When did the conspiracy start?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2012, 09:03:33 PM

I challenge that. It is not possible to see 1000+ km away through the atmosphere.

Tom, you have unwittingly admitted that you actually consider the Earth to be a globe.  Case closed.

No, he unwittingly slipped on a simple problem of trigonometry. Because the Earth is round and the atmosphere is so thin (you are almost out of the atmosphere climbing just 100,000 feet) there is no place where you can have a straight stretch of 1000 km of atmosphere. You could, in fact, do the test in a lab, making a ray of light travel one kilometer a thousand times, or something like that.

You could, in fact, do the test in a lab, making a ray of light travel one kilometer a thousand times, or something like that.

How many labs do you have access to, that are over 1 km in length?

Quote from: trig on September 05, 2012, 07:06:13 AM

You could, in fact, do the test in a lab, making a ray of light travel one kilometer a thousand times, or something like that.

How many labs do you have access to, that are over 1 km in length?

And you are the one who was talking about 500 meter long pieces of glass?

Use your imagination. Put a mirror on a mountaintop with a view towards your lab. Real scientist have to solve everyday problems all the time and don't cry because their labs are not a kilometer long. Only couch scientists like you would despair because all of the equipment should be actually inside their labs.

Use your imagination.

The rhetoric for Round Earthers for thousands of years. The prosecution rests, Your Honour.

Quote from: trig on September 05, 2012, 07:53:14 AM

Use your imagination.

The rhetoric for Round Earthers for thousands of years. The prosecution rests, Your Honour.

C'mon, don't be petty... let me rephrase:

Use your "inventive talent": 2 first surface mirrors, one laser, whatever gear is needed for precise placing. It will not be difficult to set up a zetetic experiment to determine the transparency of the atmosphere.

Quote from: Thork on September 05, 2012, 09:34:11 AM

Quote from: trig on September 05, 2012, 07:53:14 AM

Use your imagination.

The rhetoric for Round Earthers for thousands of years. The prosecution rests, Your Honour.

C'mon, don't be petty... let me rephrase:

Use your "inventive talent": 2 first surface mirrors, one laser, whatever gear is needed for precise placing. It will not be difficult to set up a zetetic experiment to determine the transparency of the atmosphere.

I said something simular. You can do this over a large area of calm water, let's see Port Phillip bay in Melbourne would do. ( I used to live there) You could easily measure the curvature over the water with lasers and mirrors and prove Rowbotham's theories "hold no water" LOL.

The whole argument is silly. You can't see anywhere like 1000 km through air.

Visibility refers to the relative clarity of the air, which determines the distance, details, and colors that we can see in a landscape. Visibility is related to the absorption and scattering of light in the air. As more light is absorbed and scattered, whether by clouds, dust, or smog, visibility decreases. Even pure air absorbs and scatters light. Maximum visibility is about 390 km (240 miles) at sea level.

So Tom Bishop's challenge to the RErs stands. Trig was just side-stepping as usual having been outmanoeuvred by the silver fox once again.

The whole argument is silly. You can't see anywhere like 1000 km through air.

Quote from: http://www.nps.gov/grba/naturescience/airquality.htm

Visibility refers to the relative clarity of the air, which determines the distance, details, and colors that we can see in a landscape. Visibility is related to the absorption and scattering of light in the air. As more light is absorbed and scattered, whether by clouds, dust, or smog, visibility decreases. Even pure air absorbs and scatters light. Maximum visibility is about 390 km (240 miles) at sea level.

So Tom Bishop's challenge to the RErs stands. Trig was just side-stepping as usual having been outmanoeuvred by the silver fox once again.

Wasn't the claim about seeing a mountain range (much higher than sea level) from a plane (also much higher than sea level)? At higher elevations the air is thinner and should offer much greater visibility.

Quote from: Thork on September 07, 2012, 01:31:55 PM

The whole argument is silly. You can't see anywhere like 1000 km through air.

Quote from: http://www.nps.gov/grba/naturescience/airquality.htm

Visibility refers to the relative clarity of the air, which determines the distance, details, and colors that we can see in a landscape. Visibility is related to the absorption and scattering of light in the air. As more light is absorbed and scattered, whether by clouds, dust, or smog, visibility decreases. Even pure air absorbs and scatters light. Maximum visibility is about 390 km (240 miles) at sea level.

So Tom Bishop's challenge to the RErs stands. Trig was just side-stepping as usual having been outmanoeuvred by the silver fox once again.

Wasn't the claim about seeing a mountain range (much higher than sea level) from a plane (also much higher than sea level)? At higher elevations the air is thinner and should offer much greater visibility.

