Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Logick

Pages: [1]
Searching through the forums, I've never seen a single objection to the many high-altitude stills and videos of the flat Earth. There have been a couple moronic threads by roundies asking why flatties don't accept such evidence showing a round Earth, but not even a single comment, let alone thread, seems to address this evidence when supportive of a flat Earth. Here is one such piece of evidence:

In this video, it's easy to tell that the camera is likely at 121,000ft, as claimed by the uploader. It is well-above the atmosphere. Yet, there is no apparent curvature. Compare this to images of Felix Baumgartner's high-altitude skydive:

These snapshots were taken at 128,100ft. Notice the considerable difference in curvature that is apparent between them. In the first pic, there is virtually no curvature, while in the second, the exaggerated curvature is unmistakable (though roundies will religiously claim that image was not taken with a fish eye or wide-angle lens). I don't think most roundies have even considered this comparison here, to be honest.

I think it would be much more difficult to distort an image of a ball Earth such that it appears flat than it would be to achieve the converse; that is, to distort a flat Earth image such that it appears round. So, my question is simple: How do REers explain away this evidence?

After surfing through the forums, I came across this post by annoying forum spastic rabinoz, which included The Blue Marble, and noticed something that never caught my attention before: The familiar blue haze we see that separates the atmosphere from the black sky in all high-altitude photos/videos is absent. Let me provide some photos to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

In all these photos, a distinctive blue glow is visible all along the earth's edge/circumference.

Even this photo, taken from the cockpit of a fighter jet at high altitude, clearly shows the separation between the blue atmosphere and black sky:

Further, in this video, one of the most beloved of the roundies, we can see the said separation and even that between the light-polluted, yellowish nighttime atmosphere and the black sky:

So there is a clearly visible atmosphere surrounding the earth, regardless of whether it's daytime or nighttime; this is an incontrovertible fact. Yet, in the famed Blue Marble photo, not a lick of atmosphere is seen:

Keep in mind that, aside from the cockpit photo, this is all NASA material. So what accounts for the inconsistency here? Why is the bluish atmospheric glow absent in the Blue Marble, but present in all other high-altitude photos? My contention is that the Blue Marble is an artist's rendering rather than a legitimate photo of the earth. What do you think?

(PS: I know that doubting the authenticity of NASA photos doesn't necessarily make one a flat earther and that the converse is also untrue, but there is nonetheless some relation between the two. At any rate, revealing NASA fakery does call the entire organization's credibility into question, which, as much of RET is supported by NASA evidence, punches a sizable hole into RET altogether.)

After lurking through many threads discussing the topic, it's come to my attention that there are several here who deny, or at least have trouble comprehending the fact that, because light cannot travel infinitely through air, distant objects become obscured by the atmosphere. I'm hoping this will slam the final nail in that coffin. Observe this photo:

This was taken of a nearby hillside, from the third floor of my college campus. Now, it's easy to tell that the nearest trees in the foreground are "clearer" than the ones farther off, and that the bunch of trees on the hillside are a bit less clear. Looking at the mountains in the background, we can clearly see they're more obscured by the atmosphere; they are engulfed by a bluish-gray tint.

Obviously, we can tell that, the farther an object is, the more it will be obscured by the atmosphere and be tinted by it, in a bluish-grey hue. BTW, the mountain in the distance isn't even very far. Its peak is about 4 miles away, tops. More realistically, it's about 2-3 miles away. Yet, it still clearly suffers from atmospheric tint, just like the small hill in front of it, and the group of trees in front of that.

Here is another picture, also taken from campus:

The atmospheric tint, especially for the most distant objects, is very pronounced here. Clearly, if we consider the relative distances of these objects, we observe a sort of "tint gradient." In other words, the closer objects are hardly obscured by the atmosphere at all, whereas the very farthest ones are barely visible; their visibility is a function of their distance.

This is incontrovertible evidence that the atmosphere accounts for the loss of visibility of distant objects, and even slightly obscures relatively near ones only miles away. Are there still delusional roundies who deny atmospheric obscuration? If so, speak up.

Flat Earth General / Political leanings of FET ideologues
« on: December 27, 2016, 10:17:30 AM »
I'm curious as to whether there is any correlation between political leanings and belief in FET. It is my theory that, generally, the more liberal one is, the more one is likely to buy into FET (and conspiracy theories in general), and that conservatives are particularly averse to FET; also, that political moderates tend to sit on the fence regarding FET. I'm hoping this poll and thread will shed some light here.

For the purposes of this thread, we shall define "conservatism" as a political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change and "liberalism" as a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. A "moderate" shall be defined as an individual who is not extreme, partisan, nor radical.

PS: Even if you're a troll or a shill or whatever, please vote honestly so we can get accurate results here, thanks. Also, I realize that not all possible categories are listed here... just select the one that describes you best.

I took these on its 10/20/16 flyby over my town with my smartphone.






This thing definitely wasn't a plane... it traveled way too slowly across the sky and was far too bright. So what was it, skeptics?

Flat Earth Debate / Atmospheric "Clouding" of Distant Objects
« on: December 21, 2016, 11:09:31 PM »
I understand that light does not "travel infinitely" through the atmosphere and that, according to FET, this is why distant objects cannot be seen. But when night falls, the visibility of distant objects, such as stars, which aren't visible during the day, increases dramatically.

If, as FET claims, atmospheric "clouding" accounts for the sun's disappearance over the horizon at sunset, why does the nighttime moon set and vanish at precisely the same level, when there is virtually no clouding? Since atmospheric clouding is all but nonexistent at night, we would expect the moon to be visible for much longer, and perhaps even at a lower point than the sun is when approaching its vanishing point.

Instead, we see these celestial bodies setting at the same level, regardless of clouding; thus, their disappearance cannot be attributable to it. The corollary to this is that the nighttime invisibility of all distant, earthbound phenomena (e.g. mountains, buildings, city lights, ships, etc.) must be attributable to something other than atmospheric clouding. This raises questions as to why they are unobservable at night, even with powerful telescopes.

What is FET's response to this?

Pages: [1]