Proving the flat earth with photography

  • 60 Replies
  • 27709 Views
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2015, 08:57:16 AM »
Dear ausGeoff,
I am just an ordinary person who two weeks ago belived that earth was round. Now I have only questions... i need answers, thats all.

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2015, 09:40:19 AM »
Dear ausGeoff,
I am just an ordinary person who two weeks ago belived that earth was round. Now I have only questions... i need answers, thats all.

Welcome Aleksandar!

It's nice to see as Flat Earth knowledge is spreading out in my neighbourhood...  :)

S ovim Australcem samo oštro (ne šalim se)...  ;D

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2015, 09:43:23 AM »
lol  :)

*

jroa

  • Custodial Engineer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 34384
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2015, 09:47:22 AM »
I think problem is in atmosphere. When u look far true atmosphere, the air gets ticker. And if u look up in the space, there is no atmosphere so u can see further...

So you're apparently claiming that a couple of hundred kilometres of air makes a mountain "disappear" from sight, but not a star that's 15,000 light years distant?

How exactly does that work?


Are you under the impression that there is 15,000 light years of atmosphere (atmoplane) between you and the stars?  Your arguments get worse and worse over time. 

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2015, 10:18:52 AM »
I think problem is in atmosphere. When u look far true atmosphere, the air gets ticker. And if u look up in the space, there is no atmosphere so u can see further...

So you're apparently claiming that a couple of hundred kilometres of air makes a mountain "disappear" from sight, but not a star that's 15,000 light years distant?

How exactly does that work?


Are you under the impression that there is 15,000 light years of atmosphere (atmoplane) between you and the stars?  Your arguments get worse and worse over time.
What is the distance?

*

jroa

  • Custodial Engineer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 34384
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2015, 10:25:23 AM »
What is the distance?

To which layer of the atmoplane are you referring? 

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2015, 10:30:43 AM »
What is the distance?

To which layer of the atmoplane are you referring?
From you to a star, you choose which one.

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2015, 10:44:40 AM »
omg, you two r crazy :)

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2015, 10:47:09 AM »
omg, you two r crazy :)
Watch the low content posting.
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

*

jroa

  • Custodial Engineer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 34384
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2015, 11:32:24 AM »
What is the distance?

To which layer of the atmoplane are you referring?
From you to a star, you choose which one.

At which angle?  The atmoplane is thinner when something is directly over head and increases in thickness with the angle

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2015, 11:56:26 AM »
What is the distance?

To which layer of the atmoplane are you referring?
From you to a star, you choose which one.

At which angle?  The atmoplane is thinner when something is directly over head and increases in thickness with the angle
Again, you choose.

*

jroa

  • Custodial Engineer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 34384
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #41 on: February 15, 2015, 12:28:59 PM »
Again, you choose.

Do you not understand when I say that the thickness changes with angle? 

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #42 on: February 15, 2015, 12:44:06 PM »
Again, you choose.

Do you not understand when I say that the thickness changes with angle?
Just quote one distance plus source.

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #43 on: February 15, 2015, 12:56:23 PM »
You dont need a photo. Every photo can be fake. Experiment is what we need.

Please read this experiments and measurements on water sufaces and post your comment.
regards!

It is part of the natural physics of water and other fluids to always find their level and remain flat.  If disturbed in any way, motion ensues until the flat level is resumed.  If dammed up then released, the nature of all liquids is to quickly flood outwards taking the easiest course towards finding its new level.

“The upper surface of a fluid at rest is a horizontal plane.  Because if a part of the surface were higher than the rest, those parts of the fluid which were under it would exert a greater pressure upon the surrounding parts than they receive from them, so that motion would take place amongst the particles and continue until there were none at a higher level than the rest, that is, until the upper surface of the whole mass of fluid became a horizontal plane.”  -W.T. Lynn, “First Principles of Natural Philosophy”.

It won't be a plane, it will be an equipotential surface. All points on an equipotential surface have the same potential energy.

In the case of the Earth, this is nearly spherical, modified by its rotation and, to a lesser degree, variations in density within the Earth. Rotation slightly counteracts the acceleration of gravity, with the effect greatest at the equator dropping to zero at the poles, meaning the equipotential surface has to be further from the center of mass at the equator in order to maintain the same potential energy. This is what causes the overall ellipsoidal shape of the geoid. Large-scale inhomogeneities within the Earth cause the geoid to have the slight deviations from a perfect ellipsoid that cikljamas gets so worked up about. The study of the shape of the Earth is called geodesy, in case you want to learn more about the subject.

