped - not obvious because of the snow on the join to the right hand part of the 'y'

Your measurements miss the right part of the 'y' and the sea channel stretching towards a point off Unas tits.

(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/499505771-antarctica-mountain-range-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=S%2fUSiTiPlzAEhxEnuLJ%2b%2fWHxqC8iO55JBdTCdeClmOnR6Zn5%2fUZqwueE4AwunTKu)

In this video at 37:31 the cruise ship has stopped one mile north of the northern end of lemaire channel.  The camera is looking at the side of Unas tits.  At 37:45 you look towards the distant (12km away) southern end of lemaire channel and see all of Booth island on the right.  The captain gives an explanation they cannot go any further south than 65S because of the number of passengers and the limit imposed by insurance and the antarctic treaty

(http://)




Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 13, 2015, 10:06:45 AM
Good question,  is silkpajamas a troll?  To be honest,  it's hard to tell,  he  acts so dumb, that he's easily mistaken for a real flat earther.

Rayzor perhaps you are the troll for keeping this thread going?  You are muddled up perhaps?

Lemaire channel is said to be 11km long and is said to be marked at the northern end by Unas tits.  Just click here to see the tits from above.

https://www.google.fi/maps/place/Lemaire+Channel/@-65.0250061,-63.7805653,938m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0xbc7f7d6ecd404b3b:0x9fee3d4e6a7b5454!6m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.fi/maps/place/Lemaire+Channel/@-65.0250061,-63.7805653,938m/data=)

And here you can see them at the left of the picture at the northern end of the channel

(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/463033419-reflections-of-cliffs-and-mountains-in-the-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=mUN6mz18s1YBvTIcfZ9IAEZXkaNqCC3IIZo95fkerF0w2ehXQzNkfRoAo8RaKfOu)

The northern end of the channel ends at the northern end of booth island.  Booth island is 8km long.  And is 'Y' shaped - not obvious because of the snow on the join to the right hand part of the 'y'

Your measurements miss the right part of the 'y' and the sea channel stretching towards a point off Unas tits.

(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/499505771-antarctica-mountain-range-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=S%2fUSiTiPlzAEhxEnuLJ%2b%2fWHxqC8iO55JBdTCdeClmOnR6Zn5%2fUZqwueE4AwunTKu)

In this video at 37:31 the cruise ship has stopped one mile north of the northern end of lemaire channel.  The camera is looking at the side of Unas tits.  At 37:45 you look towards the distant (12km away) southern end of lemaire channel and see all of Booth island on the right.  The captain gives an explanation they cannot go any further south than 65S because of the number of passengers and the limit imposed by insurance and the antarctic treaty

(http://)

Well, we have an honest round earther here, what a pleasant surprise! Thanks Aliveandkicking for your honesty! Man without honesty is not a man at all, so thank you once again for making a good choice: to be a human being, and not an animal.

Saros, your mental health deteriorates progressively? Too pity! I am so sorry for you, so sorry!

Alpha, it's time for retraction!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 13, 2015, 10:29:40 AM
This is the same view the cruise ship has at the Northern end of Lemaire channel looking South

Unas tits are the massive rock on the left (not the twin peaks further along the ridge).   The twin peaks of Booth island are on the right

https://500px.com/photo/103402027/tranquil-evening-in-lemaire-channel-by-mike-reyfman (https://500px.com/photo/103402027/tranquil-evening-in-lemaire-channel-by-mike-reyfman)

Northern end of lemaire channel looking South
(http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/lemaire%20channel_zpshcedtcbn.png)

(http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/lemaire%20channel%20video_zps4zv3le87.png)

Video here:

(http://)

"Good afternoon...The plan here is to increase speed a bit........we are now at the south end of Neuymayer.......head  slightly towards the southwest through the butler passage for about 5 miles and then get to the southern limit of where we are allowed to travel.....and look down the lemaire channel...before heading out again..............Great view here....twin peaks of Booth island and the Lemaire channel stretching southwards.....Good Afternoon ladies and gentlemen this is the captain, . just to give you a bit of a background as to why we have stopped where we have, chosen right here and now, we came down the Butler pass down to look at this wonderful view down to lemaire strait.     You might indeed wonder why we have not gone a bit closer down that passage, well there is a particularly good reason for that......... At the moment we are just less than one mile from the position that....the insurance...would cease to function....that is the parallel of 65 south......so we edge down to just half a mile to that position.....    This is as far South as this ship is ever allowed to travel.    The latitude of 65S is actually set as part of the Antarctic treaty, and all the larger ships, ships such as ourselves, ships carrying more than 500 passengers on board, are restricted from travelling farther than 65 degrees South. So thats the ethos behind it.  Thought you would like to know
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 13, 2015, 11:51:17 AM
Alpha, it's time for retraction!

Of what?

You didn't answer my questions. Maybe you didn't see them.

Does the Lemaire Channel run east-west or north-south? You keep changing your mind. What made you decide?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 13, 2015, 01:20:06 PM
Passing thru the Southern end of Neumayer channel you can see the northern end of Lemaire channel about 15 miles away.

Unas tits are fairly massive at 747M.  Wandel peak on Booth island is even bigger at 980M.   

(http://)
(http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/neuymayer%20looking%20towards%20lemaire_zpshkw4sebv.png)

You can confirm it is lemaire channel here where this continues from the southern end of Neuymayer channel.   The northern lemaire view is best seen at 0:23

(http://)



 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 13, 2015, 01:55:19 PM
Alpha, it's time for retraction!

Of what?

You didn't answer my questions. Maybe you didn't see them.

Does the Lemaire Channel run east-west or north-south? You keep changing your mind. What made you decide?

Alpha, whenever you try to make fool of me, it turns out that someone else is a fool. Guess who? If the Lemaire Channel doesn't run South-North, it must run in some other (general) direction. Which other general direction (besides South-North) could it be, what do you think?

Do you still claim (after all evidences that Aliveandkicking has presented here) that the Sun sets towards "Southern" end of the Lemaire Channel?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 13, 2015, 02:10:28 PM
Do you still claim (after all evidences that Aliveandkicking has presented here) that the Sun sets towards "Southern" end of the Lemaire Channel?

Liar

Nobody can be as stupid as you are pretending to be.

(http://)
(http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/neuymayer%20looking%20towards%20lemaire_zpshkw4sebv.png)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 13, 2015, 03:26:57 PM
Questions for you Aliveandkicking if you leave the north pole with your compass pointing north , travel in a south direction  you end up back at north.according to your spherical model. At what piont did your compass determine you were at the south pole. ?is the sun in that clip north or south .is the ship facing north or south. Shadows being cast are very interesting to , some arnt casting where you would expect . So who doing the trolling ?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 13, 2015, 04:32:11 PM
Alpha, it's time for retraction!

Of what?

You didn't answer my questions. Maybe you didn't see them.

Does the Lemaire Channel run east-west or north-south? You keep changing your mind. What made you decide?

Alpha, whenever you try to make fool of me, it turns out that someone else is a fool. Guess who?

What am I supposed to retract, again? Was that it? I don't remember explicitly calling you a fool. I have repeatedly said you're wrong about a lot of things, and I ain't retracting any of that unless you convince me you were right all along. Simply reposting old incorrect assertions and wrong ideas isn't convincing.

Quote
If the Lemaire Channel doesn't run South-North, it must run in some other (general) direction. Which other general direction (besides South-North) could it be, what do you think?

It could be a lot of directions. NNE to SSW for one, which the Lemaire Channel obviously is. If, by saying "general" you're limiting yourself to cardinal directions (N-E-S-W), and it's much, much closer to north-south than it is to east-west, you shouldn't call it east-west, even if it's not perfectly north-south. A line running exactly (or even very close to) midway between the cardinals (exactly northeast-southwest, say) would be a problem in this system.

Why, again, did you declare it's it's obviously east-west? Were you holding your map sideways?

Why did you later change back to north-south? Did you notice your earlier error and hope to just quietly change it back hoping no one noticed? It didn't work.

See what I mean about being wrong?

Quote
Do you still claim (after all evidences that Aliveandkicking has presented here) that the Sun sets towards "Southern" end of the Lemaire Channel?

Around the longest days of summer at high southerly latitudes, the Sun will set almost due southward from you, if it sets at all. Where that is relative to the southern end of the Lemaire Channel depends on where you are relative to it. If you're south of the Lemaire Channel, the Sun will set in the opposite direction as the southern end of the Lemaire Channel because it sets south of you. Look at the red arrow in the image I made a few posts ago for an example. it's pointing away, generally south, from the southern end of the Lemaire Channel.

Is there something Aliveandkicking (or you, for that matter) has presented that even remotely suggests that the Sun is setting in the north during the southern summer? Please specify. So far, there's been nothing.

Do you honestly believe that all the people who take those tours could be kept quiet about it if they saw the Sun set in the opposite direction expected? No doubt a few could be convinced of anything by some double talk, but many people with enough money for trips like that are actually pretty smart and inquisitive.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 13, 2015, 06:15:13 PM
There simply isn't enough time in the world,  to waste on someone who repeatedly  uses diversions and red herrings as a debating tactic. 

I guess it's marginally better than outright insults,   but after a while it starts to get tired.    So silkpajama's   go ahead with the next diversion or irrelevant bit of trivia.

The sun sets in the south in Antarctica.   All the evidence says so.    Next stop a flat earth with two poles.   ( oh no,  not dual earth!  ;D )


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 13, 2015, 08:11:36 PM
Since the topic came up and it is interesting to consider, a ships gyro compass is a true Geographic North pointing compass.     However if you were to sail absolutely over the north pole the change in direction of the compass could potentially damage the compass.  Gyro compasses do not handle certain types of sudden changes in direction well and can become damagingly unstable.  They will wobble in a crazed manner if they become very significantly out of position.  Gyro compasses are not fitted to aircraft.

The gyro compass can only work on a rotating planet. 

