Photographic Evidence Of A Round Earth - Refutation Required

What you see here is the launch plume of an Atlantis space shuttle (of course the shuttle mission is fake, but the launch at least is real).
The bottom part is not illuminated, as the sun has set at ground level. The top part, however, is in sunlight, as the sun has not yet moved far enough behind the Earth to be blocked out at this high altitude. Any FE explanations? This was a public event...

That's an awesome photo

Another to the same effect. This is Everest, still receiving the sun's light due to its high altitude. It is not affiliated with NASA or the space program so FEers who were gonna scream 'conspiracy!' over the OP can think of a different argument. You can explain this, right guys?

That's because right after sunset:

- The atmosphere grows less dense with altitude.

- Sunlight still peeks over the false edge of the horizon.

- The higher you go, the more of the sun you can see.

Explaining the relatively sharp shadow exactly how? And how much less dense? How do you know this? Did Rowbotham have a hot air balloon? If this was the case, the sun would not ever set over Everest. On tall objects like that, you can see the retreating sunlight as the sun fully sets, eventually resulting in twilight and then darkness. How does the atmosphere explain that?

The false horizon could never obscure something 10 miles high, as it is apparently created by waves or similar...

Explaining the relatively sharp shadow exactly how? And how much less dense? How do you know this? Did Rowbotham have a hot air balloon? If this was the case, the sun would not ever set over Everest. On tall objects like that, you can see the retreating sunlight as the sun fully sets, eventually resulting in twilight and then darkness. How does the atmosphere explain that?

It doesn't.

Quote from: Gin on April 25, 2007, 06:34:32 PM

Explaining the relatively sharp shadow exactly how? And how much less dense? How do you know this? Did Rowbotham have a hot air balloon? If this was the case, the sun would not ever set over Everest. On tall objects like that, you can see the retreating sunlight as the sun fully sets, eventually resulting in twilight and then darkness. How does the atmosphere explain that?

It doesn't.

Seconded.

Explaining the relatively sharp shadow exactly how?

It's mostly the boat effect going on. Here's a refresher:

The sinking ship effect people see is a natural law of perspective. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham found that the vanishing point of the horizon is slightly below the edge of the horizon due the mean combined height of the waves. Although the waves might reach a maximum of 44 inches in height above the true edge of the horizon, it has a profound effect.

This means that as the ship shrinks into the horizon it must also sink into mean height of the combined waves. The smaller the ship gets into the distance, the more the waves at the false edge of the horizon will obscure its hull.

Consider a 3D model with an infinite perfectly flat plane. Any receding object on the surface gets smaller and smaller the more distant it gets, right? At the edge of the horizon, any imperfect increase in height, no matter how minuscule, will obscure the object from the bottom up as it shrinks into the distance.

Consult Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

Now, if we increase in altitude right after the receding hull is obscured by the horizon, we can see the boat rise out of the water again. The light we see from a higher altitude is angled upwards unobscured, while the light pointing to the observer at sea level is still obscured by the waves.

The false horizon could never obscure something 10 miles high, as it is apparently created by waves or similar...

The false horizon could obscure anything if it is distant enough.

Another to the same effect. This is Everest, still receiving the sun's light due to its high altitude. It is not affiliated with NASA or the space program so FEers who were gonna scream 'conspiracy!' over the OP can think of a different argument. You can explain this, right guys?

Conspiracy!

However, the sun does set eventually, even on Everest.

However, the sun does set eventually, even on Everest.

That's because the sun must eventually become one with the vanishing point of the horizon. Even from Everest, the false edge of the horizon is not in line with the vanishing point.

No stretch of land or sea is perfectly flat. The slightest increase would obscure everything.

However, the sun does set eventually, even on Everest.

Next to Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Everest is the tallest object on Earth, it could not be obscured from the sun by any other object even if the sun was at ground level. It being 4828km up just makes life even more difficult. I'll draw you a picture if you don't get it.

Everest is the tallest object on Earth, it could not be obscured from the sun by any other object even if the sun was at ground level. It being 4828km up just makes life even more difficult. I'll draw you a picture if you don't get it.

What proof do you guys have that Everest is really that tall anyway?  Did you take a ruler out and measure it?

Hahahahaha. Hahahaha. Haha. Ha.

  Are you serious? Now the mountaineers are conspirators too? Weak, Tom, very weak.

I bet all you round earth theorists are googling right now, looking for "evidence."  I googled too, and it appears that the height has been changed over the years (surprise, surprise...coming from scientists)... I bet someone is going to say that a computer says so... again, surprise, surprise...

