No fish lensing, no everything - final evidence for shape of the Earth

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 22, 2015, 02:05:27 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Hi LogicalKiller, it's against forum rules to post nothing but a link.  It's considered low-content posting.

What is it about that video that was so impressive to you that you rushed to this site in order to post it?  You are not getting any comments on it because, first of all, you did not put any time into your original post and you are just expecting everyone else to spend their time making a discussion for you, which is very lazy, and secondly, I don't think anyone, other than you, is very impressed with the video itself.

The horizon is curved as soon as the rocket gets above the mountains.  It is obviously a lens effect that is causing the curvature.  I am sure that you will try to deny what I said, and I can present some screen shots for you, if you require for me to do so.

Quote from: jroa on March 24, 2015, 12:39:13 PM

The horizon is curved as soon as the rocket gets above the mountains.  It is obviously a lens effect that is causing the curvature.  I am sure that you will try to deny what I said, and I can present some screen shots for you, if you require for me to do so.

I see no curvature of horizon up to 1:40.

This video is great for an exercise to prove the earth is flat. You can put your finder on the horizon when the rocket is on the ground, and lo and behold when the rocket is 100,000 feet in the air your finger is still on the horizon.

Now now, you guys swear there is no visible curvature standing on a beach, and there really isn't any.  But that video showed, well if I had to estimate it probably showed about 5 to 6 degrees of arc.  I didn't stop and measure the video so my guess there is just based off of what it looked like.  Maybe if I feel up to it I will frame by frame the video and give you the actual values, but there was a clear curvature shown.  I think at 121000 feet the horizon would have been at around 486 miles away if my quick calculations in my head are right.

This video is great for an exercise to prove the earth is flat. You can put your finder on the horizon when the rocket is on the ground, and lo and behold when the rocket is 100,000 feet in the air your finger is still on the horizon.

LogicalKiller, would you mind taking a screenshot of the supposed curvature in the video and posting it?

On another note, how many people here know that the top of the Golden Gate Bridge is 2 feet wider at the top than at the bottom because of the curvature of the earth? It's true. 

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 05:14:21 PM

On another note, how many people here know that the top of the Golden Gate Bridge is 2 feet wider at the top than at the bottom because of the curvature of the earth? It's true. 

Who measured this?  Oh, wait, it is just another assumption that RE'ers are trying to pass off as evidence.  In other words, "if we first assume that the Earth is round, then we can calculate that the top of the bridge is wider, which is proof of a round Earth, even though nobody has ever verified this assumption that I am making."  Does this about sum up your argument?

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 05:38:16 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 05:14:21 PM

On another note, how many people here know that the top of the Golden Gate Bridge is 2 feet wider at the top than at the bottom because of the curvature of the earth? It's true. 

Who measured this?  Oh, wait, it is just another assumption that RE'ers are trying to pass off as evidence.  In other words, "if we first assume that the Earth is round, then we can calculate that the top of the bridge is wider, which is proof of a round Earth, even though nobody has ever verified this assumption that I am making."  Does this about sum up your argument?

First of all, it's not that hard to find verification of measurements on the Golden Gate Bridge http://goldengatebridge.org/research/factsGGBDesign.php

Secondly, you are basing your belief off of "reports have been made of ships disappearing from view, only to be found again through telescopes." Reports?! I doubt verification means much to you. What you want is a flat earth--no proof or verifications necessary. And I really don't care that it's what you want, or how you go about believing anything. It's not a moral issue, after all, and it certainly doesn't affect me. But it sure is fascinating, nonetheless.

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 08:37:24 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 05:38:16 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 05:14:21 PM

On another note, how many people here know that the top of the Golden Gate Bridge is 2 feet wider at the top than at the bottom because of the curvature of the earth? It's true. 

Who measured this?  Oh, wait, it is just another assumption that RE'ers are trying to pass off as evidence.  In other words, "if we first assume that the Earth is round, then we can calculate that the top of the bridge is wider, which is proof of a round Earth, even though nobody has ever verified this assumption that I am making."  Does this about sum up your argument?

First of all, it's not that hard to find verification of measurements on the Golden Gate Bridge http://goldengatebridge.org/research/factsGGBDesign.php

Secondly, you are basing your belief off of "reports have been made of ships disappearing from view, only to be found again through telescopes." Reports?! I doubt verification means much to you. What you want is a flat earth--no proof or verifications necessary. And I really don't care that it's what you want, or how you go about believing anything. It's not a moral issue, after all, and it certainly doesn't affect me. But it sure is fascinating, nonetheless.

