bingo! sea foam at 8 km, certified by Pentax and wikipedia

Oh no, he is definitely an alt. I have definitive proof.

Oh no, he is definitely an alt. I have definitive proof.

Does it really matter what anyone is or isn't on here?

If I talk to Donald duck who is interesting and then talk to Daffy duck who is equally interesting, yet both are one person using both names, which I don't know about - what difference is it to me?

I'm talking to a name on a forum and I'll deal with that name if I'm in a debate with it or whatever.
I could - over the course of a week, be talking to 10 names and all could be one person. I'm simply responding to each name as and when.

The time for me to worry is when I'm in a pub talking to a person who then goes to the toilet and comes back with glasses, a tache and bushy eyebrows, pretending he's someone else, yet I can clearly see he's just changed.

Try it, instead of thinking I'm wearing internet disguises. I won't waste my time telling you whether I'm one person or many on here. I'll let you sit and fret over it all.
Let's be fair. I can tell you all day long that I'm simply just this name and you will call out a lie.

Same with anyone who tells you. If it's in your nut, then deal with what's in your nut.
For someone that doesn't believe in conspiracy theories though - you sure look paranoid to me.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on February 20, 2015, 07:35:48 AM

Oh no, he is definitely an alt. I have definitive proof.

Does it really matter what anyone is or isn't on here?

If I talk to Donald duck who is interesting and then talk to Daffy duck who is equally interesting, yet both are one person using both names, which I don't know about - what difference is it to me?

I'm talking to a name on a forum and I'll deal with that name if I'm in a debate with it or whatever.
I could - over the course of a week, be talking to 10 names and all could be one person. I'm simply responding to each name as and when.

The time for me to worry is when I'm in a pub talking to a person who then goes to the toilet and comes back with glasses, a tache and bushy eyebrows, pretending he's someone else, yet I can clearly see he's just changed.

Try it, instead of thinking I'm wearing internet disguises. I won't waste my time telling you whether I'm one person or many on here. I'll let you sit and fret over it all.
Let's be fair. I can tell you all day long that I'm simply just this name and you will call out a lie.

Same with anyone who tells you. If it's in your nut, then deal with what's in your nut.
For someone that doesn't believe in conspiracy theories though - you sure look paranoid to me.

Scepti, I am specifically saying you have multiple alts here and use them to post a stupid ass question just so you can then reply to them as yourself with some asinine aspect of your theory.

Furthermore there are three people in here ignoring everything that is being said in relation to what they are posting unless it comes from one of those three people, thats fine and all, so I just stopped responding to what they are posting because I stopped reading it.

Why waste my time and effort reading this incoherent copypasta and stupidity when anything I say is ignored.

If they said the sky was green and I posted a picture of the sky being blue I would be called a government shill and that nothing I could say would change their minds.

At that point they are no better than the Ukrainian spam bot in CN and I will respond to them in kind.

Wow, I had never heard of Kent Hovind. I am seeing a pattern of persecuting Christian truthers that can only have a demonic direction. These things can only be happening because the elite are satanists and the devil exists. No one else would have had any other reason to put this guy in jail.

Kent Hovinid is an idiot. Even some creationist groups admit that. His degree is from the degree mill Bob Jones University, and isn't acknowledged by any major institution. His graduate thesis was not available to the public unlike most respectable and legitimate papers. When it was leaked, it was found to be on an 6th grade reading level (no joke- there are algorithms to calculate these things.)

And he committed tax fraud.

In the meanwhile, he tells us that we ignore him, but he will not address the lights seen from 130 km away on Lake Michigan, when these lights should be hidden by 1300 meters of water, according to Wikipedia's formula.

You keep blabbing about this.  Show us all your working, including the "Wikipedia formula", and we can talk.

Have you considered the possibility that he actually did commit tax fraud? Besides, most of his rhetoric is about creationism, not conspiracies.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 20, 2015, 08:31:57 AM

Quote from: acenci on February 20, 2015, 08:25:12 AM

In the meanwhile, he tells us that we ignore him, but he will not address the lights seen from 130 km away on Lake Michigan, when these lights should be hidden by 1300 meters of water, according to Wikipedia's formula.

You keep blabbing about this.  Show us all your working, including the "Wikipedia formula", and we can talk.

It's all over the thread, even in my own signature, below the avatar.

It's all garbled.  Show us the workings for the "Lake Michegan problem".