Additionally, to correct an error of about 2 degrees (maximum error depending upon latitude)  a gyro compass requires a correction for latitude south of the equator that is exactly opposite the correction for the same latitude that is required north of the equator.   The reason for the error is that the gyro axis is kept horizontal to the surface via a weight, but one end of the gyro is always pointing North and there is of course a small physical distance between the north end of the gyro and the south end of the Gyro and on a round planet the equator is rotating more rapidly than the rest of the planet.   Therefore the equatorial pointing end of the gyro axis travels faster than the other end, and the actual gyro axis end this occurs at changes when the equator is crossed.    We conclude therefore the world is round.

Once again it sort of blows my mind the things we can learn on the flat earth forum!  ;D
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 14, 2015, 03:01:52 AM
Once again it sort of blows my mind the things we can learn on the flat earth forum!  ;D

Very true,  you get to ask the sort of questions no sane person ever asks,  like is the ISS faked?,  or what if air didn't exist.   Time spent researching questions isn't really wasted,  even if it is in response to a troll,  you learn something interesting each time.


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 14, 2015, 03:32:19 AM
Time spent researching questions isn't really wasted,  even if it is in response to a troll, you learn something interesting each time.

Lets see....

Ring laser gyros, ships gyro compass, GPS Single position Doppler velocity method, direction of sunsets :-[, using print screen for MS Paint, a Saturn 5 used 12 tonnes of fuel per second to accelerate exhaust gases to 4km per second plus a few other bits of trivia.   

There is also the learning coming from interacting with such hard case trolls/criminals/deviants.    I have no firm conclusions what I have learnt though, other than once bitten twice shy.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 14, 2015, 03:43:33 AM
What kind of a person are you?

Do you really believe that you can trick everyone with your stupid - simple minded, naive scams?

How can you disprove this:

(http://i.imgur.com/wcSYMtf.jpg)

Screenshot above has been taken from this video:

Northbound thru Lemaire channel -- (http://)

Rayzor, i've got a question for you:

Which entrance into Lemaire channel is narrower?

Can this enlarged picture help you somehow:

(http://i.imgur.com/ka9X7jH.jpg)

Aliveandkicking and Rayzor are the same person, the same troll, very ridiculous one.

"They" have provided for us a few very good videos which combined with other videos and photographs render conclusive evidence in favor of undisputable and undeniable conclusion that Antarctica google maps are not in accordance with reality.

So, we have to thank "them" for taking part in debunking the validity of Antarctica google maps.

(http://i.imgur.com/Izfk9P0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/9abHAP1.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 14, 2015, 03:49:43 AM

(http://i.imgur.com/Izfk9P0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/9abHAP1.jpg)

Why you want to waste peoples time in such a silly way is totally beyond me
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 14, 2015, 04:44:18 AM
The whole reality is beyond you!

(http://i.imgur.com/GQQsxqR.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 14, 2015, 05:11:54 AM
Since the topic came up and it is interesting to consider, a ships gyro compass is a true Geographic North pointing compass.     However if you were to sail absolutely over the north pole the change in direction of the compass could potentially damage the compass.  Gyro compasses do not handle certain types of sudden changes in direction well and can become damagingly unstable.  They will wobble in a crazed manner if they become very significantly out of position.  Gyro compasses are not fitted to aircraft.

The gyro compass can only work on a rotating planet. 

Additionally, to correct an error of about 2 degrees (maximum error depending upon latitude)  a gyro compass requires a correction for latitude south of the equator that is exactly opposite the correction for the same latitude that is required north of the equator.   The reason for the error is that the gyro axis is kept horizontal to the surface via a weight, but one end of the gyro is always pointing North and there is of course a small physical distance between the north end of the gyro and the south end of the Gyro and on a round planet the equator is rotating more rapidly than the rest of the planet.   Therefore the equatorial pointing end of the gyro axis travels faster than the other end, and the actual gyro axis end this occurs at changes when the equator is crossed.    We conclude therefore the world is round.

Once again it sort of blows my mind the things we can learn on the flat earth forum!  ;D
you never answered the question asked. Try answering it this time with out the woffling on.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 14, 2015, 07:42:15 AM
Let's put it into perspective:

(http://i.imgur.com/eOuDkq3.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ka9X7jH.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/wcSYMtf.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/3qaxQBB.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Izfk9P0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/9abHAP1.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/GQQsxqR.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 14, 2015, 08:20:57 AM
I hope this helps,  understand that you have north and south mixed up.   One side of the Lemaire Channel is Booth Island.   Here is a picture showing the sun setting over Booth Island on the right of the channel, which means this picture is taken looking SOUTH.

(http://www.robertharding.com/watermark.php?im=RF/RH_RF/HORIZONTAL/1112-2819&type=preview)
Sunset over Booth Island in the waters of the Lemaire Channel, Antarctica, Polar Regions
image from http://www.robertharding.com/index.php?lang=en&page=preview&subpage=1112-2819 (http://www.robertharding.com/index.php?lang=en&page=preview&subpage=1112-2819)

(http://i.imgur.com/9abHAP1.jpg)
So your picture of sunset is also taken looking SOUTH.


One last time,   the summer sun sets in the SOUTH in Antarctica,   of course if you far enough south it doesn't set at all.   And when you are at the south pole itself,  the sun is always in the north,  just because the only direction from the south pole is north.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 14, 2015, 02:19:11 PM
Care to draw that for us razor . I,m having trouble understanding the concept. You know you leave north with you compass pointing north,head south & end up at north. Your compass would be pointed north the whole time. So please explain how you derived your at the South Pole ?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 14, 2015, 02:25:58 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Izfk9P0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/9abHAP1.jpg)
Are you saying that the green-circled spire is the same feature in both pictures? That looks right, and establishes that you're looking in the same direction in both photos. It does not, alone, determine which direction you're looking. You have it misidentified in the satellite photo a few posts ago, but it's in front of a high ridge in this photo, and there is nothing behind the black dot you have misidentified as it on the satellite image. So, based only on that, the direction of these photos is inconclusive.

The narrow section of channel between the southern part of Booth Island and the Antarctic Peninsula is roughly constant width. It narrows when you enter and widens when you exit from either end. In one picture you're looking into a narrow channel from outside, and the other, you're looking out from a narrow channel (or are already out of it). This analysis is also ambiguous insofar as direction.

You're looking southward in both pictures. You can tell by the direction the Sun is setting. This is not ambiguous, and really is that simple.

Have you found any reports of the Sun setting in the north at this location from the thousands of visitors to this place each year? Given that "everyone knows" the Sun sets in the south at that time and location, don't you find it remarkable that no one would comment if the opposite were to happen? You keep ignoring this question. I think I know why.

I worked for a summer in Antarctica many years ago. The last sunset we experienced in McMurdo was in late October, when the Sun dipped briefly below the horizon in the south, as expected. After that, the Sun was above the horizon for the remainder of my stay which ended in mid-January. After that last sunset, the Sun continuously circled the sky around us from right to left as you face it (no zig-zag!), rising highest in the north and dropping lowest in the south. This is exactly what you'd expect with the conventional spherical-earth, heliocentric model of the solar system and is not at all consistent with the Sun circling the north pole above a flat earth. As you yourself pointed out, if that model were correct, the Sun would "zig-zag" across the sky from polar latitudes, and would always be north of you if you're south of the Tropic of Capricorn. From personal experience, it doesn't do either of these things, so your model fails.

Sorry, you're just wrong. This subject has been beaten to death. Let it go.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 14, 2015, 02:53:53 PM
Care to draw that for us razor . I,m having trouble understanding the concept. You know you leave north with you compass pointing north,head south & end up at north. Your compass would be pointed north the whole time. So please explain how you derived your at the South Pole ?

Are you proposing a compass that senses true north, or a magnetic compass, charles?

If it's an ideal true-north-sensing compass and you traveled due south from the north pole, you'd know you got to the south pole when it suddenly changed directions 180° as you walked straight ahead[nb]An ideal geographic compass could do that. As Aliveandkicking noted, expect a real one to get unstable near the poles, and not "flip" all at once.[/nb]. If you followed the compass north (i.e. kept moving in the same direction after the compass needle reversed), you'd end up back at the north pole and would recognize it when your compass suddenly reversed directions again. 

If you're using nothing but a magnetic compass, even an ideal one, to find the south geographic pole, it won't work. An ideal magnetic compass could find the south magnetic pole, though, but that's a different place than the south geographic pole.

Is that what you were asking? Does that answer your question?
 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 14, 2015, 03:48:44 PM
Care to draw that for us razor . I,m having trouble understanding the concept. You know you leave north with you compass pointing north,head south & end up at north. Your compass would be pointed north the whole time. So please explain how you derived your at the South Pole ?

Are you proposing a compass that senses true north, or a magnetic compass, charles?

If it's an ideal true-north-sensing compass and you traveled due south from the north pole, you'd know you got to the south pole when it suddenly changed directions 180° as you walked straight ahead[nb]An ideal geographic compass could do that. As Aliveandkicking noted, expect a real one to get unstable near the poles, and not "flip" all at once.[/nb]. If you followed the compass north (i.e. kept moving in the same direction after the compass needle reversed), you'd end up back at the north pole and would recognize it when your compass suddenly reversed directions again. 

If you're using nothing but a magnetic compass, even an ideal one, to find the south geographic pole, it won't work. An ideal magnetic compass could find the south magnetic pole, though, but that's a different place than the south geographic pole.

Is that what you were asking? Does that answer your question?
Reversed ? Why would it need to reverse, when its pointing north the whole time . Is there more then one northpole ? The only thing  unstable, is those who believe the garbage their being feed by the spherical cult .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 14, 2015, 04:18:37 PM
Alpha, you are a proven liar, your words are absolutely worthless, your credibility is equal to zero.

My photographs (presented in my previous post) present absolutely conclusive and complete proof that the Sun sets at the "northern" (in reality it must be western end) end of the Lemaire Channel.

How do you know that noone has noticed (before me) that something is wrong with the Lemaire Channel sunset, and other Antarctic sunsets?

