Not seeing the sun over great distances.

haze exists. even nasa has to believe in it. their made up hubble takes such clear pictures because, as they say, it is outside the atmosphere and so uninterfered with. obviously the photos are just clearer because they can fake them more easily, but you either have to admit nasa are liars, or admit that the atmosphere reduces visibility. in which case, it is obvious that the more atmosphere is in the way, the more visibility will be reduced.
try harder.

And the ESA, JAXA or Indian space agencies aren't? What about the private space companies that produce satellites? Or the millions that directly tie into that tech for their tech?

Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.

I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it. But try to tone it down a bit, because the closest thing I have received in the form of a scientific answer was messenger boy'd (no disrespect Vauxhall, but that move by your council screamed elitist) better than a week ago, and what I got was a calculation based off of 3 grandiose assumptions that break logic from start to finish. Then, the further went so far as to call me a liar. Those people on the council are who I would like to debate with, and I get the idea your presence might make them not even want to bother. Please don't take that as sounding condescending, it is not intended that way.

Jroa, I really wish you had just taken all that time to say that it would not have been visible because the sunlight would have been dispersed too much to be visible.

I could have then pointed out that the the difference in distance to the sun from its furthest, visible point according to FET (lets use that same mountain) is less than 6000 miles, using a 24,0000 mile equatorial circumference, as there are no numbers provided by FET as to the dimensions, even on land, of the disc.

Ergo, the sunlight is twice as far away, traveling through twice the atmosphere, being half as bright. Wanna take a guess at how much brighter it is over that 200w lightbulb 1 foot from your face?

Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.

I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it. But try to tone it down a bit, because the closest thing I have received in the form of a scientific answer was messenger boy'd (no disrespect Vauxhall, but that move by your council screamed elitist) better than a week ago, and what I got was a calculation based off of 3 grandiose assumptions that break logic from start to finish. Those people on the council are who I would like to debate with, and I get the idea your presence might make them not even want to bother.

What the hell are you on about?  Messenger boys?  The council?

Are we meant to react to this sea of incoherence?

Quote from: Agnotology on February 24, 2015, 01:12:40 AM

Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.

I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it. But try to tone it down a bit, because the closest thing I have received in the form of a scientific answer was messenger boy'd (no disrespect Vauxhall, but that move by your council screamed elitist) better than a week ago, and what I got was a calculation based off of 3 grandiose assumptions that break logic from start to finish. Those people on the council are who I would like to debate with, and I get the idea your presence might make them not even want to bother.

What the hell are you on about?  Messenger boys?  The council?

Are we meant to react to this sea of incoherence?

Vauxhaul copy pasted something in the my first QA thread that came from a group of FE Theorists who could not only use but properly apply trig, which is a major step up compared to what is here. Vaux refered to them as "the council".... I assume its the invite only true fet believer section, but you get the gist.

I'd like to hear their thoughts on the dozen or so topics that have been posted in here.... then again I may be wasting my time.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 24, 2015, 01:18:05 AM

Quote from: Agnotology on February 24, 2015, 01:12:40 AM

Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.

I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it. But try to tone it down a bit, because the closest thing I have received in the form of a scientific answer was messenger boy'd (no disrespect Vauxhall, but that move by your council screamed elitist) better than a week ago, and what I got was a calculation based off of 3 grandiose assumptions that break logic from start to finish. Those people on the council are who I would like to debate with, and I get the idea your presence might make them not even want to bother.

What the hell are you on about?  Messenger boys?  The council?

Are we meant to react to this sea of incoherence?

Vauxhaul copy pasted something in the my first QA thread that came from a group of FE Theorists who could not only use but properly apply trig, which is a major step up compared to what is here. Vaux refered to them as "the council".... I assume its the invite only true fet believer section, but you get the gist.

I'd like to hear their thoughts on the dozen or so topics that have been posted in here.... then again I may be wasting my time.

The council is a thing on the other board, tfes.org

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 24, 2015, 01:18:05 AM

Quote from: Agnotology on February 24, 2015, 01:12:40 AM

Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.