Quote
If the Earth is an extended flat plane, then this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.  If, however, the Earth is a giant sphere tilted on its vertical axis spinning through never-ending space then it follows that truly flat, consistently level surfaces do not exist here!  Moreover, if the Earth is spherical then it follows that the surface of all Earth’s water, including the massive oceans, must maintain a certain degree of convexity.  But this is contrary to the fundamental physical nature of water to always be and remain level! “The surface of all water, when not agitated by natural causes, such as winds, tides, earthquakes etc. is perfectly level. 

The Earth is not an extended flat plane, however. The oceans do maintain a certain degree of convexity because the equipotential surface is nearly spherical. To see for yourself, go to the beach on a clear day and look at the sharply-defined horizon - there's your convexity.

"Level" in this context means "follows an equipotential surface".

Quote
The sense of sight proves this to every unprejudiced and reasonable mind. 

Yes, it does. Watching a ship sail out of sight over the horizon and disappearing from the bottom up is a very clear indication that the surface of the water is curved. Keep an open mind and you will recognize that this simple concept explains what is seen time and time and again.

Quote
Can any so-called scientist, who teaches that the earth is a whirling globe, take a heap of liquid water, whirl it round, and so make rotundity?  He cannot. 

This is done fairly often in demonstrations while in free-fall such as in orbit or aboard the "Vomit Comet". In those cases, it's surface tension that forces water into globules, not the drop's own gravity. "Whirling" is not necessary, but, if present, stretches the globules into ellipsoids. Surface tension is not strong enough to overcome a water drop's own weight if it's on a surface under the influence of earth's gravity, so it won't form a sphere, although smaller drops on a smooth hydrophobic surface will definitely still be convex. Wax your car then spray some water on a horizontal panel and see.

Quote
Therefore it is utterly impossible to prove that an ocean is a whirling rotund section of a globular earth, rushing through ‘space’ at the lying-given-rate of false philosophers.”  -William Thomas Wiseman, “The Earth An Irregular Plane”

There are many ways this can be demonstrated. Several have been outlined on this forum. Calling someone a liar doesn't mean they are, and doing so without good evidence reduces credibility of one's argument.

Quote
If we were living on a whirling ball-Earth, every pond, lake, marsh, canal and other large body of standing water, each part would have to comprise a slight arc or semi-circle

That's exactly what happens. Unless it's very large, the effect is to small to easily see, however.

Quote
curveting downwards from the central summit. 

There's no "summit" since the surface is level. Level follows the equipotential curve. "Bulge" may be a better term than "summit".

Quote
For example, if the ball-Earth were 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomers say, then spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downwards an easily measureable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance.  This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak.  To the benefit of true science, and to the detriment of modern astronomy’s pseudo-science, such an experiment can and has been tested.

In Cambridge, England there is a 20 mile canal called the Old Bedford which passes in a straight line through the Fenlands known as the Bedford Level.  The water has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind and remains stationary making it perfectly suitable for determining whether any amount of convexity/curvature actually exists.  In the latter part of the 19th century, Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, a famous Flat-Earther and author of the fine book, “Earth Not a Globe!  An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in the Universe!” travelled to the Bedford level and performed a series of experiments to determine whether the surface of standing water is flat or convex.

“A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called ‘Welche's Dam’ (a well-known ferry passage), to another called ‘Welney Bridge.’ These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! There could be no mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge. The experiment commenced about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day, and the sun was shining brightly and nearly behind or against the boat during the whole of its passage. Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities.  From this experiment it follows that the surface of standing water is not convex, and therefore that the Earth is not a globe!  On the contrary, this simple experiment is all-sufficient to prove that the surface of the water is parallel to the line-of-sight, and is therefore horizontal, and that the Earth cannot be other than a plane!”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!  An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in The Universe!” (12-13)

The Bedford Level Experiment was flawed and its reported result has never been reliably replicated. Much (most?) of the information in the cited reference is incorrect, making conclusions that depend on this bad information also incorrect. The reference simply isn't reliable and shouldn't be used for anything but entertainment, or perhaps, as a case study in flawed logic and poor methodology.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #44 on: February 15, 2015, 02:46:08 PM »
A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Mrs. Peach recently found a reference of photographic evidence from The English Mechanic, a scientific journal:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al), ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment. "A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water. The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible, and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat moored near them.'

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd. A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".



1: Lighthouses: http://www.energeticforum.com/264766-post457.html

2: Experiments on lake Michigan: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

3: Exact formula for counting visibility range for two heights and striking examples which render validity of FET beyond dispute: http://www.energeticforum.com/258148-post188.html

4: At sea the datum line is always a horizontal line - spherical trigonometry is never used - That all triangulation used at sea is PLANE, PROVES THAT THE SEA IS A PLANE : http://www.energeticforum.com/265962-post590.html

5: Railways: In 1862, the Houses of Lords and Commons issued an Order that all Railways were to be constructed on a Datum Horizontal line without allowing one inch for curvature.