Do you expect from some honest guy to share his unusual experience with you personally?

What would happen to hypothetical honest thinker if he shared his doubts about weird Lemaire Channel sunset with you personally? What do you think?

You would place him in a mental institution, just because you can't allow anyone to upset your fucked up, freaked out, creepy, satanic mind, wouldn't you?

You will burn in hell, you can bet on that!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 14, 2015, 04:34:10 PM
Care to draw that for us razor . I,m having trouble understanding the concept. You know you leave north with you compass pointing north,head south & end up at north. Your compass would be pointed north the whole time. So please explain how you derived your at the South Pole ?

Are you proposing a compass that senses true north, or a magnetic compass, charles?

If it's an ideal true-north-sensing compass and you traveled due south from the north pole, you'd know you got to the south pole when it suddenly changed directions 180° as you walked straight ahead[nb]An ideal geographic compass could do that. As Aliveandkicking noted, expect a real one to get unstable near the poles, and not "flip" all at once.[/nb]. If you followed the compass north (i.e. kept moving in the same direction after the compass needle reversed), you'd end up back at the north pole and would recognize it when your compass suddenly reversed directions again. 

If you're using nothing but a magnetic compass, even an ideal one, to find the south geographic pole, it won't work. An ideal magnetic compass could find the south magnetic pole, though, but that's a different place than the south geographic pole.

Is that what you were asking? Does that answer your question?

Reversed ? Why would it need to reverse, when its pointing north the whole time . Is there more then one northpole ?

Nope. It's because all directions from the South Pole are north. What other direction could they be? More souther? If you're one meter from the South Pole and walking south, south is in front of you. If you continue straight for two meters further, you've walked one meter past the South Pole, and south is now behind you. Right? Since south is behind you, you're now walking north even though you simply walked in a straight line, right? If your ideal geographic compass is accurately reading direction to the north pole, it changes direction the moment you crossed the pole.

Your longitude also jumped by 180° the moment you crossed the pole. All the longitudes converge at the pole, and longitude has no meaning at that point.

It's quite simple and can usually be easily understood by kids in grade school. Is it really this hard for you, or are you pretending to be stupid? If the latter, why? If you're trying to make flat-earth believers look dumb, they don't need any help with that.

Quote
<blah, blah, blah blah blah>
::)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 14, 2015, 05:58:49 PM
Alpha, you are a proven liar[citation needed], your words are absolutely worthless, your credibility is equal to zero[citation needed].

My photographs (presented in my previous post) present absolutely conclusive and complete proof that the Sun sets at the "northern" (in reality it must be western end) end of the Lemaire Channel.
I'm going to refer everyone to this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63609.msg1687862#msg1687862) whenever you claim to have proooooovvvven!!! anything using a photo or map. It's quick, not much effort on my part (it's bookmarked), and representative of the "quality" of your work.

Quote
How do you know that noone has noticed (before me) that something is wrong with the Lemaire Channel sunset, and other Antarctic sunsets?
I've never seen anyone mention it before you, anywhere, even on some of the kookiest places of teh interwebz, much less somewhere reasonably sane. Do you know of any one who has? From the tone of your question, I'm guessing not.

Quote
Do you expect from some honest guy to share his unusual experience with you personally?
Not necessarily, but I would expect to at least see it mentioned somewhere, especially these days of easy, widely-distributed communications. So far, only you, and you have no useful evidence. "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." [nb]Marcello Truzzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi), Zetetic Scholar, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 11, 1978[/nb] Your "evidence", being generous, is completely inconclusive. Meh.

Quote
What would happen to hypothetical honest thinker if he shared his doubts about weird Lemaire Channel sunset with you personally? What do you think?
I'd ask if he actually saw such a thing, or inferred it. If he inferred it from sketchy logic, ignoring data, and wishful thinking (like you're doing), I'd write it off (like I'm doing here).

If he said he did see it, I'd ask if he had any reasonable documentation - like moving or still photos with easily-identifiable landmarks that clearly showed it. If he didn't, I'd be suspicious. It's not hard to imagine being taken by surprise and not taking photos of something that happens in an instant, but the direction of a sunset doesn't. Almost everyone has a camera now, especially on a trip like that, so "not having a camera", while not impossible, doesn't sound terribly plausible (I took two 35 mm cameras to Antarctica - one borrowed - back when good cameras and film were expensive, because that was a once-in-a-lifetime trip and I didn't want to be without a camera if one was lost or failed). If they have no photos for whatever reason and it was someone I knew, trusted, and was reasonably competent to know which way was north (not everyone I know does know how to tell this), I'd ask if anyone else on the trip noticed the same thing, and ask them about it, if possible. If you were on such a trip and, say depleted all your batteries or dropped all of your cameras overboard, so no photos (oops), wouldn't you ask people you know or met on the trip "isn't that way north? Shouldn't the Sun be setting in the south?"[nb]Presumably, they got the same "briefing" about "what you will see" that you did (which was none).[/nb] If no one else saw it, I would be very skeptical. The next reaction would be, "I presume you're going back as soon as possible, and better equipped this time. Reliable documentation of something like this would be extremely valuable."

I mean, seriously, why haven't we ever heard of this from anyone but you? This is a completely ridiculous idea that couldn't be kept secret if it were true.

Quote
You would place him in a mental institution, just because you can't allow anyone to upset your fucked up, freaked out, creepy, satanic mind, wouldn't you?
Now, now. Calm down...

And please don't tell me what I would do. You're invariably wrong.

Quote
You will burn in hell, you can bet on that!
See ya' there!

If the descriptions are right, I may be stuck in a room with you for eternity. Which means you'll be stuck equally long with me. So, in the meantime, maybe you should try to be nicer to me...
 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 14, 2015, 08:13:27 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Izfk9P0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/9abHAP1.jpg)

These two pictures are clearly featuring the same part of Lemaire Channel.  The exposed rock and snow show identical features.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 14, 2015, 08:39:15 PM
Care to draw that for us razor . I,m having trouble understanding the concept. You know you leave north with you compass pointing north,head south & end up at north. Your compass would be pointed north the whole time. So please explain how you derived your at the South Pole ?

Are you proposing a compass that senses true north, or a magnetic compass, charles?

If it's an ideal true-north-sensing compass and you traveled due south from the north pole, you'd know you got to the south pole when it suddenly changed directions 180° as you walked straight ahead[nb]An ideal geographic compass could do that. As Aliveandkicking noted, expect a real one to get unstable near the poles, and not "flip" all at once.[/nb]. If you followed the compass north (i.e. kept moving in the same direction after the compass needle reversed), you'd end up back at the north pole and would recognize it when your compass suddenly reversed directions again. 

If you're using nothing but a magnetic compass, even an ideal one, to find the south geographic pole, it won't work. An ideal magnetic compass could find the south magnetic pole, though, but that's a different place than the south geographic pole.

Is that what you were asking? Does that answer your question?

Reversed ? Why would it need to reverse, when its pointing north the whole time . Is there more then one northpole ?

Nope. It's because all directions from the South Pole are north. What other direction could they be? More souther? If you're one meter from the South Pole and walking south, south is in front of you. If you continue straight for two meters further, you've walked one meter past the South Pole, and south is now behind you. Right? Since south is behind you, you're now walking north even though you simply walked in a straight line, right? If your ideal geographic compass is accurately reading direction to the north pole, it changes direction the moment you crossed the pole.

Your longitude also jumped by 180° the moment you crossed the pole. All the longitudes converge at the pole, and longitude has no meaning at that point.

It's quite simple and can usually be easily understood by kids in grade school. Is it really this hard for you, or are you pretending to be stupid? If the latter, why? If you're trying to make flat-earth believers look dumb, they don't need any help with that.

Quote
<blah, blah, blah blah blah>
::)
Well demonstrate it . Shouldn't be to hard for you to Show us where we can find footage of this compass doing a 180 shift , after  crossing  this apparent pole you tell us exsist at this location . Understood ? No told they must believe in the  crap their being told.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 14, 2015, 08:42:16 PM
Care to draw that for us razor . I,m having trouble understanding the concept. You know you leave north with you compass pointing north,head south & end up at north. Your compass would be pointed north the whole time. So please explain how you derived your at the South Pole ?

Are you proposing a compass that senses true north, or a magnetic compass, charles?

If it's an ideal true-north-sensing compass and you traveled due south from the north pole, you'd know you got to the south pole when it suddenly changed directions 180° as you walked straight ahead[nb]An ideal geographic compass could do that. As Aliveandkicking noted, expect a real one to get unstable near the poles, and not "flip" all at once.[/nb]. If you followed the compass north (i.e. kept moving in the same direction after the compass needle reversed), you'd end up back at the north pole and would recognize it when your compass suddenly reversed directions again. 

If you're using nothing but a magnetic compass, even an ideal one, to find the south geographic pole, it won't work. An ideal magnetic compass could find the south magnetic pole, though, but that's a different place than the south geographic pole.

Is that what you were asking? Does that answer your question?

Reversed ? Why would it need to reverse, when its pointing north the whole time . Is there more then one northpole ?

Nope. It's because all directions from the South Pole are north. What other direction could they be? More souther? If you're one meter from the South Pole and walking south, south is in front of you. If you continue straight for two meters further, you've walked one meter past the South Pole, and south is now behind you. Right? Since south is behind you, you're now walking north even though you simply walked in a straight line, right? If your ideal geographic compass is accurately reading direction to the north pole, it changes direction the moment you crossed the pole.

Your longitude also jumped by 180° the moment you crossed the pole. All the longitudes converge at the pole, and longitude has no meaning at that point.

It's quite simple and can usually be easily understood by kids in grade school. Is it really this hard for you, or are you pretending to be stupid? If the latter, why? If you're trying to make flat-earth believers look dumb, they don't need any help with that.