I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it. But try to tone it down a bit, because the closest thing I have received in the form of a scientific answer was messenger boy'd (no disrespect Vauxhall, but that move by your council screamed elitist) better than a week ago, and what I got was a calculation based off of 3 grandiose assumptions that break logic from start to finish. Those people on the council are who I would like to debate with, and I get the idea your presence might make them not even want to bother.

What the hell are you on about?  Messenger boys?  The council?

Are we meant to react to this sea of incoherence?

Vauxhaul copy pasted something in the my first QA thread that came from a group of FE Theorists who could not only use but properly apply trig, which is a major step up compared to what is here. Vaux refered to them as "the council".... I assume its the invite only true fet believer section, but you get the gist.

Oh, still not sure what's going on, but carry on there.

then again I may be wasting my time.

That's a given in this place.  You will be disappointed if you think otherwise.

I suck at math, so I consulted with someone on the other board about Agnotology's claims. In conclusion, we determined that he had lied. Then he came back and said something like "well it happened 7 years ago so the details could be hazy". Then I decided to not indulge him any further.

Now it seems he is obsessed with what I deemed a "council" when in reality it was really just Thork. It's really quite amusing .

I suck at math, so I consulted with someone on the other board about Agnotology's claims. In conclusion, we determined that he had lied. Then he came back and said something like "well it happened 7 years ago so the details could be hazy". Then I decided to not indulge him any further.

Now it seems he is obsessed with what I deemed a "council" when in reality it was really just Thork. It's really quite amusing .

I didn't lie. The location they used was Monterey, not Altos. Altos is on Monterey Bay. In their calculations, they assumed 3 things : How long I stayed at the beach, how long it took me to get back up to my hotel room, and how much of the sun I viewed from my balcony. Can I give you approximations to those 3 things? Yes. Can I tell you for certain, no. The memory is too old.

You referred to them as a council. I respected your definition of them although I question the term and the purpose of its use.

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 09:56:09 AM

I suck at math, so I consulted with someone on the other board about Agnotology's claims. In conclusion, we determined that he had lied. Then he came back and said something like "well it happened 7 years ago so the details could be hazy". Then I decided to not indulge him any further.

Now it seems he is obsessed with what I deemed a "council" when in reality it was really just Thork. It's really quite amusing .

I didn't lie. The location they used was Monterey, not Altos. Altos is on Monterey Bay. In their calculations, they assumed 3 things : How long I stayed at the beach, how long it took me to get back up to my hotel room, and how much of the sun I viewed from my balcony. Can I give you approximations to those 3 things? Yes. Can I tell you for certain, no. The memory is too old.

You referred to them as a council. I respected your definition of them although I question the term and the purpose of its use.

We should be discussing this in the thread where it was being discussed. I don't understand how you got so off topic.

Quote from: Agnotology on February 24, 2015, 10:45:48 AM

Quote from: Vauxhall on February 24, 2015, 09:56:09 AM

I suck at math, so I consulted with someone on the other board about Agnotology's claims. In conclusion, we determined that he had lied. Then he came back and said something like "well it happened 7 years ago so the details could be hazy". Then I decided to not indulge him any further.

Now it seems he is obsessed with what I deemed a "council" when in reality it was really just Thork. It's really quite amusing .

I didn't lie. The location they used was Monterey, not Altos. Altos is on Monterey Bay. In their calculations, they assumed 3 things : How long I stayed at the beach, how long it took me to get back up to my hotel room, and how much of the sun I viewed from my balcony. Can I give you approximations to those 3 things? Yes. Can I tell you for certain, no. The memory is too old.

You referred to them as a council. I respected your definition of them although I question the term and the purpose of its use.

We should be discussing this in the thread where it was being discussed. I don't understand how you got so off topic.

You stopped responding in the other thread. You are right though, this thread is not the correct place.

Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.

I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it.