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 20, 2015, 08:31:57 AM

Quote from: acenci on February 20, 2015, 08:25:12 AM

In the meanwhile, he tells us that we ignore him, but he will not address the lights seen from 130 km away on Lake Michigan, when these lights should be hidden by 1300 meters of water, according to Wikipedia's formula.

You keep blabbing about this.  Show us all your working, including the "Wikipedia formula", and we can talk.

It's all over the thread, even in my own signature, below the avatar.

Creationism, right. But at the end of all conspiracies there is the devil, who wants to the discredit the bible. As simple as that. I was agnostic until I found out, two weeks ago, that the devil really exists.

Actually it is now three weeks. I just checked my government data base.

There is a trend that shows that the less you know the more you think you know.  This would explain a lot, like how many conspiracy theorists call themselves "truthers" and why Scepti seems to thin that his hunches are more credible thenthe math that disproves his hunches.

Let's make the same calculation as above:

46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.

You are saying this a picture of the Willis Tower from 46 miles or 73 km away

The height of the tower to the tip is 527m, the architectural height is 442m. The difference between the two is 85m which is about 1/6 of the total. I would estimate then that only the top 1/3 of the entire tower is visible in this picture. So the lowest part of the tower showing is about 350m high.

You haven't stated the height the picture was taken at but it's quite clearly not at sea level, I am going to estimate it is 5m above sea level. That's about a 2 storey house.

The distance to the horizon is calculated using √((R+h)²-R²)), where R is the radius of the Earth, 6400 km, and h is the height of your eyes above sea level.

The distance to the horizon from the lowest part of the building is √((6400+0.35)²-6400²))=67km.

The distance to the horizon if your eyes are 5m above sea level is √((6400+0.005)²-6400²))=8km.

Therefore, if the picture was taken 5m above sea level and just managed to see a point on the tower 350m above sea level then the distance from the point to picture was taken to the tower was 67km + 8km = 75km or 47 miles.

This picture, if it is a photograph of the Willis Tower taken 46 miles away from a height of 5m, is very strong evidence for the Earth being a sphere with a radius of 6400km or 4000 miles.

Great job Acenci, give them a haymaker! 

Excellent post acenci. It should get much more plainer from here on with those looking in. The globalites are floundering - flapping like flat fish on a river bank. 

There's only such much bull crap people can get away with when using this globe model. Anyone that can't grasp your post, need to have their heads plugged into the national grid.

Thanks for your support.

I mean, I would not want to wake up tomorrow and find out that you are all government agents, including the flat-earthers, paid to keep me busy here.

Yes, the gov is pouring massive amounts of time and energy to fake all this just to keep you occupied. You're that special.

Quote from: acenci on February 20, 2015, 11:13:35 AM

Thanks for your support.

I mean, I would not want to wake up tomorrow and find out that you are all government agents, including the flat-earthers, paid to keep me busy here.

Yes, the gov is pouring massive amounts of time and energy to fake all this just to keep you occupied. You're that special.

Awwww, I was hoping if we all just stopped responding they would eventually turn on each other instead of the big circle jerk going on here.

Awwww, I was hoping if we all just stopped responding they would eventually turn on each other instead of the big circle jerk going on here.

I think some amount of jerking is to be expected from a bunch of lonely 13 year olds.

It would have been nice if they all turned on each other though...
It would also be kinda weird, as most of them are Scepti.

@Acenci,

This video will assure you that everything is O.K. with you, and this video will also assure you that nothing is O.K. with round earth believers. : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Download it and watch it again and again. Every time you become insecure about the accuracy of a FET, this video will help you to regain your self-confidence....

@Acenci,

This video will assure you that everything is O.K. with you, and this video will also assure you that nothing is O.K. with round earth believers. : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Download it and watch it again and again. Every time you become insecure about the accuracy of a FET, this video will help you to regain your self-confidence....

I watched your video and here's what I have to say:

Imagine that Antarctica were available to be used by anyone whenever they wanted, do you honestly think that a bunch of nations all trying to get as much of Antarctica as possible would be a good thing?  Think about how many wars that could start, and how would the land be distributed to everyone?  Would they give more to the small countries that needed it or the big countries that had more people that could benefit from it?  Do you honestly not think that there would be no conflicts over who gets what parts of Antarctica?

2.


...
46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.
...
Allowing correction of 3 m we get this result :
...