Thanks, so I see that know one actually measured this, it was just calculated assuming that the Earth is round.  Good to know.

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 08:37:24 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 05:38:16 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 05:14:21 PM

On another note, how many people here know that the top of the Golden Gate Bridge is 2 feet wider at the top than at the bottom because of the curvature of the earth? It's true. 

Who measured this?  Oh, wait, it is just another assumption that RE'ers are trying to pass off as evidence.  In other words, "if we first assume that the Earth is round, then we can calculate that the top of the bridge is wider, which is proof of a round Earth, even though nobody has ever verified this assumption that I am making."  Does this about sum up your argument?

First of all, it's not that hard to find verification of measurements on the Golden Gate Bridge http://goldengatebridge.org/research/factsGGBDesign.php

Secondly, you are basing your belief off of "reports have been made of ships disappearing from view, only to be found again through telescopes." Reports?! I doubt verification means much to you. What you want is a flat earth--no proof or verifications necessary. And I really don't care that it's what you want, or how you go about believing anything. It's not a moral issue, after all, and it certainly doesn't affect me. But it sure is fascinating, nonetheless.

Thanks, so I see that know one actually measured this, it was just calculated assuming that the Earth is round.  Good to know.

lol... In order to build a bridge, measurements and stats must be recorded. I'm not sure how you're getting your assumption. Do you really think we "guess" what the measurements of a bridge are, based on a curved earth? Again, it's not hard to find verifications on facts such as these. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/8_vol6_63.pdf

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 08:37:24 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 05:38:16 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 05:14:21 PM

On another note, how many people here know that the top of the Golden Gate Bridge is 2 feet wider at the top than at the bottom because of the curvature of the earth? It's true. 

Who measured this?  Oh, wait, it is just another assumption that RE'ers are trying to pass off as evidence.  In other words, "if we first assume that the Earth is round, then we can calculate that the top of the bridge is wider, which is proof of a round Earth, even though nobody has ever verified this assumption that I am making."  Does this about sum up your argument?

First of all, it's not that hard to find verification of measurements on the Golden Gate Bridge http://goldengatebridge.org/research/factsGGBDesign.php

Secondly, you are basing your belief off of "reports have been made of ships disappearing from view, only to be found again through telescopes." Reports?! I doubt verification means much to you. What you want is a flat earth--no proof or verifications necessary. And I really don't care that it's what you want, or how you go about believing anything. It's not a moral issue, after all, and it certainly doesn't affect me. But it sure is fascinating, nonetheless.

Thanks, so I see that know one actually measured this, it was just calculated assuming that the Earth is round.  Good to know.

lol... In order to build a bridge, measurements and stats must be recorded. I'm not sure how you're getting your assumption. Do you really think we "guess" what the measurements of a bridge are, based on a curved earth? Again, it's not hard to find verifications on facts such as these. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/8_vol6_63.pdf

Without actually measuring the distance from one tower to the other, then it is just calculated and done so assuming the Earth is round.  If you can not show me some evidence that someone actually measured the distances at the tops and bottoms, then we can only assume that the distances are calculated, not measured.

Quote from: jroa on March 26, 2015, 05:17:45 AM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 08:37:24 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 05:38:16 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 05:14:21 PM

On another note, how many people here know that the top of the Golden Gate Bridge is 2 feet wider at the top than at the bottom because of the curvature of the earth? It's true. 

Who measured this?  Oh, wait, it is just another assumption that RE'ers are trying to pass off as evidence.  In other words, "if we first assume that the Earth is round, then we can calculate that the top of the bridge is wider, which is proof of a round Earth, even though nobody has ever verified this assumption that I am making."  Does this about sum up your argument?

First of all, it's not that hard to find verification of measurements on the Golden Gate Bridge http://goldengatebridge.org/research/factsGGBDesign.php

Secondly, you are basing your belief off of "reports have been made of ships disappearing from view, only to be found again through telescopes." Reports?! I doubt verification means much to you. What you want is a flat earth--no proof or verifications necessary. And I really don't care that it's what you want, or how you go about believing anything. It's not a moral issue, after all, and it certainly doesn't affect me. But it sure is fascinating, nonetheless.

Thanks, so I see that know one actually measured this, it was just calculated assuming that the Earth is round.  Good to know.

lol... In order to build a bridge, measurements and stats must be recorded. I'm not sure how you're getting your assumption. Do you really think we "guess" what the measurements of a bridge are, based on a curved earth? Again, it's not hard to find verifications on facts such as these. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/8_vol6_63.pdf

Without actually measuring the distance from one tower to the other, then it is just calculated and done so assuming the Earth is round.  If you can not show me some evidence that someone actually measured the distances at the tops and bottoms, then we can only assume that the distances are calculated, not measured.

