Discussion of that CN Tower Picture

  • 60 Replies
  • 18484 Views
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« on: December 06, 2007, 05:53:23 PM »


Possible Locations


*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2007, 05:57:17 PM »
I believe I am not fimiliar with the context of your argument. Other threads concerned the CN tower no doubt?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 06:09:41 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2007, 06:06:03 PM »
Where did you get this information from?  The conspiracy?

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2007, 06:51:02 PM »
...a map?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17896
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2007, 07:00:18 PM »
That does that image prove? The sinking ship effect is part of Flat Earth Theory. It's one of the primary proofs for a Flat Earth.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2007, 07:01:16 PM »
It's one of the primary proofs for a Flat Earth.
Classic.   8)

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2007, 07:04:01 PM »
That does that image prove? The sinking ship effect is part of Flat Earth Theory. It's one of the primary proofs for a Flat Earth.

How is it a "primary proof" if it's possible in both theories?  ::)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17896
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2007, 07:07:01 PM »
That does that image prove? The sinking ship effect is part of Flat Earth Theory. It's one of the primary proofs for a Flat Earth.

How is it a "primary proof" if it's possible in both theories?  ::)

Looking through the sinking ship effect with a telescope isn't possible in Round Earth Theory. The many first hand accounts in the FE Literature where people are able to restore a half-sunken ship with a telescope put the Round Earth Theory to shame.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2007, 07:10:47 PM »
That does that image prove? The sinking ship effect is part of Flat Earth Theory. It's one of the primary proofs for a Flat Earth.

How is it a "primary proof" if it's possible in both theories?  ::)

Looking through the sinking ship effect with a telescope isn't possible in Round Earth Theory. The many first hand accounts in the FE Literature where people are able to restore a half-sunken ship with a telescope put the Round Earth Theory to shame.
Agreed.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2007, 07:19:47 PM »
That does that image prove? The sinking ship effect is part of Flat Earth Theory. It's one of the primary proofs for a Flat Earth.

How is it a "primary proof" if it's possible in both theories?  ::)

Looking through the sinking ship effect with a telescope isn't possible in Round Earth Theory. The many first hand accounts in the FE Literature where people are able to restore a half-sunken ship with a telescope put the Round Earth Theory to shame.

But you have no proof.  No pictures (which I would accept, even if the forums don't.) or anything.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17896
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2007, 07:23:52 PM »
Quote
But you have no proof.  No pictures (which I would accept, even if the forums don't.) or anything.

First hand accounts from multiple sources is just as good as any picture. In fact, the multiple accounts in the Flat Earth Literature is better than photographic evidence because the accounts are coming from multiple independent researchers. A photograph from one person may very well be fake. But when multiple people detail reports of observing an effect, the reality of this effect is pretty conclusive.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2007, 07:25:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2007, 07:26:10 PM »
Quote
But you have no proof.  No pictures (which I would accept, even if the forums don't.) or anything.

First hand accounts from multiple sources is just as good as any picture. In fact, the multiple accounts in the Flat Earth Literature is better than photographic evidence because the accounts are coming from multiple independent researchers. A photograph from one person may very well be fake. But when multiple people claim to have seen the effect the testimonial is more powerful than anything a picture could do.
Hey Tom, would you like to ride in a non government controlled rocket and go to outer space?
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2007, 07:35:25 PM »
Quote
But you have no proof.  No pictures (which I would accept, even if the forums don't.) or anything.

First hand accounts from multiple sources is just as good as any picture. In fact, the multiple accounts in the Flat Earth Literature is better than photographic evidence because the accounts are coming from multiple independent researchers. A photograph from one person may very well be fake. But when multiple people detail reports of observing an effect, the reality of this effect is pretty conclusive.

I trust your pictures Tom.

Besides, all a telescope does in take the incoming light and MAGNIFY IT.

It doesn't change your position.



Nope, still nothing.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2007, 07:37:45 PM »
Quote
But you have no proof.  No pictures (which I would accept, even if the forums don't.) or anything.

First hand accounts from multiple sources is just as good as any picture. In fact, the multiple accounts in the Flat Earth Literature is better than photographic evidence because the accounts are coming from multiple independent researchers. A photograph from one person may very well be fake. But when multiple people detail reports of observing an effect, the reality of this effect is pretty conclusive.

I trust your pictures Tom.

