Earth to be Proven Round Soon

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not possible the launch pad could be below sea level?

Ehhh. No.

1.) Uglykidjoe's argument against RE assumes an RE environment (highly variable sea level). Thus it disqualifies itself.

2.) The sea level may be generally variable due to tides, but the current sea level at any point on Earth at any given time is only variable due to waves - which do not explain the visible bulge at great distances.

Another epic fail for FE.

Quote from: messierhunter on July 01, 2008, 02:20:28 PM

Quote from: uglykidjoe on July 01, 2008, 12:26:28 PM

Quote from: messierhunter on July 01, 2008, 09:44:18 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on July 01, 2008, 09:11:07 AM

And that it doesn't really need a rebuttal, you just typed words, there weren't any points. So fucking what, you drew two lines and we're all supposed to go "Oh, the Earth must be round then". That would only happen if they were magic.

Actually I gave you a proof, which oddly enough, contains words AND numbers (what a concept!).  If you understood the meaning of my words and the significance of the figures presented you'd realize I had just provided proof that the earth is curved.  Would you like to see the original image files at full resolution with intact EXIF data so you can verify my numbers?

All you might have managed to demonstrate (that's even questionable due the poor quality of your explanation and the picture in question) is that the land in question is somewhat bumpy and inconsistent.  This doesn't pass a proof that the earth is universally round, just that you managed to find a bump. 

Oh yeah, because a bump explains why a launch pad at sea level appears much too LOW to a camera positioned 12 miles away at sea level.  And by the way, if you want to criticise the quality of my explanation then why don't you point out specific problems you have with it rather than speak in vague generalities?  As for the quality of my pictures, I have the full 10 megapixel images available, so quality is only limited by how big an image you're willing to put up with.

One major problem with your "proof" is that you're trying to use sea-level as a valid, static unit of measurement.  It's not.  In fact, its far more variable in a round earth model than in a flat earth model.  Perhaps you should do some more research on things like "True Altitude" aka. MSL or Mean Sea Level and sea surface topography.  Unless you want to go ahead and keep referring sea level as a static, valid unit of measurement, in which case I'm sure the FEers would happily declare a win. 

Quote from: MadDogX on July 01, 2008, 03:10:44 PM

Ehhh. No.

1.) Uglykidjoe's argument against RE assumes an RE environment (highly variable sea level). Thus it disqualifies itself.

2.) The sea level may be generally variable due to tides, but the current sea level at any point on Earth at any given time is only variable due to waves - which do not explain the visible bulge at great distances.

Another epic fail for FE.

Apparently your reading comprehension needs a little work.  Firstly, I'm not the one arguing in favor of using sea level as a valid form of measurement.  That's MessierHunter.  I simply pointed out the invalidity of his claim, especially in the context of his RE beliefs.  Also, I've never identified myself as an FEer.  You're simply assuming that I am when I point out the logical flaws in the arguments of people you apparently agree with. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not possible the launch pad could be below sea level?

I don't think his baseline numbers are right anyway.

We're talking about a 12 mile distance on flat terrain and you're claiming terrain differences completely account for the dip I measured?  I guess it's time to haul out a topographic map and see who's right here.  Declaring a win without even providing a shred of proof.  Yeah, that's real smart.  I'm trying to get the maps for Kennedy but some of them seem to be corrupted on the USGS site.  I'll try to retreive them again tomorrow.

Quote from: Ski on July 01, 2008, 03:18:34 PM

I don't think his baseline numbers are right anyway.

Care to elaborate?

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 01, 2008, 03:13:24 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not possible the launch pad could be below sea level?

Topographic maps seem to indicate otherwise, but I'm having trouble downloading a high resolution view right now.

I'm happy to note that none of the FEers have stooped to MessierHunter's level and immediately declared victory not hearing from him for a few hours.  It almost makes me wonder if the hostility coming from people of his ilk indicate insecurity as to his position?

Here's what I got using a much more reliable method. We know the mast top is 347 feet from the ground.

Quote from: messierhunter on July 01, 2008, 03:37:48 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 01, 2008, 03:18:34 PM

I don't think his baseline numbers are right anyway.

Care to elaborate?

Your two pictures do not look to be on the same scale to me (I haven't opened them to analyze this, but that's my impression).

Quote from: Ski on July 01, 2008, 04:16:40 PM

Here's what I got using a much more reliable method. We know the mast top is 347 feet from the ground.

Lie, bullshit, that's all you know how to do huh?  From your own link it says that the mast is 347 feet ABOVE THE PAD BASE, not the ground.  The pad base is another 42 feet above the ground.  See that big beige thing that the fixed service structure with the mast sits on?  That's the pad base, and it's 42 feet tall:

Your attempt at re-analysis is therefore flawed from the start, not to mention you didn't perform it on the original full resolution files, which you could have asked for first.

By the way, according to USGS elevation data, the riverside of titusville where i was standing has an elevation of 7 feet and the ground surrounding the south launch pad also has an elevation of 7 feet.  Topography claim debunked.

Quote from: messierhunter on July 01, 2008, 03:36:54 PM

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 01, 2008, 03:13:24 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not possible the launch pad could be below sea level?

Topographic maps seem to indicate otherwise, but I'm having trouble downloading a high resolution view right now.

I would just like to point out that government maps, given the views of people on regarding the governments credibility and motives, are not going to be accepted as proof.

Quote from: messierhunter on July 02, 2008, 08:05:29 AM

Quote from: Ski on July 01, 2008, 04:16:40 PM

Here's what I got using a much more reliable method. We know the mast top is 347 feet from the ground.

Lie, bullshit, that's all you know how to do huh?  From your own link it says that the mast is 347 feet ABOVE THE PAD BASE, not the ground.  The pad base is another 42 feet above the ground.  See that big beige thing that the fixed service structure with the mast sits on?  That's the pad base, and it's 42 feet tall:

Your attempt at re-analysis is therefore flawed from the start, not to mention you didn't perform it on the original full resolution files, which you could have asked for first.

I only see reference that the flame trench is 42 feet deep. Though, the base is probably above ground level I will grant. I don't think that's sufficient to skew my results do you?

Quote from: messierhunter on July 02, 2008, 08:09:13 AM

By the way, according to USGS elevation data, the riverside of titusville where i was standing has an elevation of 7 feet and the ground surrounding the south launch pad also has an elevation of 7 feet.  Topography claim debunked.

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 01, 2008, 03:50:31 PM

Quote from: messierhunter on July 01, 2008, 03:36:54 PM

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 01, 2008, 03:13:24 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not possible the launch pad could be below sea level?

Topographic maps seem to indicate otherwise, but I'm having trouble downloading a high resolution view right now.

I would just like to point out that government maps, given the views of people on regarding the governments credibility and motives, are not going to be accepted as proof.

You are exceptionally rude. Grow up please.

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 02, 2008, 08:52:09 AM

You are exceptionally rude. Grow up please.

You are exceptionally stupid.  Learn something please.

Quote from: Ski on July 01, 2008, 04:16:40 PM

Here's what I got using a much more reliable method. We know the mast top is 347 feet from the ground.

Lie, bullshit, that's all you know how to do huh?  From your own link it says that the mast is 347 feet ABOVE THE PAD BASE, not the ground.  The pad base is another 42 feet above the ground.  See that big beige thing that the fixed service structure with the mast sits on?  That's the pad base, and it's 42 feet tall:

Your attempt at re-analysis is therefore flawed from the start, not to mention you didn't perform it on the original full resolution files, which you could have asked for first.