Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan

Okay, unless you can explain these photos, the Earth must be a sphere.

Ya done messed up Saros.

Map Deleted

Wrong Chita,  dumbass.     -20.113611, -66.923333 (Chita)

Aliveandkicking thinks I'm a troll for responding to you.   I think you're a troll for posting such obvious diversions.   And you think Aliveandkicking and me are the same,   sorry he's in Finland,  and I'm in Australia.

See the problem? Chita is northwest of Randa in your upper map. It's southwest of Randa in the other. See the town Uyuni that appears on both maps? Where is Chita in relation to Randa and that town on the two maps? Don't you even look at and think about what it is you're doing? Obviously not.

This is why you do a sanity check! It's to see if your premise is even sane.

This fail is getting even worse, and I didn't think that was possible. Showing this "justification" for your mileage makes you look even more ridiculous.

Rayzor says exactly the same thing much more succinctly.

Two of the most coherent and scientific members (Aliveandkicking and Rayzor) on this site are now "trolls", "crap", "liars", "psychopaths" and should be banned? Cool story.


Meanwhile Scepti and CjPajamas look like they're about to explode because they haven't taken their medication yet. Shhh, shhh now. Go chant "Earth is flat. Everyone else is a shill." in the mirror. It should calm you down.

@Alpha-liar,

 I have shown you a screen-shot-picture of that google-distance-calculator, so that everyone can see how i was misled, not to defend the trueness of what that google-distance-calculator shows.

You are right, i should have taken the square root of the area of the lake, and avoid such an awful mistake, but we all make mistakes, don't we?

The only difference is that honest men admit their mistakes right away, but scum bag liars don't admit their mistakes, ever. Most often, their mistakes are not mistakes at all, but deliberate and persistent lies.

Regarding Salar de Uyuni case, even without wrong supposition about 200 miles distance between two ends of that lake, we still have here an astonishing proof of the flatness of the Earth!

Maybe you didn't notice one important sentence in this 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).

>The combination of all these features makes Salar de Uyuni about five times better for satellite calibration than the surface of an ocean.<

So, NASA uses surface of an ocean for satellite calibration, also? Since the flatness of the surface is what they are looking for (for satellite calibration), then even they (NASA) basically admit that the surface of an ocean is quite enough flat to be used for that purpose.

That figures!

When talking about the surface of the earth, like salt flats and oceans, the words "level" or "flat" means following the curvature of the earth. ie every part is the same distance from the earth's centre. You don't seem to be able to get your head around this.

When talking about the surface of the earth, like salt flats and oceans, the words "level" or "flat" means following the curvature of the earth. ie every part is the same distance from the earth's centre. You don't seem to be able to get your head around this.

Yeah, it is kind of funny when people quote scientists saying that something is flat. Of course, the same scientists know the Earth is a sphere, and they don't even think anyone would understand 'flat' differently than simply following the curvature of the Earth.

@Alpha-liar,

Dog offers wise advice in the post above yours. Calm down.

I have shown you a screen-shot-picture of that google-distance-calculator, so that everyone can see how i was misled, not to defend the trueness of what that google-distance-calculator shows.

You are right, i should have taken the square root of the area of the lake, and avoid such an awful mistake, but we all make mistakes, don't we?

The only difference is that honest men admit their mistakes right away, but scum bag liars don't admit their mistakes, ever. Most often, their mistakes are not mistakes at all, but deliberate and persistent lies.

You were caught out in an obvious blunder and are still trying to foist the blame onto Google. That's not exactly honest.

You weren't misled - the map you provided shows the locations that the reported distance applied to. Maybe it was for the wrong city, maybe it had the city in the wrong location. Either way, your mistake was uncritically accepting whatever number you read from the tool and making brash proclamations based on it without even looking at what you were being told. How could you not notice that Chita was north of Randa on one map and south of it on the other? That's not Google's fault, that's yours. So stop whining about it.

Admitting your mistake would be "Yeah, I goofed. I should have noticed that it couldn't possibly be measuring the right locations." Not "Google lied to me! I'm the victim! Waaah!"

The purpose of sanity checking is to catch large errors that sometimes slip in. Even though you missed the obviously wrong location when you determined the distance (it happens), a quick calculation would have exposed the obvious blunder: "if that's 200 miles, how big is that lake? 40,000 square miles? Hmmm... I wonder what's wrong?" This is called cross-checking facts, a.k.a. careful work. You need to learn how to do it.