Quote
<blah, blah, blah blah blah>
::)
Well demonstrate it . Shouldn't be to hard for you to Show us where we can find footage of this compass doing a 180 shift , after  crossing  this apparent pole you tell us exsist at this location . Understood ? No told they must believe in the  crap their being told.
What part of "compasses don't work close to the poles" didn't you understand?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 14, 2015, 09:01:14 PM
Bloomington cikljamas and sceptimatic are the same person. Minimally they have a very close association.   Their objective is to frustrate you.   They can never be nailed down.  They will always divert.

Their objective at the moment is to divert the thread from the topic at hand.

Please stay on topic.     If you want to discuss compasses at the Poles then create a thread for that

Psychologically what is happening on this thread is very interesting and is worth pursuing.   
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 14, 2015, 09:03:01 PM
Care to draw that for us razor . I,m having trouble understanding the concept. You know you leave north with you compass pointing north,head south & end up at north. Your compass would be pointed north the whole time. So please explain how you derived your at the South Pole ?

Are you proposing a compass that senses true north, or a magnetic compass, charles?

If it's an ideal true-north-sensing compass and you traveled due south from the north pole, you'd know you got to the south pole when it suddenly changed directions 180° as you walked straight ahead[nb]An ideal geographic compass could do that. As Aliveandkicking noted, expect a real one to get unstable near the poles, and not "flip" all at once.[/nb]. If you followed the compass north (i.e. kept moving in the same direction after the compass needle reversed), you'd end up back at the north pole and would recognize it when your compass suddenly reversed directions again. 

If you're using nothing but a magnetic compass, even an ideal one, to find the south geographic pole, it won't work. An ideal magnetic compass could find the south magnetic pole, though, but that's a different place than the south geographic pole.

Is that what you were asking? Does that answer your question?

Reversed ? Why would it need to reverse, when its pointing north the whole time . Is there more then one northpole ?

Nope. It's because all directions from the South Pole are north. What other direction could they be? More souther? If you're one meter from the South Pole and walking south, south is in front of you. If you continue straight for two meters further, you've walked one meter past the South Pole, and south is now behind you. Right? Since south is behind you, you're now walking north even though you simply walked in a straight line, right? If your ideal geographic compass is accurately reading direction to the north pole, it changes direction the moment you crossed the pole.

Your longitude also jumped by 180° the moment you crossed the pole. All the longitudes converge at the pole, and longitude has no meaning at that point.

It's quite simple and can usually be easily understood by kids in grade school. Is it really this hard for you, or are you pretending to be stupid? If the latter, why? If you're trying to make flat-earth believers look dumb, they don't need any help with that.

Quote
<blah, blah, blah blah blah>
::)
Well demonstrate it . Shouldn't be to hard for you to Show us where we can find footage of this compass doing a 180 shift , after  crossing  this apparent pole you tell us exsist at this location . Understood ? No told they must believe in the  crap their being told.
What part of "compasses don't work close to the poles" didn't you understand?
Then its just another  made up lie  from you  shit talkers , that  a compass flips 180 after crossing this apparent pole you tell us exsist at this location. Admit it you are nothing more then fucken scum bag liars .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 14, 2015, 09:10:46 PM
Bloomington cikljamas and sceptimatic are the same person. Minimally they have a very close association.   Their objective is to frustrate you.   They can never be nailed down.  They will always divert.

Their objective at the moment is to divert the thread from the topic at hand.

Please stay on topic.     If you want to discuss compasses at the Poles then create a thread for that

Psychologically what is happening on this thread is very interesting and is worth pursuing.
Direction  is part of the topic of the thread & direction & a compass go hand in hand .  The only diverting being done here, is by you  lying scum.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 14, 2015, 10:29:01 PM
Care to draw that for us razor . I,m having trouble understanding the concept. You know you leave north with you compass pointing north,head south & end up at north. Your compass would be pointed north the whole time. So please explain how you derived your at the South Pole ?

Are you proposing a compass that senses true north, or a magnetic compass, charles?

If it's an ideal true-north-sensing compass and you traveled due south from the north pole, you'd know you got to the south pole when it suddenly changed directions 180° as you walked straight ahead[nb]An ideal geographic compass could do that. As Aliveandkicking noted, expect a real one to get unstable near the poles, and not "flip" all at once.[/nb]. If you followed the compass north (i.e. kept moving in the same direction after the compass needle reversed), you'd end up back at the north pole and would recognize it when your compass suddenly reversed directions again. 

If you're using nothing but a magnetic compass, even an ideal one, to find the south geographic pole, it won't work. An ideal magnetic compass could find the south magnetic pole, though, but that's a different place than the south geographic pole.

Is that what you were asking? Does that answer your question?

Reversed ? Why would it need to reverse, when its pointing north the whole time . Is there more then one northpole ?

Nope. It's because all directions from the South Pole are north. What other direction could they be? More souther? If you're one meter from the South Pole and walking south, south is in front of you. If you continue straight for two meters further, you've walked one meter past the South Pole, and south is now behind you. Right? Since south is behind you, you're now walking north even though you simply walked in a straight line, right? If your ideal geographic compass is accurately reading direction to the north pole, it changes direction the moment you crossed the pole.

Your longitude also jumped by 180° the moment you crossed the pole. All the longitudes converge at the pole, and longitude has no meaning at that point.

It's quite simple and can usually be easily understood by kids in grade school. Is it really this hard for you, or are you pretending to be stupid? If the latter, why? If you're trying to make flat-earth believers look dumb, they don't need any help with that.

Quote
<blah, blah, blah blah blah>
::)
Well demonstrate it . Shouldn't be to hard for you to Show us where we can find footage of this compass doing a 180 shift , after  crossing  this apparent pole you tell us exsist at this location . Understood ? No told they must believe in the  crap their being told.

I described what an ideal compass would show. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll be able to buy one of those off the shelf, but if you can, then you should do the experiment for yourself. Arrange for transport to the vicinity of the South Pole, and follow it south until it flips direction, then look around. Is there a research station there with a "South Pole" monument nearby?[nb]The ice moves slowly, so they hold a ceremony to re-establish the monument yearly.[/nb] If so, it's working correctly, and you'll be a hero, since you'll have a working instrument that no one believed could exist! Just in case, you'd best take a good GPS receiver or two (or three, and don't forget extra batteries) with you so you can find your way back to the drop point or some prearranged point for pick-up (whether you believe in them or not, they do work quite well). You really don't want to get lost on the Antarctic plateau with a non-working but otherwise ideal geographic compass and nothing else; the weather outside is frightful, and it's all outside. If I could show you a video, you'd just claim it's faked, anyway, so it's best you do this yourself if you can.

Short of that, what is it about the description that you don't understand? Why the north pole would be closer in the opposite direction once you crossed the antipodal point from the North Pole? This seems self-evident once you think even just a little (go ahead... give it a try; don't be scared, many before you have survived), and even grade-school children of average intelligence easily grasp this. Even without seeing an ideal compass up close and personal.

What do you think such an instrument would do as you crossed the North Pole? Would it show "even more norther than north" continuing in the direction you approached from? What if you approached from a different direction? Would that direction be "even more norther than north", too, or would the old "even more norther than north" continue to be "even more norther than north"? Or would it show the direction toward the North Pole changing as you passed the North Pole? That seems more likely, doesn't it? 

Maybe this is all just too difficult for you. I hope not.


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 15, 2015, 01:33:12 AM
It flips direction , ??? it points north ya clown .so it flips north to north does it. You must of been tops in your class for bullshiting your way through life .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 15, 2015, 01:48:06 AM
This is my answer to you, you scam bag liar which i just have published in accompanying thread, but because of it's importance i bring it here, also:

Quote
@Alpha-liar,

 I have shown you a screen-shot-picture of that google-distance-calculator, so that everyone can see how i was misled, not to defend the trueness of what that google-distance-calculator shows.

You are right, i should have taken the square root of the area of the lake, and avoid such an awful mistake, but we all make mistakes, don't we?

The only difference is that honest men admit their mistakes right away, but scum bag liars don't admit their mistakes, ever. Most often, their mistakes are not mistakes at all, but deliberate and persistent lies.

Regarding Salar de Uyuni case, even without wrong supposition about 200 miles distance between two ends of that lake, we still have here an astonishing proof of the flatness of the Earth!

Maybe you didn't notice one important sentence in this Wiki quote:

Quote
Salt flats are ideal for calibrating the distance measurement equipment of satellites because they are large, stable surfaces with strong reflection, similar to that of ice sheets. As the largest salt flat on Earth, Salar de Uyuni is especially suitable for this purpose. In the low-rain period from April to November, due to the absence of industry and its high elevation, the skies above Salar de Uyuni are very clear, and the air is dry (relative humidity is about 30%; rainfall is roughly 1 millimetre or 0.039 inches per month). It has a stable surface which is smoothed by seasonal flooding (water dissolves the salt surface and thus keeps it leveled).

As a result, the variation in the surface elevation over the 10,582-square-kilometer (4,086 sq mi) area of Salar de Uyuni is less than 1 meter (3 ft 3 in), and there are few square kilometers on Earth that are as flat. The surface reflectivity (albedo) for ultraviolet light is relatively high at 0.69 and shows variations of only a few percent during the daytime.[6] The combination of all these features makes Salar de Uyuni about five times better for satellite calibration than the surface of an ocean.[4][5][23] Using Salar de Uyuni as the target, ICESat has already achieved the short-term elevation measurement accuracy of below 2 centimeters (0.79 in).

>The combination of all these features makes Salar de Uyuni about five times better for satellite calibration than the surface of an ocean.<

So, NASA uses surface of an ocean for satellite calibration, also? Since the flatness of the surface is what they are looking for (for satellite calibration), then even they (NASA) basically admit that the surface of an ocean is quite enough flat to be used for that purpose.

That figures!

As for this (Antarctic Midnight Sun) thread, the best way how everyone can ascertain and verify the trueness of a fact that you are a dirty scum bag liar, is to look at these photographs once more:

(http://i.imgur.com/eOuDkq3.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ka9X7jH.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/wcSYMtf.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/3qaxQBB.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Izfk9P0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/9abHAP1.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/GQQsxqR.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 15, 2015, 02:14:22 AM
we all make mistakes, don't we?