... if the Earth were flat, why don't we see the entire Chicago skyline down to the lakeshore in this photo? Since we obviously see only the uppermost floors of the tallest skyscrapers from 40 or so miles across Lake Michigan, cut off by the sharp horizon of the lake surface, this photo clearly supports the spherical Earth and completely undermines the notion that the Earth is flat. Your turn. You presented this picture. You to explain it.

Any progress on this?

acenci: succinct enough for you? Feel free to answer the question above if you have one - that goes for any of you guys.

Quote from: cikljamas on February 20, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

@Acenci,

This video will assure you that everything is O.K. with you, and this video will also assure you that nothing is O.K. with round earth believers. : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Download it and watch it again and again. Every time you become insecure about the accuracy of a FET, this video will help you to regain your self-confidence....

Thank you. I will watch it. I am sure it will convince also the skeptics. It sounds very promising.

And, by the way, once we have all figured out that we are standing in a glass jar or a dome, what do we do next?

Because, after the discovery of flat earth, and that the "universe" is a lie, I feel like I am a lab rat.

It is going to be hard to convince the skeptics when you can't even explain a simple sunset.

It must be fun to live in your fantasy world, I will give you that.

Another excellent Mark Sargent's video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Why is Antarctica nothing alike Arctic? : http://www.energeticforum.com/264212-post368.html

Admiral Byrd was an active Freemason. He became a member of Federal Lodge No. 1, Washington, D.C. on March 19, 1921 and affiliated with Kane Lodge No. 454, New York City, September 18, 1928. He was a member of National Sojourners Chapter No. 3 at Washington. He and his pilot, Bernt Balchen dropped Masonic flags on the two poles—Balchen also added his Shrine fez. In the Antarctic expedition of 1933-35, 60 of the 82 members were Freemasons and on February 5, 1935 established First Antarctic Lodge No. 777 of New Zealand constitution.

I am sorry you don't see the truth. If not thanks to me, at least thanks to the many others, who are explaining it much better than I am.

...

Glad to see you liked my article on mirages, so much so you put it in your signature and in your avatar. Why can't people see lights across lake Michigan every night? Should be easy.

Can you name one object that doesn't get smaller as it gets further away? The sun and moon should in the FET but they don't appear smaller. Why is that?

Quote from: sokarul on February 20, 2015, 04:22:18 PM

Quote from: acenci on February 20, 2015, 03:46:12 PM

I am sorry you don't see the truth. If not thanks to me, at least thanks to the many others, who are explaining it much better than I am.

...

Glad to see you liked my article on mirages, so much so you put it in your signature and in your avatar. Why can't people see lights across lake Michigan every night? Should be easy.

Can you name one object that doesn't get smaller as it gets further away? The sun and moon should in the FET but they don't appear smaller. Why is that?

I accept you guys and I accept you, but please don't expect me to read your posts. I know you're doing your job. I would not post here if I found a place where there no objections. I know the truth. Don't try to make me waste time.

The inability to answer simple questions is why we know the earth is round. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

I know you're doing your job.

Oh great, another one of those people.  You believe that a conspiracy going on for hundreds of years that lies to everyone about the shape of the Earth is perfectly reasonable but actual round earthers being on this sire is just absurd.  I just don't understand you people.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 20, 2015, 01:49:00 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on February 19, 2015, 06:54:20 AM

2.


...
46 miles raised to the second power gives 2116 * 8 = 16928 inches * 2,54 = 42997 cm = 0,43 km = 1419 ft.
...
Allowing correction of 3 m we get this result :
...

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 19, 2015, 05:55:51 PM

... if the Earth were flat, why don't we see the entire Chicago skyline down to the lakeshore in this photo? Since we obviously see only the uppermost floors of the tallest skyscrapers from 40 or so miles across Lake Michigan, cut off by the sharp horizon of the lake surface, this photo clearly supports the spherical Earth and completely undermines the notion that the Earth is flat. Your turn. You presented this picture. You to explain it.

Any progress on this?

acenci: succinct enough for you? Feel free to answer the question above if you have one - that goes for any of you guys.

Yes, good objection. Well, I don't have a satisfactory answer yet. I think that we should also be able to see all of America and all the way to the South Pole ("all roads lead to the South Pole", as they say) but we would need a very strong telescope. Indeed, one could object why this ship is disappearing "behind" the horizon, but then you get a telescope, and it reappears:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#Panasonic SDR-H40.Zoom test Ship

So, honestly I would say that the city is all there, but just too small in terms of height to be seen, but, just like this boat, it would reappear with a telescope.