Hahahahaha. Hahahaha. Haha. Ha.

  Are you serious? Now the mountaineers are conspirators too? Weak, Tom, very weak.

You can't prove it, so you use humor.  Nice try...

If there is a point at which the sun never sets, then Everest definitely doesn't reach it.  And if there were a mountain that reached that point, the government would have nuked it ages ago.  Do you think they want something like that around to disprove round earth theory?

Of course I can't prove how high everest is, and yes, estimations have varied (and some include snow, some don't). Modern technology allows us to know its height with increasing precision. However, saying I can't know it's exact height doesn't mean I don't know it is very, very tall. Visibly taller than any other structure in the area, and well over 10km in height (I'm sure you could work this out simply by trigonometry).

Edit: Nuked a mountain eh? They did that on the quiet...the very quiet...for a nuclear bomb. If the government was in the business of nuking mountains to kill FE theory, they'd just kill you. If nuking a mountain doesn't arouse suspicion, then killing you and the whole FES is nothing surely?

Come on, they've conducted tons of "tests" over the years.

Also, it could have been that Everest was originally tall enough for the sun never to set, but they would have bombed the top off.  It wouldn't surprise me if they got the Chinese to do it during the Cold War.  They control Tibet after all...

Come on, they've conducted tons of "tests" over the years.

Also, it could have been that Everest was originally tall enough for the sun never to set, but they would have bombed the top off.  It wouldn't surprise me if they got the Chinese to do it during the Cold War.  They control Tibet after all...

Maybe your dumbass should look to see when the first person climbed it. 

Come on, they've conducted tons of "tests" over the years.

Also, it could have been that Everest was originally tall enough for the sun never to set, but they would have bombed the top off.  It wouldn't surprise me if they got the Chinese to do it during the Cold War.  They control Tibet after all...

Get the fuck out of here, imbecile.

See, how threatened these round earth theorists are... you say something that runs counter to their theory, and they get all angry and violent...

See, how threatened these round earth theorists are... you say something that runs counter to their theory, and they get all angry and violent...

Oh please, your intelligence comes down to 0.

See, how threatened these round earth theorists are... you say something that runs counter to their theory, and they get all angry and violent...

Pulling thoeries out of your ass doesnt not make them true.  

See, how threatened these round earth theorists are... you say something that runs counter to their theory, and they get all angry and violent...

No, you say something that is so patently foolish and evidence free that it frustrates them that they wasted the time to read it (not all FEers are this way, see: Dogplatter). Please refrain from bringing your ridiculous assertions to this board without even a shred of evidence, first-hand, second-hand or fifth-hand.

Oh wait, I thought you found this entertaining... I thought you guys said you were here because you were bored... So now you are actually upset?  Upset that I'm voicing my beliefs?  Is there a rule somewhere that says you have to believe in such and such to post?  Can you please point this out to me?

Anyhow, going back to the subject of this thread, can you clue me in as to what the "official explanation" is for when Everest was first climbed and how tall it was and how it was measured?  Do you think you can do that for me, or are you going to curse and spit at me some more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_climbing_Mount_Everest

Radhanath Sikdar, an Indian mathematician and surveyor from Bengal, was the first to identify Everest as the world's highest peak in 1852, using trigonometric calculations based on measurements of "Peak XV" (as it was then known) made with theodolites from 240 km (150 miles) away in India. Measurement could not be made from closer due to a lack of access to Nepal. "Peak XV" was found to be exactly 29,000 feet (8,839 m) high, but was publicly declared to be 29,002 feet (8,840 m). The arbitrary addition of 2 feet (0.6 m) was to avoid the impression that an exact height of 29,000 feet was nothing more than a rounded estimate.

Rowbotham used theodolites, so you be careful what you say about them.

Edit: Sikdar's measurement is within 28ft of all other measurements, some with and without the 3.5m of snow that occasionally falls on it, so it's not exactly like there are wild figures about this, they are pretty consistent for something 29,000 feet tall.

Oh wait, I thought you found this entertaining... I thought you guys said you were here because you were bored... So now you are actually upset?  Upset that I'm voicing my beliefs?  Is there a rule somewhere that says you have to believe in such and such to post?  Can you please point this out to me?

Anyhow, going back to the subject of this thread, can you clue me in as to what the "official explanation" is for when Everest was first climbed and how tall it was and how it was measured?  Do you think you can do that for me, or are you going to curse and spit at me some more?

Let me rephrase what I said before, actually, your intelligence comes down to sub 0.