Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

The formula requires temperatures at the place of the observer, and at the upper layer of the visual target you mentioned.

Since the low was about 8.3C, certainly at 19:30 (viewer from Holland mentiones it was beginning to get dark), or at 20:00, we will have a temperature of about 10C (in fact I could go as high as 12, given the fact that the high was at 15.5C).

Where do you want to go from here?

Let us assume, for the sake of the discussion, that in Milwaukee at 1000 m altitude, there were 23C (of course, this would stretch the imagination, but these are the lengths to which we have to go to convince RE the earth is flat). How could we have 10C at some 183 meters in altitude, and 800 meters higher, 23C, a difference of 13 degrees?

Even with these unbelievable numbers, the lapse rate will be around -90C/km, and the result, of course, negative.

With a high of around 15.5C, there is no way that the layers at about 800-1000 m in altitude could have had more than, say, 18C.

But we used 23C in our formula.

If we use the data from 1925, then the altitude of the observer will be some 10 meters, and the same goes for the target (Racine, in 1925). Then the visual obstacle will measure some 1068 meters.

With these numbers, even if we go to 25C at the visual target, Racine, we still get a negative number.


The surface over the lake Michigan is completely flat, no question about it...


We already talked about the droplets of water contained in the clouds...

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here. With no wind present, those droplets defy attractive gravitation...given the difference in weight (800 times heavier than air). The explanation accepted by science is silly, and defies the visible facts.

Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.


And you have no answers about the fact that gases do not stay separated according to specific weights, or about the barometric pressure paradox.


Gravity is the pressure of the ether, the telluric currents, discovered by Tesla, Moray, and Schauberger, to name but a few...please read about Francis Nipher's experiments with gravity...you will find the link in my messages.


The Soviet Academy Science states quite clearly: the explosion was seen from Irkutsk and from the shores of Lake Baikal, here is their map:



http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the meteorite over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.

Given the fact it was a cloudless day, the visual range limit is 400 km.

Nothing could be seen beyond that limit, due to curvature; the visual obstacle from Lake Baikal (435 meters in altitude) is 21.7 km. The visual obstacle from Irkutsk is 67.5 km.

No other explosion occurred at 7:15 over Asia; give up the nonsense...the fuckball is in your court, do the research and prove to us here otherwise...

The description of the trajectory, as being erratic, and of the explosion itself LEAVES NO DOUBTS, no matter how much you bicker about it.

In London, as all over Europe, at exactly 0:20, newspapers could be read without street lighting.

On June 30, 7:15 - 7:20 am, there was sunlight all over Siberia. In London, at 0:15, of course, there was darkness, around midnight. We are told, in the official theory, that this happens because of the curvature of the Earth, which blocks the rays of light from the Sun.

Then, how could an explosion which did take place at some 7km in altitude, on a cloudless day, be seen from Irkutsk, the Gobi desert, and from London itself?

We have the glow of the trajectory, on one side of a globe, and the immediate, instant observation on the other side the same globe, from London.

No glow could be seen on a round earth, given the 7463 km visual obstacle, those are the facts.

As promised, some photos depicting clouds sinking below the horizon. These were taken at an altitude approximately 100 feet above sea level, on a day with excellent visibility, hardly any wind and waves so calm that they did not break at the crests (so you can't claim the clouds are obscured by massive waves.)

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here. With no wind present, those droplets defy attractive gravitation...given the difference in weight (800 times heavier than air). The explanation accepted by science is silly, and defies the visible facts.

What do you find silly about it? If you think there's an error in it, it would be helpful to point it out rather than just saying 'It's silly'.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.

What makes you think it will descend faster than it's being destroyed and replenished? As far as I can tell, your evidence consists of the fact you think it shouldn't work, and little else.

The Soviet Academy Science states quite clearly: the explosion was seen from Irkutsk and from the shores of Lake Baikal, here is their map:

Firstly, I suspect that the map includes the area where the object was visible, not just where the explosion could be seen from. As it likely started higher in the atmosphere than the height at which it exploded and the fact that it was apparently moving, it's not surprising that it was seen over an area slightly larger than the 400 km you keep mentioning.