The only difference is that honest men admit their mistakes right away, but scum bag liars don't admit their mistakes, ever. Most often, their mistakes are not mistakes at all, but deliberate and persistent lies.

As for this (Antarctic Midnight Sun) thread, the best way how everyone can ascertain and verify the trueness of a fact that you are a dirty scum bag liar, is to look at these photographs once more:

(http://i.imgur.com/Izfk9P0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/9abHAP1.jpg)

These two pictures are clearly featuring the same part of Lemaire Channel.  The exposed rock and snow show identical features.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 15, 2015, 04:01:44 AM
Playback-fuckwit,

Had you mother aborted you, she would have made a great favor to humanity!

I would like to ask other forum-members (and this question especially goes to moderators!!!), what would be your reaction if i were to rehash just once (let alone 1000 times) that Salar de Uyuni lake is 200 miles wide instead of just 100 km, despite clearly presented irrefutable evidence according which Salar de Uyuni lake is indeed 100 km wide, not 200 miles?

Wouldn't you ban me, instantly (and justifiably)?

So, why double standards for different people?

Just because you are a controlled oppositon?

It seems that every single honest man has to leave this place, so that only scam bag liars like Aliveandkicking, Rayzor, Alpha-liar and alike mother fuckers can continue to poison every honest thinker who by chance come by to this shameful place?

Scepti, Charles Bloomington, shall we leave this shameful place once and for good, together, and make more available space for them so that they can undisturbedly continue to kiss each other in their faggy-satanic-lying mouths?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 15, 2015, 04:30:18 AM
Let's put it into perspective:
(http://i.imgur.com/GQQsxqR.jpg)

(http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/lemaire%20video%20full_zps1ldxwgmx.png)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 15, 2015, 06:43:53 AM
Maybe this is all just too difficult for you. I hope not.

It flips direction , ???

Yep.

Quote
it points north ya clown .so it flips north to north does it.

Yep. That happens when you cross either of the poles.

Quote
You must of been tops in your class for bullshiting your way through life .

Apparently it is too difficult for you to understand. So sorry.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 15, 2015, 08:03:49 AM
This is my answer to you, you scam bag liar which i just have published in accompanying thread, but because of it's importance i bring it here, also:
Why did you feel the need to copy that whiny post here? If even necessary, a reference to it with a link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63609.msg1687949#msg1687949) would have been better for several reasons. Here's the reply (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63609.msg1688003#msg1688003). Let's keep that discussion in one thread, if there's even any more to say, OK?

Quote
As for this (Antarctic Midnight Sun) thread, the best way how everyone can ascertain and verify the trueness of a fact that you are a dirty scum bag liar, is to look at these photographs once more:
Again, is it really necessary to re-post all those pictures again and again? There's nothing new to see, no new conclusions to draw, and as amply demonstrated elsewhere (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63609.msg1688003#msg1688003), your "research techniques" are extremely sloppy. You jump to wrong conclusions, then call everyone who points out your (often obvious) errors liars. This is not very endearing, nor productive.

Get over yourself.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 15, 2015, 09:09:09 AM
Let's see one another astonishing example (the proof) of the astonishing flatness of the Earth:

(http://i.imgur.com/GfB4Ag9.jpg)

Quote
BERRIEN COUNTY, Mich. -  A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage.  Joshua Nowicki (@StartVisiting) snapped the pic Tuesday night from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville. Under normal conditions, even when extremely clear, this should not be visible, due to the curvature of the earth. The Chicago skyline is physically below the horizon form that vantage point(OF COURSE!!!  ;D), but the image of the skyline can be seen above it. (IT FIGURES!!! ;D)

This is a form of Superior Mirage , superior in this meaning the mirage or image of the skyline is seen above where it's actually located(HAHAHAHA!!!). The clear skies, and cool weather ( aided even more by the cool lake water) creates an inversion. A layer of air near the surface that's cooler than air higher in the atmosphere. This creates a bending or ducting effect where the light ( image) instead of going in a normal straight line into space, curves back towards the surface of the earth.

This same phenomena can also be seen on the radar in the form of "ground clutter" the inversion is taking the radar beam (light) and bending back towards the surface of the earth, creating a "ring" effect.


So, everything lower than 700 meters should be below the horizon according to troll Pythagoras! But it isn't! Could it be because the Earth is flat like a Kansas, or like a Salar de Uyuni, or like an Ocean Basins (which constitutes 75 % of the whole surface of the Earth), or like South America Pampas, or like a Huge Icebergs along the Antarctica, or like Antarctica itself, or like the most part of the surface of the Earth?

So, get over yourself you Alpha-liar!!!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 15, 2015, 09:20:37 AM
Learn what a mirage is.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 15, 2015, 10:47:44 AM
Let's see one another astonishing example (the proof) of the astonishing flatness of the Earth:

<photo of Chicago skyline and misconception about mirages>
Y'know, there's an active thread about Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63609.0). This thread is supposed to be about the Antarctic Midnight Sun. I'm surprised you don't know that - you started this thread. Do you think Chicago is in Antarctica, or that Chicago experiences a midnight sun? Is that it?

Why don't you move your post about visibility of Chicago from across southern Lake Michigan over to the thread that's actually about Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan? You should know about it; you were posting about salt flats in Bolivia on that thread, though, so maybe you didn't notice that thread was supposed to be about Chicago, not Bolivia. That would be consistent with your utter failure to notice much of anything but what you want to see.

[Edit to add] I see this is another double-post between these threads. Why are you saying twice things that hardly merit being said at all? 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 15, 2015, 03:11:38 PM
Learn what a mirage is.
The buildings are vertical right across that distance , making it extremely implausible to be considered it  a mirage .
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 15, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Learn what a mirage is.
The buildings are vertical right across that distance , making it extremely implausible to be considered it  a mirage .

Any view of an object that is not a straight line view can be considered a mirage.   There is not really any practical difference.     Some mirages create optical distortions but in unusual circumstances there is no reason why they must create distortions.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 16, 2015, 07:40:53 AM
It seems that we have to repeat this same set of questions here also:

Quote
Scepti, i consider you as a smart guy, that is why your answer surprises me. If you are not able to follow such a simple argumentation (ZIGZAG argument & THE LEMAIRE CHANNEL SUNSET argument) then how you can take a stand on any issue?

I call upon every single member on this forum to put forward his/her own opinion on "Antarctic Midnight Sun" issue: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1687953#msg1687953 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1687953#msg1687953)

JROA, you as a moderator should be able to discern who is right and who is wrong on that issue, and according to your conclusion regarding this issue, take an appropriate action.

Whoever (whether it is me or Aliveandkicking) you think is trolling (DELIBERATELY LYING) on this issue, ban him instantly and permanently!

IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO DISCERN RIGHT AND WRONG, WHITE AND BLACK, NORTH AND SOUTH, UP AND DOWN, JUST SAY IT!!!

DO  YOU  REALLY  WANT  US  TO BELIEVE  THAT  AT  THIS  FORUM  EVERYBODY  CAN  DO  WHATEVER  HE  WANTS  WITHOUT  ANY  CONSEQUENCES  AT  ALL???

IS THIS SOME KIND OF A TWILIGHT ZONE, A MENTAL INSTITUTION, OR YOU GUYS (MODERATORS ON THIS FORUM) ARE  IN  FACT EVEN  WORSE  FASCISTS THAN  THOSE CROATIAN  FASCISTS  ON  FORUM.HR, ONLY THEY BAN EVERYONE (AND INSTANTLY) WHO EVEN TRY DO DISPUTE RET, AND YOU ALLOW PEOPLE TO WRITE EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING WHATSOEVER?

DO YOU HAVE ANY RULES AT THIS FORUM?

ANY SERIOUS RULES, I MEAN : THE RULES THAT DEAL WITH SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT QUESTIONS?

AND IF YOU HAVE SOME RULES, HAVE YOU EVER HAD SERIOUS INTENTS TO CARRY THEM OUT???

MODERATORS, WILL YOU FINALLY (JUST ONCE) SHOW TO ALL OF US THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO BEHAVE AS A SERIOUS PERSON???

DO I REALLY ASK TOO MUCH OF YOU???

Original post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63621.msg1688504#msg1688504 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63621.msg1688504#msg1688504)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 16, 2015, 07:54:21 AM
cik, I asked before and you ignored me in your CONSPIRACY thread, but how does a spotlight sun do this

(http://i.imgur.com/ADTd486.jpg)
Yes, we have to repeat the same questions.
So,what's the answer?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 16, 2015, 08:50:10 AM
Since we are repeating questions...
If you have any honesty, you can explain why this image you insist on repeatedly posting has been obviously distorted compared to the original.
(http://i.imgur.com/5VbUIFm.jpg)
Your silence on the matter will only confirm that you are in fact dishonest and a liar.

Shall we add 'foul-mouthed' and 'zero integrity' to the list Cikl?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 16, 2015, 12:28:40 PM
Let me add another descriptive phrase to the foul mouthed, zero integrity descriptions of Mr. fussypants who likes to cry.  A nice one my daddy used to use quite frequently. 
Dumb as a box of rocks.
Or we could use.
His elevator doesn't go all the way to the top. 

