In order to be able to see just the very top of these mountains, they should be at least 8000 m high!!! And we see much more than just the very top of these mountains (with naked eyes)!
http://i.imgur.com/l6q20wp.jpg
Wiki quote:
Salt flats are ideal for calibrating the distance measurement equipment of satellites because they are large, stable surfaces with strong reflection, similar to that of ice sheets. As the largest salt flat on Earth, Salar de Uyuni is especially suitable for this purpose. In the low-rain period from April to November, due to the absence of industry and its high elevation, the skies above Salar de Uyuni are very clear, and the air is dry (relative humidity is about 30%; rainfall is roughly 1 millimetre or 0.039 inches per month). It has a stable surface which is smoothed by seasonal flooding (water dissolves the salt surface and thus keeps it leveled).
As a result, the variation in the surface elevation over the 10,582-square-kilometer (4,086 sq mi) area of Salar de Uyuni is less than 1 meter (3 ft 3 in), and there are few square kilometers on Earth that are as flat. The surface reflectivity (albedo) for ultraviolet light is relatively high at 0.69 and shows variations of only a few percent during the daytime.[6] The combination of all these features makes Salar de Uyuni about five times better for satellite calibration than the surface of an ocean.[4][5][23] Using Salar de Uyuni as the target, ICESat has already achieved the short-term elevation measurement accuracy of below 2 centimeters (0.79 in).
Ever heard of a sanity check?[nb]I suppose asking this is like asking a blind man about the colors in a photograph.[/nb]
If you simply take the square root of the area of the lake, you get the length of the sides of a square with the same area. In this case it's 103 km (64 miles). How does that compare with your assumed distance
partway across it? Conversely, if you envision a square with sides the length of your >200-mile line, it wouldn't even cover the large lobe of that lake, yet its area is >40,000 square miles (200 squared is 40000) - 10 times larger than the reported area of the lake! Clearly something is wrong. Then you check to find out
what is wrong - the reported area, your distances, both? Hint: check your "189 miles" between Chita and Randa. It's more like 26 miles.
Nah, just slap some stupid marked-up image in a post and blather inanely about how this
proooooovvvves!!! Once again!!! how wrong the spherical earth is. Jeez. Stuff like this really is a waste of time for you and everyone else. Save yourself some humiliation (although that doesn't seem to bother you) and do at least some
basic fact checking. But, then again, these things called "facts" aren't important to true flat-earth believers; they're actually quite the nuisance.
If you don't know how to find the square of a number, or use a calculator to find the square root, or know the physical reason for doing so, then you lack the basic knowledge to discuss anything remotely technical, and it's no wonder you fall for what Rowbotham says. He made a living bilking money from unsophisticated people who wanted to think they were superior to everyone else. Don't you think you could do better?