But you don't go about building something (especially as important as a bridge) blindly, then "calculate" what the measurements might be. In the beginning stages, there's a plan. A team would work on what the measurements must be ahead of time, then workers are given direction to make it just so. Or are you only talking about the difference between the top and bottom? You think, for instance, that they measured out the plans for the top, thus placing the bottom, and calculating what the difference would be if we were on a round earth?

Quote from: jroa on March 26, 2015, 05:17:45 AM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 09:51:06 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 08:44:59 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 08:37:24 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 25, 2015, 05:38:16 PM

Quote from: simplyfascinated on March 25, 2015, 05:14:21 PM

On another note, how many people here know that the top of the Golden Gate Bridge is 2 feet wider at the top than at the bottom because of the curvature of the earth? It's true. 

Who measured this?  Oh, wait, it is just another assumption that RE'ers are trying to pass off as evidence.  In other words, "if we first assume that the Earth is round, then we can calculate that the top of the bridge is wider, which is proof of a round Earth, even though nobody has ever verified this assumption that I am making."  Does this about sum up your argument?

First of all, it's not that hard to find verification of measurements on the Golden Gate Bridge http://goldengatebridge.org/research/factsGGBDesign.php

Secondly, you are basing your belief off of "reports have been made of ships disappearing from view, only to be found again through telescopes." Reports?! I doubt verification means much to you. What you want is a flat earth--no proof or verifications necessary. And I really don't care that it's what you want, or how you go about believing anything. It's not a moral issue, after all, and it certainly doesn't affect me. But it sure is fascinating, nonetheless.

wheather
Thanks, so I see that know one actually measured this, it was just calculated assuming that the Earth is round.  Good to know.

lol... In order to build a bridge, measurements and stats must be recorded. I'm not sure how you're getting your assumption. Do you really think we "guess" what the measurements of a bridge are, based on a curved earth? Again, it's not hard to find verifications on facts such as these. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/8_vol6_63.pdf

Without actually measuring the distance from one tower to the other, then it is just calculated and done so assuming the Earth is round.  If you can not show me some evidence that someone actually measured the distances at the tops and bottoms, then we can only assume that the distances are calculated, not measured.

But you don't go about building something (especially as important as a bridge) blindly, then "calculate" what the measurements might be. In the beginning stages, there's a plan. A team would work on what the measurements must be ahead of time, then workers are given direction to make it just so. Or are you only talking about the difference between the top and bottom? You think, for instance, that they measured out the plans for the top, thus placing the bottom, and calculating what the difference would be if we were on a round earth?

This is so funny... Firstly, jroa says:  "You are not getting any comments on it because, first of all, you did not put any time into your original post...".

He then apparently attempts to rectify this by posting the following tidbits over the course of seven posts—out of 26 so far LOL:

• What is it about that video that was so impressive to you that you rushed to this site in order to post it?
• It is obviously a lens effect that is causing the curvature
• I am sure that you will try to deny what I said
• I am not sure if you only see what you want to see, or if you are simply lying
• Oh, wait, it is just another assumption that RE'ers are trying to pass off as evidence
• Thanks, so I see that know one actually measured this, it was just calculated assuming that the Earth is round
• Without actually measuring the distance from one tower to the other, then it is just calculated and done so assuming the Earth is round...

Apparently jroa—who should know better as a moderator—considers this sort of dross to be meaningful content that adds something of interest to the thread.  And yet Pongo reckons the initial posting of this interesting video—well, interesting to REs at least—was "low content"!   Bizarre.

It's actually a very interesting and technically well made video, and particularly interesting are the construction/engineeering details and the still shots on their site.  Anybody with a genuine interest in astrophysics and aeronautics should be keen to see this sort of amateur stuff, and it makes one wonder why the flat earthers don't carry out a similar experiment—making sure to utilise a 50 - 55mm lens of course LOL.  Difficult to determine all-up costs, but probably sub-$20K.  Also of interest was the decreasing sound levels as the atmosphere thinned out towards the 121,000 ft altitude.  And at this altitude, the curvature of the earth is easily visible, with the geometric horizon 430 miles (685km) distant.

It's a pity to see a well-documented, amateur project such as this treated with contempt by the flat earthers;  then again, legitimate science is their enemy isn't it?