But my favorite would have to be an old Southern one.
Bless his little heart, he just can't understand it. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 16, 2015, 12:36:12 PM
Just for the record:

JROA, you are shame on the face of this Earth!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 16, 2015, 01:10:46 PM
cik, I asked before and you ignored me in your CONSPIRACY thread, but how does a spotlight sun do this

(http://i.imgur.com/ADTd486.jpg)
Yes, we have to repeat the same questions.
So,what's the answer?
The answer is your map is wrong. I have provided on anther thread , where you can obtain the right depiction . Once viewed you realise with no doubt  spherical earth is total propergate nonsense. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 16, 2015, 01:21:38 PM
Really, you provided a map or a link to a map?  I seem to remember offering to host said "accurate" map.  It was claimed by "somebody" that they were afraid to host or give out this supposed map of the flat Earth due to repercussions from the shadowy government agent types.  Please enlighten us to where you actually provided this "map".  Make sure you provide one that works for a flat Earth, that actually works with how sunlight is shining on Earth for any day of the year I choose, and the distances and directions between continents are correct without massively distorting the shape of the continents.  Lets also include that the map has to agree with my pwn personal observations of the differences in flight times from Santiago Chile to Aukland NZ, and LAX to Aukland NZ.  Something that shows how my flight in the Southern hemisphere was shorter than my wife's flight from the Northern hemisphere.  One way flights also, just in case you were wondering.  Lets include that the map needs to work with Southern and Northern circumpolar stars at the same time.
Oh wait, no flat map can ever show these.  The supposed whirlpools cannot answer all of these.  The only thing that can, is....   you guessed it, a Globe.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 16, 2015, 01:55:56 PM
Really, you provided a map or a link to a map?  I seem to remember offering to host said "accurate" map.  It was claimed by "somebody" that they were afraid to host or give out this supposed map of the flat Earth due to repercussions from the shadowy government agent types.  Please enlighten us to where you actually provided this "map".  Make sure you provide one that works for a flat Earth, that actually works with how sunlight is shining on Earth for any day of the year I choose, and the distances and directions between continents are correct without massively distorting the shape of the continents.  Lets also include that the map has to agree with my pwn personal observations of the differences in flight times from Santiago Chile to Aukland NZ, and LAX to Aukland NZ.  Something that shows how my flight in the Southern hemisphere was shorter than my wife's flight from the Northern hemisphere.  One way flights also, just in case you were wondering.  Lets include that the map needs to work with Southern and Northern circumpolar stars at the same time.
Oh wait, no flat map can ever show these.  The supposed whirlpools cannot answer all of these.  The only thing that can, is....   you guessed it, a Globe.
I know it exsists & where lt exsists on file , thats all that matters to me !. The earth is not spinning & its flat.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 16, 2015, 04:30:23 PM
Really, you provided a map or a link to a map?  I seem to remember offering to host said "accurate" map.  It was claimed by "somebody" that they were afraid to host or give out this supposed map of the flat Earth due to repercussions from the shadowy government agent types.  Please enlighten us to where you actually provided this "map".  Make sure you provide one that works for a flat Earth, that actually works with how sunlight is shining on Earth for any day of the year I choose, and the distances and directions between continents are correct without massively distorting the shape of the continents.  Lets also include that the map has to agree with my pwn personal observations of the differences in flight times from Santiago Chile to Aukland NZ, and LAX to Aukland NZ.  Something that shows how my flight in the Southern hemisphere was shorter than my wife's flight from the Northern hemisphere.  One way flights also, just in case you were wondering.  Lets include that the map needs to work with Southern and Northern circumpolar stars at the same time.
Oh wait, no flat map can ever show these.  The supposed whirlpools cannot answer all of these.  The only thing that can, is....   you guessed it, a Globe.
I know it exsists & where lt exsists on file , thats all that matters to me !. The earth is not spinning & its flat.

Well, that's cool and all about the map, if true, but unless we can see it, we just have to take your word that it exists. Aren't you all about "I won't believe you unless you show me a video!"

You're the guy who says the Sun sometimes sets due south from Melbourne. Why would anyone take your word on anything they can't establish for themselves?

So show us.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mikey T. on May 16, 2015, 06:29:53 PM
Empty comment, claims without proof.  The "I can't show you because the Men in Black will come get me" defense.  Utterly disgraceful.  Do yourself a favor and stop trying to pass yourself off as an actual FE supporter.  You are getting worse at it by the day. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 16, 2015, 08:37:46 PM
I know it exsists & where lt exsists on file , thats all that matters to me !. The earth is not spinning & its flat.

More empty words from a drunken ex-con.   Why don't you go somewhere else cry about how everyone is out to get you.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 17, 2015, 11:04:53 AM
Wow, i've just watched this beautiful video (BERSERK: SAILING EXPEDITION-ANTARCTICA -- (http://)), and guess what happened... There was one critical moment in this video (36min00s) :

 (http://i.imgur.com/8VkspvK.jpg)

A Berserk expedition gone wrong : http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/10s/berserk.html (http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/10s/berserk.html)

I was stunned...why? Hm, after very meticulous (additional) analysis i have concluded that i was wrong about the first part of the Lemaire Channel dispute, but I would not be me ,if i kept this secret just for myself. So...

My BIG BIG BIG apologies to Aliveandkicking and to Alpha! So, Aliveandkicking, now you can be sure that i am not a troll, although i am still sure that you are a troll, because i am 100 % sure that you would NEVER-EVER admit your own mistake, no matter how big and obvious that mistake could be!!!

Only, don't forget what is the most important part concerning the REAL direction in which the Lemaire Channel stretches : it stretches in the direction East-West, not in the direction North-South!!! That is the point!!! Now, all geometrical elements are even much better matched than it would be the case if i was right flipping "both  sides of an equation" ("northern" and "southern" entrance in the Lemaire Channel).

So, no reason for RET celebration, on the contrary!!!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 17, 2015, 12:07:41 PM
My BIG BIG BIG apologies to Aliveandkicking and to Alpha! So, Aliveandkicking, now you can be sure that i am not a troll, although i am still sure that you are a troll, because i am 100 % sure that you would NEVER-EVER admit your own mistake, no matter how big and obvious that mistake could be!!!

I have already admitted a mistake on this thread.   I said that i could take a picture from my roof top with the same camera position showing the setting and rising solstice sun.

A short while later I reported it was going to be marginal because my camera did not take a 90 degree view as i thought it would.    I am pretty sure now that the sun will miss the camera shot by a short distance although i am still expecting the obvious glow of the sky to indicate where the sun is.

Obviously lemaire channel is not east west.    Anyway it does not matter.  The sun can be shown in every part of the sky in lemaire channel area.

For a south west orientation good videos are available for sun almost due South, and due East, and due North and due West.

Here is East

(http://)

West

(http://)

South

(http://)

North

(http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 17, 2015, 12:26:23 PM
If you carried out careful analysis of this argument...
Quote
    If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

    Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

    My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)

...you couldn't miss to bring one and only possible conclusion : The Earth is at rest!

Only, there is one condition: You have to be honest a.k.a. brave, so to be able to allow yourself to follow evidence wherever they may lead you.

Let's see how and when you are going to fulfill this condition...
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 17, 2015, 12:45:27 PM
Wow, i've just watched this beautiful video (BERSERK: SAILING EXPEDITION-ANTARCTICA -- (http://)), and guess what happened... There was one critical moment in this video (36min00s) :

 http://i.imgur.com/8VkspvK.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/8VkspvK.jpg)

A Berserk expedition gone wrong : http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/10s/berserk.html (http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/10s/berserk.html)
I'll pass on the video unless convinced something in it makes it worth downloading and watching.

Is the video about the colossal screw-ups and arrogance described in the report? That was an interesting read. What a bunch of asses. They have no idea how much trouble - and risk - they put other people to with their stupid antics. Maybe they do, but just don't care, which is even worse.

Quote
I was stunned...why? Hm, after very meticulous (additional) analysis i have concluded that i was wrong about the first part of the Lemaire Channel dispute, but I would not be me ,if i kept this secret just for myself. So...

My BIG BIG BIG apologies to Aliveandkicking and to Alpha! So, Aliveandkicking, now you can be sure that i am not a troll, although i am still sure that you are a troll, because i am 100 % sure that you would NEVER-EVER admit your own mistake, no matter how big and obvious that mistake could be!!!

Only, don't forget what is the most important part concerning the REAL direction in which the Lemaire Channel stretches : it stretches in the direction East-West, not in the direction North-South!!! That is the point!!! Now, all geometrical elements are even much better matched than it would be the case if i was right flipping "both  sides of an equation" ("northern" and "southern" entrance in the Lemaire Channel).

So, no reason for RET celebration, on the contrary!!!
Your apology is accepted, but please, please, just give up arguing about the Lemaire Channel while you're ahead. You have amply demonstrated that your sense of geography is simply too befuddled to be worth anything.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 17, 2015, 01:23:57 PM
Only, don't forget what is the most important part concerning the REAL direction in which the Lemaire Channel stretches : it stretches in the direction East-West, not in the direction North-South!!!
You are wrong yet again.  ::) It runs roughly south-west/north-east. 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 18, 2015, 03:42:33 AM
Obviously lemaire channel is not east west.    Anyway it does not matter.  The sun can be shown in every part of the sky in lemaire channel area.

For a south west orientation good videos are available for sun almost due South, and due East, and due North and due West.

Here is East

(http://)

West

(http://)

South

(http://)

North

(http://)

KODAK GAP --- THE  NORTH =  THE  EAST  : 

(http://i.imgur.com/iRUMzZW.jpg)

KODAK GAP --- THE  SOUTH =  THE  WEST  :

(http://i.imgur.com/JErzb8F.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 18, 2015, 05:38:11 AM
(http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/lemairesunset_zpsqotqmhjx.png)

This is the new world order west I think

(http://www.robertharding.com/watermark.php?im=RF/RH_RF/HORIZONTAL/1112-2819&type=preview)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRso45miPkD1bwgpfNQn6FGozvOkFUZhj-K6cnOZOLnDptZ05bOug)

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQC7bA_jRhz_gMpnOzI0hdJVnO4y4bzsAbifUIXpfxrvCHnPpES)

(http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/JErzb8F_zpshkiazejj.jpg)

(http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/lemaire_zpsb0mxdxcj.png)

(http://image1.masterfile.com/getImage/600-02347623em-Sunrise-Behind-Mountain--Lemaire-Channel--Antarctic-Peninsula--Antarct.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: charles bloomington on May 18, 2015, 06:47:47 AM
Obviously lemaire channel is not east west.    Anyway it does not matter.  The sun can be shown in every part of the sky in lemaire channel area.