Besides, all a telescope does in take the incoming light and MAGNIFY IT.

It doesn't change your position.



Nope, still nothing.
Well firstly you're zooming in on a computer photo. But I have to agree with you though. No matter the magnification, the object doesn't become any more or less visible.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

?

Bushido

Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2007, 07:38:31 PM »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2007, 08:04:56 PM »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2007, 09:37:59 PM »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2007, 12:11:38 AM »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17552
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2007, 12:57:10 AM »
Erm wait, I thought for 30 miles the drop would be considerably lower than what is seen in that picture? or am I misremembering
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 12:59:01 AM by Username »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2007, 04:14:35 AM »
How to calculate distance to horizon:

1.17 × √h = d

In which h is your eye height in feet, and d is the distance to the horizon in nautical miles.

To calculate distance until an object can be seen:

(1.17 × √h1) + (1.17 × √h2) = d

So (and keep in mid these values are ESTIMATIONS.  We do not know the actual values.), if we plug in 6 feet for the eyes and ~900 feet for half the tower:

(1.17 × √h1) + (1.17 × √h2) = d

(1.17 × √6) + (1.17 × √900) = d

(1.17 × 2.44948974) + (1.17 × 30) = d

(1.17 × 2.44948974) + (1.17 × 30) = d

2.865903 + 35.1 = d

37.965903 = d

So we have the distance to be 37.965903 nautical miles, which is about 43.6903809 regular miles.  It's fine.  You would be able to see half the tower with our heights from about 40 miles away.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 09:50:23 AM by Trekky0623 »

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2007, 04:34:46 AM »
The sinking ship effect is part of Flat Earth Theory. It's one of the primary proofs for a Flat Earth.

Sorry, but as long as you avoid debating the sinking effect itself, your arguments are hollow. It cannot be used as a disproof if it is questionable.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2007, 11:59:27 AM »
Quote
But you have no proof.  No pictures (which I would accept, even if the forums don't.) or anything.

First hand accounts from multiple sources is just as good as any picture. In fact, the multiple accounts in the Flat Earth Literature is better than photographic evidence because the accounts are coming from multiple independent researchers. A photograph from one person may very well be fake. But when multiple people detail reports of observing an effect, the reality of this effect is pretty conclusive.

let me see if i understand your bizarre logic:

1a) people lie.
1b) lying is as quick and easy as telling the truth, and doesn't have to bother people's conscience if they lie to themselves first.
1c) lying requires no expertise, humans are born to do it.
1d) eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence have repeatedly proven themselves to be of exceptionally low value to science.

2a) digital photos can be faked
2b) it's difficult and very time-consuming to photoshop a high-res fake that withstands close inspection (e.g. here)
2c) convincing photoshopping requires a high level of expertise.

therefore, in your world, the "word" of people are somehow better than their photos.

i suppose then it's no wonder you are the single most well-documented liar on this forum.


Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #23 on: December 08, 2007, 05:38:03 AM »

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2007, 06:26:04 PM »
So... Who backed out on Oct. 26th... Tom or bubbles?
Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2007, 06:08:45 PM »
Anyone? I'm curious to know if Tom or bubbles either one went ahead and snapped some pics of the horizon and some 'zoomed' ships or not. ;D
Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2007, 06:10:17 PM »
I say we debate the Dark Tower. The ending was sad. And brilliant.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2007, 06:13:49 PM »
No.  I say we debate The Book.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2007, 06:27:15 PM »
It is a book. Unless I was referring to a movie made about it that I haven't heard of....

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Discussion of that CN Tower Picture
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2007, 09:03:18 AM »
I say we debate the Dark Tower. The ending was sad. And brilliant.

how did it end?  i got completely pissed off with the series around "rose and glass" or whatever the title was: where they ran into the wizard of freakin oz, and it overlapped not very subtly with "the stand", and a bunch of other bullshit i just couldn't stomach. 

not to mention stephen king telling the same goddamn story over...and over...and over...  you know: "some people are drawn together seemingly at random to fight an evil force that transcends time.  there is alot of walking involved.  and a boy, usually a budding author who is secretly stephen king trying to recoup a lost childhood.  an ending is cobbled together quickly and poorly.  the end."

plus i stopped having any more time or justification to do any more enjoyment reading.

anyway, back to the subject.  if bishop lies so much, why does anyone take anything he says at all seriously?