We all do make mistakes. A wise person learns from them so he doesn't make the same mistake again.

Regarding Salar de Uyuni case, even without wrong supposition about 200 miles distance between two ends of that lake, we still have here an astonishing proof of the flatness of the Earth!

Maybe you didn't notice one important sentence in this Wiki quote:

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).

>The combination of all these features makes Salar de Uyuni about five times better for satellite calibration than the surface of an ocean.<

So, NASA uses surface of an ocean for satellite calibration, also? Since the flatness of the surface is what they are looking for (for satellite calibration), then even they (NASA) basically admit that the surface of an ocean is quite enough flat to be used for that purpose.

That figures!

Yeah, I noticed that sentence. "Level" and "flat" in this context mean "at the same elevation". The datum this elevation is measured from is curved. In this case, it's clearly the geoid, in other cases it might be sea level, which differs from the geoid slightly because of ocean and air currents. Your "astonishing prooooooffff!!!" is, once again, simply assigning the wrong meaning to words.

Get over yourself.

Let's see one another astonishing example (the proof) of the astonishing flatness of the Earth:

BERRIEN COUNTY, Mich. -  A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage.  Joshua Nowicki (@StartVisiting) snapped the pic Tuesday night from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville. Under normal conditions, even when extremely clear, this should not be visible, due to the curvature of the earth. The Chicago skyline is physically below the horizon form that vantage point(OF COURSE!!!  ), but the image of the skyline can be seen above it. (IT FIGURES!!! )

This is a form of Superior Mirage , superior in this meaning the mirage or image of the skyline is seen above where it's actually located(HAHAHAHA!!!). The clear skies, and cool weather ( aided even more by the cool lake water) creates an inversion. A layer of air near the surface that's cooler than air higher in the atmosphere. This creates a bending or ducting effect where the light ( image) instead of going in a normal straight line into space, curves back towards the surface of the earth.

This same phenomena can also be seen on the radar in the form of "ground clutter" the inversion is taking the radar beam (light) and bending back towards the surface of the earth, creating a "ring" effect.

So, everything lower than 700 meters should be below the horizon according to troll Pythagoras! But it isn't! Could it be because the Earth is flat like a Kansas, or like a Salar de Uyuni, or like an Ocean Basins (which constitutes 75 % of the whole surface of the Earth), or like South America Pampas, or like a Huge Icebergs along the Antarctica, or like Antarctica itself, or like the most part of the surface of the Earth?

So, get over yourself you Alpha-liar!!!

Are you confused by what "mirage" means? Why can't we see across the lake all day every day?

Ya, um... cikljamas?

It even states the conditions in which caused this mirage, and not to mention it says mirage in the FUCKING PICTURE!

So please, check your facts.

That is all.

Ya, um... cikljamas?

It even states the conditions in which caused this mirage, and not to mention it says mirage in the FUCKING PICTURE!

So please, check your facts.

That is all.

This right after the Chita, Bolivia debacle, too. There may be no hope.

¿Facts? ¡He don't need no stinkin' facts!

Let's see one another astonishing example (the proof) of the astonishing flatness of the Earth:

Quote

BERRIEN COUNTY, Mich. -  A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage.  Joshua Nowicki (@StartVisiting) snapped the pic Tuesday night from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville. Under normal conditions, even when extremely clear, this should not be visible, due to the curvature of the earth. The Chicago skyline is physically below the horizon form that vantage point(OF COURSE!!!  ), but the image of the skyline can be seen above it. (IT FIGURES!!! )

This is a form of Superior Mirage , superior in this meaning the mirage or image of the skyline is seen above where it's actually located(HAHAHAHA!!!). The clear skies, and cool weather ( aided even more by the cool lake water) creates an inversion. A layer of air near the surface that's cooler than air higher in the atmosphere. This creates a bending or ducting effect where the light ( image) instead of going in a normal straight line into space, curves back towards the surface of the earth.

This same phenomena can also be seen on the radar in the form of "ground clutter" the inversion is taking the radar beam (light) and bending back towards the surface of the earth, creating a "ring" effect.

So, everything lower than 700 meters should be below the horizon according to troll Pythagoras! But it isn't! Could it be because the Earth is flat like a Kansas, or like a Salar de Uyuni, or like an Ocean Basins (which constitutes 75 % of the whole surface of the Earth), or like South America Pampas, or like a Huge Icebergs along the Antarctica, or like Antarctica itself, or like the most part of the surface of the Earth?