For a south west orientation good videos are available for sun almost due South, and due East, and due North and due West.

Here is East

(http://)

West

(http://)

South

(http://)

North

(http://)

KODAK GAP --- THE  NORTH =  THE  EAST  : 

(http://i.imgur.com/iRUMzZW.jpg)

KODAK GAP --- THE  SOUTH =  THE  WEST  :

(http://i.imgur.com/JErzb8F.jpg)

In order that the world can adjust to the new reality, and cruise ship captains can synchronise their maps to the new world order you need to make it clearer where Lemaire channel is positioned East West.

What compass heading does this picture have if it is not west - you have already specified west is  very significantly to the right of this sunset

(http://i680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/lemairesunset_zpsqotqmhjx.png)

This is the new world order west I think

(http://www.robertharding.com/watermark.php?im=RF/RH_RF/HORIZONTAL/1112-2819&type=preview)

Additionally:

1.  for the benefit of us aviation and nautical types could you explain what is meant by half way between east and west in the new world order?

2. In the new world order will the sun rotate differently to the direction seen in New Zealand and Australia or it will it continue to traverse in a right to left direction?
Well aviation nautical type . Care to explain the sun traking in this clip & the data .John Lennon, CIA, Flat Earth and the Position of …: (http://
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 18, 2015, 08:27:12 AM
If you carried out careful analysis of this argument...
Quote
    If the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.

    Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!

    My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)

    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)

...you couldn't miss to bring one and only possible conclusion : The Earth is at rest!

Only, there is one condition: You have to be honest a.k.a. brave, so to be able to allow yourself to follow evidence wherever they may lead you.

Let's see how and when you are going to fulfill this condition...

Strange because the conclusion I came to is that you have damage in the spacial reasoning part of your brain.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 18, 2015, 08:58:11 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/n30mYv2.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/OhwdmG1.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: 29silhouette on May 18, 2015, 09:14:29 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/OhwdmG1.jpg)
Why are you showing true north in two different directions?  Also, sunrise wouldn't be directly opposite of sunset like you're showing.  Why is this all so confusing for you Cikl?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 03:18:14 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/02K3BV0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/tHBxdgJ.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: modestman on May 19, 2015, 03:22:40 AM
cikljamas i am fan of you keep up your efforts.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 03:33:42 AM
cikljamas i am fan of you keep up your efforts.

Thanks man, God bless you!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 19, 2015, 05:03:01 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/tHBxdgJ.jpg)

The other picture belongs in the Antarctic Tourism Thread,   the second picture looks like it might be from Rowbotham's book,  but doesn't really matter where it's from it is simply wrong.
You need to do your research a bit better before posting things which are so easily proven wrong.   ( But then again,  you probably should stop quoting the unreliable Mr. Rowbotham ;D ) 

McMurdo Station,  which is at  77° 50' 52.073" S     166° 40' 9.916" E ,  has 24 hour daylight at that time of year.   You should check for yourself.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 07:07:45 AM
What happens in latitudes below 70 degrees (and especially below 80 degrees) in Antarctica is highly questionable.

This is why i only believe to what i read in old texts (older than 100 years), and even them i don't believe (since they were redacted who knows how much and how many times) everything they say about Antarctica.

This is one old text:
Quote
Commander Scott, in describing his winter sojourn in the wild Antarctic regions of solitude, was most persevering in his attempt "to look on the frozen page of God, and see what the letters meant." By his sledge journeys into the interior of the unknown continent, he says, he has succeeded in finding it to be a bleak plateau (elevated plain) rising 9000 feet above the sea, "and stretching interminably to the south."

This goes far to put the stamp of proof upon what we have expressed as our belief in respect to what exists far south.

Captain Scott, with Mr. Skelton and party, found a new route to the West, and established a depot 2000 feet up the glacier, 60 miles from the ship. On October 6th, 1903, one section o the explorers started for the strait in lat. 80 S, and they found it contained a large glacier formed from the inland ice ; and they obtained information as to the point of junction between the barrier-ice and the land. A depot, established the previous year, wa found to have moved a quarter of a mile to the north. Six of the party reached a point 160 miles S E of the ship, travelling continuously over a LEVEL PLAIN. No trace of land, and no obstacles in the ice were encountered, "and evidence was obtained showing this VAST PLAIN to be AFLOAT.

When the party crossed the South parallel (for the first time in the world's history) the compass pointed the wrong way. It is something to know that the expedition was within 500 miles of the so-called "South Pole", and that all this way off the compass was reversed.

We may note that the Discovery, in settling down into winter quarters in February, 1902, was frozen in, "and endured a long dark winter, with a night of 122 days, when the temperature fell to 62 degrees below zero, and it was unsafe to venture from the ship, for even a mile, because of the blinding blizzard that raged almost continuously."

This quotation is an excerpt from the statement of Lieut. Shackleton, of the Discovery.

"Does the phrase, 'a night of 122 days' mean that the sun was not seen for that long period?"
was a question put to me ; and I replied, "Certainly."

And as such is undoubtedly the case, I ask, how would it be possible to experience "a night of 122 days", if the earth be a globe careering round the sun, as they say it does?

Longyearbyen, Norway — Sunrise, sunset and daylength : http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen?month=10&year=2015 (http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/longyearbyen?month=10&year=2015)

Discovery wasn't settled down at higher southern latitude than Longyearbyen is situated at north (78,13 degrees N), and Longyearbyen dark winter lasts for 112 days which is a whole 10 days less than reported (by Lieut. Shackleton) 122 days of a complete darkness!

(http://i.imgur.com/PUYoK1L.jpg)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 19, 2015, 07:20:42 AM
There's only one sunset per year at the south pole,  and one sunrise.   It goes from  24 hour daylight to 24 hour darkness.

Here's a video of the annual sunset at Amundsen Scott Station.

(http://)

University of Chicago http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/vtour/pole/dome/life/sun/ (http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/vtour/pole/dome/life/sun/)

Here is daylight hours recorded by the Australian Antarctic division at a monitoring station  called dome a located at lattitude 80 S
(http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0005/21695/casey2015.png)(http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0011/116966/dome-a2015.png)(http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0015/23037/south-pole2015.png)
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/weather/sunlight-hours (http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/weather/sunlight-hours)

Notice that at dome a located 80S it's daylight 24 hours a day from October till February.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham  is wrong yet again.  When will you learn he is not to be relied upon.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 19, 2015, 08:25:55 AM
What happens in latitudes below 70 degrees (and especially below 80 degrees) in Antarctica is highly questionable.
Bullshit.

Quote
This is why i only believe to what i read in old texts (older than 100 years), and even them i don't believe (since they were redacted who knows how much and how many times) everything they say about Antarctica.
This is why you know nothing reliable about what happens south of 70° S. You rely only on sources from when the place was mostly unknown, and pick and choose what you want to believe from those. This is a perfect recipe for ignorance.

Allow me to summarize your attitude: "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts."

Quote
This is one old text:
Quote
<repeat of text discussed earlier in this thread, among other places, here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1686072#msg1686072)>

There was a hyperlink in that "old text"? Cool!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 08:38:32 AM
Alpha,

Allow me to show you one short Arctic-Midnight-Sun video:

(http://)

Now, show me one similar (BUT RELIABLE, NOT FALSIFIED) Antarctic-Midnight-Sun video...
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 19, 2015, 09:06:20 AM
Alpha,

Allow me to show you one short Arctic-Midnight-Sun video:

(http://)

Now, show me one similar (BUT RELIABLE, NOT FALSIFIED) Antarctic-Midnight-Sun video...

Better videos have already been produced but all evidence is junked as unreliable or falsified by the his highness, majestic majesty and holiness , his supreme retardness Cikjamas
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 09:15:33 AM
Alpha,

Allow me to show you one short Arctic-Midnight-Sun video:

(http://)

Now, show me one similar (BUT RELIABLE, NOT FALSIFIED) Antarctic-Midnight-Sun video...

Better videos have already been produced but all evidence is junked as unreliable or falsified by the his highness, majestic majesty and holiness , his supreme retardness Cikjamas

I would vote for this video as the most conclusive one, of all undeniable retarded videos that have been presented to us, by his supreme fuckwitness Aliveandkicking: (http://) Hahahahah....
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Mainframes on May 19, 2015, 09:18:26 AM
Alpha,

Allow me to show you one short Arctic-Midnight-Sun video:

(http://)

Now, show me one similar (BUT RELIABLE, NOT FALSIFIED) Antarctic-Midnight-Sun video...

Like this....?

(http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 19, 2015, 02:49:41 PM
Alpha,

Allow me to show you one short Arctic-Midnight-Sun video:

(http://)

Now, show me one similar (BUT RELIABLE, NOT FALSIFIED) Antarctic-Midnight-Sun video...

Like this....?

(http://)
That wasn't from me, but, any questions? Thanks, Mainframes.

Did you notice how the Sun was moving through the frame in the opposite direction of your arctic video. Cool, huh?

The last thing I want to do is spend time finding a youtube video for someone who will simply blow it off as a fake, regardless. I dislike watching most of them, and scouting through a bunch of crap for something that might be relevant to what I want is an utter, complete, and annoying, waste of time, especially since you've already warned that it will be called a fake if it shows what you don't want to see. That one has been posted here before. I'm sure you'll find some excuse to claim it's false. You always do.


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 19, 2015, 09:28:19 PM
Alpha,

Allow me to show you one short Arctic-Midnight-Sun video:

(http://)

Now, show me one similar (BUT RELIABLE, NOT FALSIFIED) Antarctic-Midnight-Sun video...

You have already been shown quite a few,  and this latest request is just another diversionary tactic.   
If you are so keen to prove your point,  how about some evidence to back up your big mouth.