Are you going to provide any data as to a revised figure?

I used some school trigonometry on the RE model to calculate the maximum distance a person inside an airplane travelling at 12 km altitude can see plus the maximum distance a person on an 8000m mountain can see. Adding those distances I would get something between 700 and 800 km.

So I reckon I must've been closer to the mountain range, and my claim was wrong.

But hey, I read about a maximum visibility of 390 km at sea level somewhere in this thread... And I see another calculation that states that if the sun light has to travel for more than 300 km though the air, it's lights off! What's the next step?

I say, follow the money. Hollywood has made billions off RE theory. The reason the Scientologists run Hollywood is because Hollywood needs true believers in RE theory and Scientology provides an entire religious theology based on space travel. Not hard to connect the dots here: A RELIGION OF SPACE TRAVEL -> BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES LIKE STAR WARS  -> $Billions and $Billions

I say, follow the money. Hollywood has made billions off RE theory. The reason the Scientologists run Hollywood is because Hollywood needs true believers in RE theory and Scientology provides an entire religious theology based on space travel. Not hard to connect the dots here: A RELIGION OF SPACE TRAVEL -> BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES LIKE STAR WARS  -> $Billions and $Billions

you do realize that the "star wars" franchise existed decades before the "religion of space travel" that you claim created it. . . . . .

Quote from: dado on August 13, 2012, 06:20:43 AM

Quote from: hoppy on August 13, 2012, 06:16:16 AM

FE is a scientific fact.

Really? Based on what research and what evidence?

Based on my personal research, which I have posted on TFES. Also ENaG by Rowbotham.
[/quote]

You are the same Hoppy that swore, as FACT that the moon would be lit on the opposite side of the setting sun in one of my threads a long time ago. Have you ever shown the evidence or witnessed this astounding FACT?

Because you seemed to disappear from that thread never to return....

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56637.msg1449449.html#msg1449449

A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?

Therefore a shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body exists to cause it. We like to call this body the Anti-Moon, or as I prefer, the Shadow Object.

The Shadow Object exists. There is no doubt about that. There is some contention on what it exists as, exactly, but it none the less exists. The Shadow Object even exists in the RET model. In RET the Shadow Object is the earth.

I just want to clarify:

1. there is a shadow on the moon

2. something must cause that shadow

3. it is impossible to tell whether or not this "shadow object" is an antimoon or the earth

isn't this as much evidence for RE as FE?

The shadow of the earth on the moon is direct evidence that the earth is round, right?

Im a flat earther, but I myself don't believe in the conspiracy. I think NASA genuinely sent up satallites, put men on the moon, took pictures of Earth from space and all that jazz. I used to believe in the conspiracy until FES's founder/great mind, said of the first photo of Earth taken to space as presented to him in 1957, "it is easy to see how a picture can fool the untrained eye". At first I didn't get this but then it hit me! The sun shines roughly half the earth while the rest lays in darkness in the night with only the moon, and the sun acts as a spotlight, this giving and illusion of a round earth, when it instead only shows the circle of light around our flat (but circular) world

Im a flat earther, but I myself don't believe in the conspiracy. I think NASA genuinely sent up satallites, put men on the moon, took pictures of Earth from space and all that jazz. I used to believe in the conspiracy until FES's founder/great mind, said of the first photo of Earth taken to space as presented to him in 1957, "it is easy to see how a picture can fool the untrained eye". At first I didn't get this but then it hit me! The sun shines roughly half the earth while the rest lays in darkness in the night with only the moon, and the sun acts as a spotlight, this giving and illusion of a round earth, when it instead only shows the circle of light around our flat (but circular) world

so NASA sent men to the moon (which is round?) and then took pictures of earth (which is flat?), and have no reason to lie to the public about the details of those missions?

Quote from: Excelsior John on August 05, 2013, 01:55:52 PM

Im a flat earther, but I myself don't believe in the conspiracy. I think NASA genuinely sent up satallites, put men on the moon, took pictures of Earth from space and all that jazz. I used to believe in the conspiracy until FES's founder/great mind, said of the first photo of Earth taken to space as presented to him in 1957, "it is easy to see how a picture can fool the untrained eye". At first I didn't get this but then it hit me! The sun shines roughly half the earth while the rest lays in darkness in the night with only the moon, and the sun acts as a spotlight, this giving and illusion of a round earth, when it instead only shows the circle of light around our flat (but circular) world

so NASA sent men to the moon (which is round?) and then took pictures of earth (which is flat?), and have no reason to lie to the public about the details of those missions?

Why would they have a reason to lie? The people at NASA are simply mistaken into thinking the earth is round. But intellects like myself know the truth