Secondly, there's nothing to suggest that the explosion was seen from Irkutsk itself. You are making things up.

No other explosion occurred at 7:15 over Asia; give up the nonsense...do the research and prove to us here otherwise...

The research is already there. You have one set of reports over the Tunguska area, and you have another report of an object in a different direction to Tunguska. This suggests to me that there are two different objects.

We have the glow of the trajectory, on one side of a globe, and the immediate, instant observation on the other side the same globe, from London.

Why do you think it is a trajectory that's glowing? I through such a thing would be a line, not something spread all over the place.

It's not really an immediate, instant observation either. It was apparently going on all through the night, not just at the time the Tunguska event occurred.

Let us assume, for the sake of the discussion, that in Milwaukee at 1000 m altitude, there were 23C (of course, this would stretch the imagination, but these are the lengths to which we have to go to convince RE the earth is flat). How could we have 10C at some 183 meters in altitude, and 800 meters higher, 23C, a difference of 13 degrees?

No, the temp recordings for Milwawkee were not taken at the height of the visual obstacle, you are making that up.  You don't need to go to 1000m to get a temp difference.  In NORMAL conditions, yes a range of temperature difference this extreme over 183m would not occur.  But in the unusual conditions that create an inversion (btw, a measured scientific fact), such extremes of temperature can and do occur.  This is not up for debate; these are things that have been measured by meteorologists.  The various refractive index's of different densities (temperatures) of air is how these formulas we are using are derived.

What it comes down to is your belief that a temperature inversion cannot be more than some arbitrary extreme of temperature that seems logical to you.  This is unscientific.

Something else that these formulas don't take into account:  The inversion might be high, 300m or more, but if ends with a warm front, the refracted light rays won't get refracted back up to the warm air layer.  They will continue to push down into the warm air.  So in the right condtions a light beam from the shores of Milwawkee, could reflect up into the atmosphere through warm air, hit the warmer air of the inversion, then be refracted backwards and forwards between the layer boundary of the inversion until it reaches the eye of someone standing in Holland.  The formulas assume a completely stable inversion for x number of kilometres; they don't describe what happens when the end of the inversion layer is reached.

The fact is, you have no explanation for why it is only on very rare occasions that these kinds of visible phenomena occur.  You latch onto an infrequent occurance and claim it is proof Fait Accompli of something that ought to be a common occurance in order to justify your argument. 

There is no point arguing with you, since you think you know more than all the weather scientists, meteorologists and experts put together.  You refuse to accept any scientific evidence and instead rely on your own instinct that temperature inversions cannot cause looming of the degree observed at various infrequent times at different locations.

I've tried to have a reasonable educated debate with you, but it's getting nowhere.  You insist on believing your own baseless version of atmospheric conditions.  You ignore aerodynamics, air pressure, weather dynamics, thermal behaviour of gases, and various other well researched established facts in favour of your own fervent fairy tales.  There is no point in continuing this debate.  Good luck to you sir.

As promised, some photos depicting clouds sinking below the horizon. These were taken at an altitude approximately 100 feet above sea level, on a day with excellent visibility, hardly any wind and waves so calm that they did not break at the crests (so you can't claim the clouds are obscured by massive waves.)

Thanks, I appreciate this contribution.  I'd like to get this thread back to discussing photographic evidence.

Just report levee's posts for spam if you think he is going off topic, he was demodded for behavior like that which he is displaying here.

Just report levee's posts for spam if you think he is going off topic, he was demodded for behavior like that which he is displaying here.

Thanks for the suggestion, I may do that if he persists.  I'm happy to engage in debate to a point, but in this case it's detracting from the topic, and the debate seems stuck at a point on which neither of us is going to budge. It's probably best that I cease interacting with Levee on this particular point of debate and hopefully he will get the message and cease posting off-topic material.