Why don't you try to find a video or photograph  taken inside the Antarctic circle on December 21, where it clearly shows that it's night time.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 03:19:11 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/k67nD6u.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/WmfGQHN.jpg)

This pictures has been taken at February 13:

ANTARCTICA - before SUNRISE :

(http://i.imgur.com/8VykF2f.jpg)

ANTARCTICA - 2 AM :

(http://i.imgur.com/M1eui2K.jpg)
https://neverstoptravelling.wordpress.com/category/antarctica/ (https://neverstoptravelling.wordpress.com/category/antarctica/)

After seeing pictures above, it is going to be much easier to get your heads around/about what really happens down there (after midnight)...

Now, read this post again : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1684703#msg1684703 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1684703#msg1684703)

Pay special attention to this chapter : CONTINUED DAYLIGHT IN THE EXTREME SOUTH : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: modestman on May 20, 2015, 03:42:27 AM
cikljamas you are really making this liar feel angry keep your good job he is angry hahahahahahahaha
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 20, 2015, 03:47:47 AM
Another successful derailment

The question was

Why don't you try to find a video or photograph  taken inside the Antarctic circle on December 21, where it clearly shows that it's night time.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: modestman on May 20, 2015, 03:51:58 AM
Another successful derailment

The question was

Why don't you try to find a video or photograph  taken inside the Antarctic circle on December 21, where it clearly shows that it's night time.

Aliveandkicking when will you go to space ? give me year when will they hire you to fake a space travel ?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 03:56:42 AM
Another successful derailment

The question was

Why don't you try to find a video or photograph  taken inside the Antarctic circle on December 21, where it clearly shows that it's night time.


Give me an ticket for an Aeroplane : (http://)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 20, 2015, 04:03:34 AM
Give me an ticket for an Aeroplane : (http://)

Just as i thought,  you've got nothing to back up your claims.   Well at least you've got  little midgetman to help you.

cikljamas you are really making this liar feel angry keep your good job he is angry hahahahahahahaha

silkpajamas,  can't help it if he's lying,  he doesn't know any better.


Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: modestman on May 20, 2015, 04:05:50 AM
Give me an ticket for an Aeroplane : (http://)

Just as i thought,  you've got nothing to back up your claims.   Well at least you've got  little midgetman to help you.

cikljamas you are really making this liar feel angry keep your good job he is angry hahahahahahahaha

silkpajamas,  can't help it if he's lying,  he doesn't know any better.
well all the system goes against him he has no sources like you have from a lying-billionaire nasa or 1000 other organizations
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 20, 2015, 04:05:58 AM
Give me an ticket for an Aeroplane : (http://)

Just as i thought,  you've got nothing to back up your claims.   Well at least you've got  little midgetman to help you.

cikljamas you are really making this liar feel angry keep your good job he is angry hahahahahahahaha

silkpajamas,  can't help it if he's lying,  he doesn't know any better.

I am convinced all of these liars are the same pervert.  The whole purpose of the board is to waste peoples time and the more time and effort we go to to produce answers the more satisfaction they get.

Imagine it, it is like a little empire of your own were everybody dances to your own tune.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 20, 2015, 04:12:15 AM
Give me an ticket for an Aeroplane : (http://)

Just as i thought,  you've got nothing to back up your claims.   Well at least you've got  little midgetman to help you.

cikljamas you are really making this liar feel angry keep your good job he is angry hahahahahahahaha

silkpajamas,  can't help it if he's lying,  he doesn't know any better.

I am convinced all of these liars are the same pervert.  The whole purpose of the board is to waste peoples time and the more time and effort we go to to produce answers the more satisfaction they get.

Imagine it, it is like a little empire of your own were everybody dances to your own tune.

They might be,  I think modestman is actually a shill,   he pretends to be a flat earther, but then says stupid things making flat earthers look stupid.   silkpajamas is probably real,  but  dumb as a bag of rocks,  how else can you describe someone who doesn't know night from day, let alone north from south.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 04:12:44 AM
I am convinced all of these liars are the same pervert.  The whole purpose of the board is to waste peoples time and the more time and effort we go to to produce answers the more satisfaction they get.

What answers? Don't make yourself even stupider than you really are!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: modestman on May 20, 2015, 04:15:16 AM
Give me an ticket for an Aeroplane : (http://)

Just as i thought,  you've got nothing to back up your claims.   Well at least you've got  little midgetman to help you.

cikljamas you are really making this liar feel angry keep your good job he is angry hahahahahahahaha

silkpajamas,  can't help it if he's lying,  he doesn't know any better.

I am convinced all of these liars are the same pervert.  The whole purpose of the board is to waste peoples time and the more time and effort we go to to produce answers the more satisfaction they get.

Imagine it, it is like a little empire of your own were everybody dances to your own tune.
i recommend go away you have nothing to do here you are just misleading with too complicated words that nobody understand maybe we are dumb or maybe you are doing it on purpose to make us think we are dumb and you have nothing to contribute. go away you are desperate and you have nothing to learn so go to other places.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 04:15:39 AM
They might be,  I think modestman is actually a shill,   he pretends to be a flat earther, but then says stupid things making flat earthers look stupid.   silkpajamas is probably real,  but  dumb as a bag of rocks,  how else can you describe someone who doesn't know night from day, let alone north from south.

If i am so wrong as you claim, then why are you talking to me at all? We all know the true answer to that question!
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: cikljamas on May 20, 2015, 04:17:22 AM
This is the best proof of my "wrongness":

(http://i.imgur.com/k67nD6u.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/WmfGQHN.jpg)

This pictures has been taken at February 13:

ANTARCTICA - before SUNRISE :

(http://i.imgur.com/8VykF2f.jpg)

ANTARCTICA - 2 AM :

(http://i.imgur.com/M1eui2K.jpg)
https://neverstoptravelling.wordpress.com/category/antarctica/ (https://neverstoptravelling.wordpress.com/category/antarctica/)

After seeing pictures above, it is going to be much easier to get your heads around/about what really happens down there (after midnight)...

Now, read this post again : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1684703#msg1684703 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63538.msg1684703#msg1684703)

Pay special attention to this chapter : CONTINUED DAYLIGHT IN THE EXTREME SOUTH : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm)
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: modestman on May 20, 2015, 04:18:10 AM
i am so sorry my english is bad because i would much help if i could speak in my native language.
Cikl look at their attitude they are here to sell the idea of round earth and they have no interest to learn something new.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Aliveandkicking on May 20, 2015, 04:19:45 AM
Give me an ticket for an Aeroplane : (http://)

Just as i thought,  you've got nothing to back up your claims.   Well at least you've got  little midgetman to help you.

cikljamas you are really making this liar feel angry keep your good job he is angry hahahahahahahaha

silkpajamas,  can't help it if he's lying,  he doesn't know any better.

I am convinced all of these liars are the same pervert.  The whole purpose of the board is to waste peoples time and the more time and effort we go to to produce answers the more satisfaction they get.

Imagine it, it is like a little empire of your own were everybody dances to your own tune.

They might be,  I think modestman is actually a shill,   he pretends to be a flat earther, but then says stupid things making flat earthers look stupid.   silkpajamas is probably real,  but  dumb as a bag of rocks,  how else can you describe someone who doesn't know night from day, let alone north from south.

If siljjamas was real there would be a sort of logic to the psychotic state he tries to present.  I just do not believe anybody can be as stupid as he pretends to be.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 20, 2015, 04:21:46 AM
i am so sorry my english is bad because i would much help if i could speak in my native language.
Cikl look at their attitude they are here to sell the idea of round earth and they have no interest to learn something new.

What's your native language,  moonman,  is it  frogshit?   You talk a lot of it?
 
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 20, 2015, 09:42:16 AM
He came out as a troll. I wouldn't even bother with him.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Tom on May 20, 2015, 09:59:01 AM
He came out as a troll. I wouldn't even bother with him.

Hi Sokarul,

Do you still consider yourself an Undefeated REer?

Did you do a long distance experiment with a spotting scope or telescope to see if an object disappeared because of the curvature of the earth?

Tom
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 20, 2015, 10:10:13 AM
He came out as a troll. I wouldn't even bother with him.

Hi Sokarul,

Do you still consider yourself an Undefeated REer?

Did you do a long distance experiment with a spotting scope or telescope to see if an object disappeared because of the curvature of the earth?

Tom
Yes, and no I did not.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Tom on May 20, 2015, 10:19:36 AM
He came out as a troll. I wouldn't even bother with him.

Hi Sokarul,

Do you still consider yourself an Undefeated REer?

Did you do a long distance experiment with a spotting scope or telescope to see if an object disappeared because of the curvature of the earth?

Tom
Yes, and no I did not.

Not one Round earth believer on this forum did this basic, easy to perform, experiment?

How can you take them serious?
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: sokarul on May 20, 2015, 10:32:15 AM
Actually some one did awhile back. They were just recently posted again. Also other users performed an experiment which included taking pictures of the sun. They showed that the sun must be closer to 93 million miles away, not 3000 or less.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: JerkFace on May 20, 2015, 10:37:55 AM
Not one Round earth believer on this forum did this basic, easy to perform, experiment?

How can you take them serious?

Who says!   I told you already I did it with a theodolite.   It's standard surveying practice.

Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 20, 2015, 12:40:08 PM
Give me an ticket for an Aeroplane : (http://)

Just as i thought,  you've got nothing to back up your claims.   Well at least you've got  little midgetman to help you.

cikljamas you are really making this liar feel angry keep your good job he is angry hahahahahahahaha

silkpajamas,  can't help it if he's lying,  he doesn't know any better.
well all the system goes against him he has no sources like you have from a lying-billionaire nasa or 1000 other organizations

He has no sources because the idea he's peddling is wrong. Most people are smart enough to see that right away.

He has you, though.
Title: Re: ANTARCTICA MIDNIGHT SUN (ANOTHER SIDE OF THE COIN)
Post by: mikeman7918 on May 23, 2015, 11:54:56 PM
i am so sorry my english is bad because i would much help if i could speak in my native language.
Cikl look at their attitude they are here to sell the idea of round earth and they have no interest to learn something new.

Look at the second link in my forum signature and then say that again with a strait face.