6: Canals:

Example A: " The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level."

Example B: Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for "curvature" ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, — (Earth Review, October, 1893), " It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal, and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowance for the curvature of the earth." — Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February, 1892!

Example C:
A surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, writes to the Earth Review for January, 1896, as follows :

" In leveling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birmingham level, this is said to be 453.04 feet above sea level. Sometimes I work from the Walsal level, this is said to be 407.89 feet above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth were a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed... One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life."

7: London to Moscow proof : In " Chambers' Information for the People," section on Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs:

"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi is estimated at 1.300.000 square miles, and that of the St. Lawrened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends an inhospitable FLAT of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next in order of importance is that section of Europe extending from the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ONE VAST PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has been remarked, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRAW A LINE FROM LONDON TO MOSCOW, WHICH WOULD NOT PERCEPTIBLY VARY FROM A DEAD LEVEL."

The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the surface of the world is not globular.

8: Extraordinary flatness of the Earth's crust: These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence against the popular view. In " Nature and Man," by Professor W. B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," pages 320 and 321, the writer says :

"Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors more than the extraordinary FLATNESS (except in the neighbourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust which forms the FLOOR OF THE GREAT OCEANIC AREA. . . . If the bottom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would Jind himself surrounded BY A PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITER or TEA TRAY, surrounded bj- an elevated and deeply -sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared."

9: RIVERS:
From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. T.Milner, M.A., I extract the following:

" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles."

"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile,"

NOT THAT YOU CANNOT PLAUSIBLY EXPLAIN ABOVE FET UNDENIABLE PROOFS, YOU CANNOT EVEN START TO ARGUE AGAINST THE OBVIOUSNESS OF ABOVE ARGUMENTS!!!

One additional undeniable proof no. 10: EYES LEVELED HORIZON NO MATTER HOW HIGH YOU LIFT YOUR 'EYES' UP!!!

*

sokarul

  • 13833
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #45 on: February 15, 2015, 03:11:33 PM »
You should really give credit to the original poster.
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #46 on: February 15, 2015, 03:13:39 PM »
No recent experiments, wonder why.

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #47 on: February 15, 2015, 03:26:07 PM »
I've recreated the Bedford Level Experiment < danielFES > 11/18 14:32:59

I follow the tenets of Zetetic Astronomy and I have conducted my own experiment. Or rather, I recreated the experiment that Samuel Rowbotham conducted in the mid-19th Century which provided evidence of a Flat Earth. If you'd like more detail about the experiment, do a Wikipedia search for "Bedford Level Experiment". But as a quick summary:

If the Earth is a sphere which followed the mainstream model of gravity, a still body of water would have a measurable curvature. As an object travels away from you on the surface of the water, it should gradually "sink" until it eventually disappears below the horizon. The amount of drop would be predictable based on the presumed size of the Earth's sphere. On a flat Earth, this curvature would not be present.

Long stretches of smooth, relatively still water are difficult to come by. Thankfully, there is a canal in Welney, England which is quite still, very straight and over 6 miles long. Over that 6 miles, a spherical Earth should produce a significant drop. When I conducted the experiment, I did not observe a drop which was in any way consistent with a spherical Earth model. Daniel Shenton
What to say about this:

Quote:
In November 2009 Daniel Shenton, the President of the Society wrote to Welney Parish Council requesting permission to display a plaque on the Bedford Bridge commemorating the 1838 experiment. The matter was discussed at the Council's meeting in December 2009 and it was suggested he should contact the Highways dept [of Norfolk CC] who have jurisdiction over such matters. You can read more at item 11g in the Council's minutes. At the same meeting a letter from Russell Duffy regarding Mr Shenton's request was discussed. See item 11i in the same minutes.

Shortly after posting this update I learned that the Parish Council should have told Mr Shenton to contact the Bridges Department [of NorfolkCC] as it is they that deals with such matters, not Highways.

Experiments in California Monterey Bay:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Suppose that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle as in the diagram.

Looking over a distance of 1 mile, we can use the theorem of Pythagoras:

a2 = 3,9632 + 12 = 15,705,370

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.000126 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.000126 - 3,963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth.

0.000126 miles = 12 in * 5,280 ft * 0.000126 mi = 7.98 inches

Hence after one mile the earth drops approximately 8 inches.

Ergo, looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a2 = 39632 +302 = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

There are a number of different methods to calculate the drop of the Round Earth. Go ahead and look some up try a few out. You will find that the drop while looking over 30 miles is on the order of 600 feet.

*

sokarul

  • 13833
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #48 on: February 15, 2015, 03:43:27 PM »
http://blogs.woodtv.com/2012/05/10/very-rare-mirage-at-grand-haven/

Oops, no more Lake Michigan experiment.