You've obviously got me confused with somebody else here Agnotology.  I seldom—if ever—"poke fun" at any flat earther who proposes some sort of logical hypothesis, or flat earth explanation for a phenomena, or questions any round earth theory in a meaningful way.  And I can safely challenge you on that without any trepidation that you'll prove it to be otherwise.

I always enedeavour to respond with logic, facts and figures, accompanied by citations to accredited scientific reference sources.  In other words, I invariably do "directly address" the questions at hand.  Unfortunately, many of the more prolific flat earthers do not follow suit; sceptimatic, iWitness, cikljamas, Saros, jroa, Vauxhall, JRoweSkeptic, hoppy, tappet, Charles Bloomington, Pongo et al to name just a few.

With only a minimum of searching, I can locate numerous examples of all these flat earthers posting irrelevant, rhetorical, insulting, disingenuous, off-topic, allegedly humorous one liners that in no way address your so-called questions at hand.   You obviously have "no issue" with flat earthers who practice this, but apparently only with round earthers?

—But I'm sure this is not biassed LOL.

Quote from: Agnotology on February 24, 2015, 01:12:40 AM

Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.

I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it.

You've obviously got me confused with somebody else here Agnotology.  I seldom—if ever—"poke fun" at any flat earther who proposes some sort of logical hypothesis, or flat earth explanation for a phenomena, or questions any round earth theory in a meaningful way.  And I can safely challenge you on that without any trepidation that you'll prove it to be otherwise.

I always enedeavour to respond with logic, facts and figures, accompanied by citations to accredited scientific reference sources.  In other words, I invariably do "directly address" the questions at hand.  Unfortunately, many of the more prolific flat earthers do not follow suit; sceptimatic, iWitness, cikljamas, Saros, jroa, Vauxhall, JRoweSkeptic, hoppy, tappet, Charles Bloomington, Pongo et al to name just a few.

With only a minimum of searching, I can locate numerous examples of all these flat earthers posting irrelevant, rhetorical, insulting, disingenuous, off-topic, allegedly humorous one liners that in no way address your so-called questions at hand.   You obviously have "no issue" with flat earthers who practice this, but apparently only with round earthers?

—But I'm sure this is not biassed LOL.

I dunno, I had only posted one thing that was very related to what had just been said in the thread and I was included. I dunno, I haven't been very interested in this thread anyways so I just left.

Quote from: Agnotology on February 24, 2015, 01:12:40 AM

Lemmi, ausGeoff, gpssjim, JimmyTheCrab, and Dinosaur Neil.

I have no issue with you guys poking fun at people who cannot directly address the question at hand. I actually encourage it.

You've obviously got me confused with somebody else here Agnotology.  I seldom—if ever—"poke fun" at any flat earther who proposes some sort of logical hypothesis, or flat earth explanation for a phenomena, or questions any round earth theory in a meaningful way.  And I can safely challenge you on that without any trepidation that you'll prove it to be otherwise.

I always enedeavour to respond with logic, facts and figures, accompanied by citations to accredited scientific reference sources.  In other words, I invariably do "directly address" the questions at hand.  Unfortunately, many of the more prolific flat earthers do not follow suit; sceptimatic, iWitness, cikljamas, Saros, jroa, Vauxhall, JRoweSkeptic, hoppy, tappet, Charles Bloomington, Pongo et al to name just a few.

With only a minimum of searching, I can locate numerous examples of all these flat earthers posting irrelevant, rhetorical, insulting, disingenuous, off-topic, allegedly humorous one liners that in no way address your so-called questions at hand.   You obviously have "no issue" with flat earthers who practice this, but apparently only with round earthers?

—But I'm sure this is not biassed LOL.

We all have knee jerk comments that pop out because of some of the ludicrous statements and vague catchall's that get thrown out in response to valid points.

All of those people can only regurgitate what others have said or spin ever-more complex hypothesis to somehow cover gaping holes in their own hypotheticals.

However, once in a while one of those regurgitations come from someone who can think for themselves. Black sheep maybe?