That camera has an impressive zoom range! The ship doesn't disappear over the horizon when zoomed all the way out, though; it remains right on it as it becomes smaller and smaller in the frame. In the final frames you can still see it as a barely-resolved smudge, still on the horizon.

The problem with your explanation is that only the tops of the tallest buildings are visible in cikljamas' photo of Chicago. They are well-resolved, so it's not just a matter of being too small to see, and the profiles of several indicate they are simply cut off at the bottom by the sharp lake-surface horizon. There is not even a whiff of several large, but not quite as tall, buildings between them. "Too small to see" doesn't cut it; "too short to break the horizon at this distance" does.

Here's another picture from closer in, showing many more buildings between the tallest ones. This turned up in a google search for "chicago skyline" (including the quote marks).



It's from this gallery: http://galleryhip.com/chicago-skyline-outline-tattoo.html. I don't know who owns it, nor details like the distance to downtown. It does show more of the lower buildings but the shoreline itself is apparently still below the horizon.

However, a better objection would be: "why don't the mountains behind chicago (there must be some mountains somewhere) don't stop / block the sun from shining all over the sky?". The answer might be harder. Maybe the mountains, if they are far away, also get shorter. There is also the law of "perspective". If you are 1 meter tall and next to me, you will look taller than mount everest. In this sense the skyscrapers are taller than the mountains and all the rest that's behind them. Yes, I think I answered my own objection, too.

Yep. Mountains obviously don't get shorter as you get further from them. They are what they are. They do subtend smaller angles as the distance increases, which makes them look smaller to you - perspective. The 14,000' peaks in the Rockies, about 1,000 miles west of Chicago wouldn't be threat to block out the Sun even if the Earth were flat.

Right now, it looks like the most reasonable explanation is the surface of the lake is convex and blocks everything but the highest parts of the tallest structures from the vantage point cikljamas' photo was taken. The convexity is generally consistent with an 8,000-mi diameter sphere working from the data provided. Y'all might want to pause your attacks and see if you can come up with a plausible way to explain what we can see in this this photo, because it sure doesn't seem to be consistent at all with a flat earth.

Since acenci now seems to be saying he's no longer willing to defend the idea that the Earth is flat, does anyone else have an explanation how cikljamas' photo of Chicago from across the lake is consistent with a flat earth? At least acenci was willing to try, so thanks to him for that.

Yes, thanks for the links and the nice arguments, but I retire as a debater. From now on, I just will believe it, I will be a crypto-flat-earther, because there are just too many agents on this forum and it is like a full-time job. I will hang out with the three musketeers, in the private messages, but this is too much work. I understand it is your job, guys, but I cannot last for longer than a week. Congratulations to the entire team for taking another step forward in the assassination of the truth.

Umm...  There are no government agents on this forum as far as I know, the reason I am here is because my beliefs are challenged and it forces me to prove them.  I have gotten better at math sense I got here and I have learned more about RE physics and astronomy.  That actually seems to be the exact reason why flat earthers stop debating things, I understand how not debating FET would make blindly following it easier.

Excellent post acenci. It should get much more plainer from here on with those looking in. The globalites are floundering - flapping like flat fish on a river bank.

LOL... yeah, yeah sceptimatic.  All 7,000,000 of us.

Thanks for the laugh mate.  Keep up the comedy.  It's gold.   

Hmm, then you might be the only one working for free. Other than those who are speaking the truth.

I'm only here because I enjoy debating, and conspiracy theorists amuse me. I would try a lot harder if I was a being paid for this.

Just kidding- I'm totally a paid shill.

Quote from: acenci on February 20, 2015, 06:12:52 PM

Hmm, then you might be the only one working for free. Other than those who are speaking the truth.

I'm only here because I enjoy debating, and conspiracy theorists amuse me. I would try a lot harder if I was a being paid for this.

Just kidding- I'm totally a paid shill.

What are you talking about, the moment you start getting paid for something is the moment you start phoning it in.

Hmm, then you might be the only one working for free. Other than those who are speaking the truth.

Wait, so flat earthers are being paid?  Oh wait, "truth" must be a metaphor for flat Earth theory, in which case you are still wrong.