Also, you need to stop stealing other people's posts.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 03:49:36 PM by sokarul »
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #49 on: February 15, 2015, 07:08:17 PM »
No recent experiments, wonder why.

Just a thought..... possibly because Rowbotham's experiments are out of date by 150 years, and science and scientific instrumentation have advanced by..... shall we say..... a little bit?

    :P

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #50 on: February 16, 2015, 01:16:47 AM »
Experiments in California Monterey Bay:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.........
So now we can add plagiarism to the lies, deceiving, and foul language you already use.
 
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17770.msg310005#msg310005

Not very christian of you.

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #51 on: February 16, 2015, 03:49:01 AM »
What plagiarism? If i quote Rowbotham then it is O.K., but if i quote Tom Bishop, or Daniel Shenton then it is a plagiarism? Why?

You can quote my posts as frequently as you wish, i will not consider it as a plagiarism, there is no doubt that it is going to be quite obvious to whom goes the credit for those words...

Everybody here knows that i live in Zagreb-Croatia, not in California, near Monterey Bay...and everybody knows that Tom Bishop is the one who lives in California, near Monterey Bay...so what are you saying?

Your desperation is so obvious!!!

We can even touch it!

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #52 on: February 16, 2015, 09:07:50 AM »
What plagiarism? If i quote Rowbotham then it is O.K., but if i quote Tom Bishop, or Daniel Shenton then it is a plagiarism? Why?

You can quote my posts as frequently as you wish, i will not consider it as a plagiarism, there is no doubt that it is going to be quite obvious to whom goes the credit for those words...

Everybody here knows that i live in Zagreb-Croatia, not in California, near Monterey Bay...and everybody knows that Tom Bishop is the one who lives in California, near Monterey Bay...so what are you saying?

Your desperation is so obvious!!!

We can even touch it!
Plagiarism is copying someone else's work without quoting the name of who wrote it.  Tom Bishop, in all probability, wasn't even looking at a beach 33 miles away, but instead a beach much closer in a different direction.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=57282.msg1438380#msg1438380

Anyway, so you simply quoted someone and forgot to use any quote notation and who originally said it.  Very well.

Now about the deceiving/lying part, do you have a reply yet to my question in the "global conspiracy" page 51?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660230#msg1660230

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 35117
  • Official wet blanket.
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #53 on: February 16, 2015, 11:14:10 AM »
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".
Except when it shows that the earth is round, of course.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #54 on: February 17, 2015, 06:20:39 AM »
You don't need a photo. Every photo can be fake. Experiment is what we need.

Please read this experiments and measurements on water surfaces and post your comment...

William Thynne Lynn, "First Principles of Natural Philosophy" written in 1899.

William Thomas Wiseman, "The Earth An Irregular Plane" written in 1863.

To have any credibility, scientific evidence must be current.  Citing "scientific" research results from 150 years ago does not a valid argument make.


Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #55 on: February 17, 2015, 08:27:57 PM »
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".
Indeed.  (photos courtesy of hoppy)


?

General Patton

  • 245
  • Undefeated round earther
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2015, 06:24:58 PM »
But the flat earthers won't be able to get any pictures because satellites don't exist.
It is so fun educating FE'rs who don't know anything.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2015, 08:13:52 AM »
But the flat earthers won't be able to get any pictures because satellites don't exist.
Yeah... very convenient that.    ::)

I've been here for over a year now, and I've yet to see one single, authentic photograph that even suggests that the earth is flat.  On the other hand, I've seen dozens of images that clearly show both a curved horizon and a full spherical planet.  Although the flat earthers—predictably and understandably—simply claim they're all Photoshopped as part of the great NASA "fraud".

The flat earth credo is to attempt to destroy your opponent's evidence, but without providing any contradictory evidence of your own.  Too easy LOL.

Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #58 on: February 23, 2015, 12:22:35 PM »
It is now proven that cikljamas fakes his own photos.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62929.0#.VOuLe_nF-ao

?

General Patton

  • 245
  • Undefeated round earther
Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« Reply #59 on: February 23, 2015, 01:51:49 PM »
But the flat earthers won't be able to get any pictures because satellites don't exist.
Yeah... very convenient that.    ::)

I've been here for over a year now, and I've yet to see one single, authentic photograph that even suggests that the earth is flat.  On the other hand, I've seen dozens of images that clearly show both a curved horizon and a full spherical planet.  Although the flat earthers—predictably and understandably—simply claim they're all Photoshopped as part of the great NASA "fraud".

The flat earth credo is to attempt to destroy your opponent's evidence, but without providing any contradictory evidence of your own.  Too easy LOL.
It's funny because they say satellites don't exist, yet they have no proof for it. They just think: "Satellites are usually launched by NASA, which is a group of satanists and liars."
It is so fun educating FE'rs who don't know anything.