So, get over yourself you Alpha-liar!!!

Alpha-liar,

Since you can't get over it, i am going to correct my mistake:

QFT. Stand by.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 15, 2015, 09:12:43 AM

Let's see one another astonishing example (the proof) of the astonishing flatness of the Earth:

Quote

BERRIEN COUNTY, Mich. -  A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage.  Joshua Nowicki (@StartVisiting) snapped the pic Tuesday night from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville. Under normal conditions, even when extremely clear, this should not be visible, due to the curvature of the earth. The Chicago skyline is physically below the horizon form that vantage point(OF COURSE!!!  ), but the image of the skyline can be seen above it. (IT FIGURES!!! )

This is a form of Superior Mirage , superior in this meaning the mirage or image of the skyline is seen above where it's actually located(HAHAHAHA!!!). The clear skies, and cool weather ( aided even more by the cool lake water) creates an inversion. A layer of air near the surface that's cooler than air higher in the atmosphere. This creates a bending or ducting effect where the light ( image) instead of going in a normal straight line into space, curves back towards the surface of the earth.

This same phenomena can also be seen on the radar in the form of "ground clutter" the inversion is taking the radar beam (light) and bending back towards the surface of the earth, creating a "ring" effect.

So, everything lower than 700 meters should be below the horizon according to troll Pythagoras! But it isn't! Could it be because the Earth is flat like a Kansas, or like a Salar de Uyuni, or like an Ocean Basins (which constitutes 75 % of the whole surface of the Earth), or like South America Pampas, or like a Huge Icebergs along the Antarctica, or like Antarctica itself, or like the most part of the surface of the Earth?

So, get over yourself you Alpha-liar!!!

Alpha-liar,

Since you can't get over it, i am going to correct my mistake:

Quote from: cikljamas on May 15, 2015, 09:12:43 AM

Let's see one another astonishing example (the proof) of the astonishing flatness of the Earth:

<Chicago mirage>

Alpha-liar,

Since you can't get over it, i am going to correct my mistake:

<Bolivia; former 200 mile distance changed to 67 miles based on a different pair of locations>

Can you at least keep your own posts to a single topic, please?

OH, well... this is just too good to let slip away.

What was the area for the whole lake that you quoted originally? It's 4,086 sq mi. What's 67 mi squared? Do you see the problem? It took all of about 15 seconds to find why your "analysis" was so far off.

You might consider using a different method to determine distances.

Did you learn nothing at all from the previous debacle? Apparently. *Sigh*

The arguments of flat earthers really seems not convincing enough for my taste,i know i supported flat earth but this photo show a drop by sure, i don't know how to explain this drop,why we can't see the bottom of the buildings so i assume there must be a drop it surely doesn't support flat earth moreover it support a curve.

http://i.imgur.com/1TNr2lA.jpg

And?

Where did that "60 miles" come from, anyway? You ain't been doing so hot on distance measurements lately. How high above lake level was the photograph taken from? Did you actually read the comments below the picture, explaining why more was visible than usual, or just insert inane comments when you spied words and phrases that made your "flattie sense[nb]This is a reference to Spiderman, a comic-book superhero with spider-like powers. His "spidey sense" would alert him to trouble. Since you're from Central Europe, you wouldn't be expected to know about this (I hope).[/nb]" tingle?

modestman gets it. Where are the bottoms of those buildings from "60 miles" (or whatever they really are) away?

If the surface of that water was a flat plane, we should see the bottoms, but it's not, so we don't. The curvature of the surface of the water maintaining a constant elevation is what causes this. Simple.

But, hey! We're discussing Chicago from across the lake (topic). At least there's that!
 

The only thing that still bother me is:according to the curve you should see the building as much slanted as the curve but they are quite straight to the horizon.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 15, 2015, 02:23:51 PM

http://i.imgur.com/1TNr2lA.jpg

And?

Where did that "60 miles" come from, anyway? You ain't been doing so hot on distance measurements lately. How high above lake level was the photograph taken from? Did you actually read the comments below the picture, explaining why more was visible than usual, or just insert inane comments when you spied words and phrases that made your "flattie sense[nb]This is a reference to Spiderman, a comic-book superhero with spider-like powers. His "spidey sense" would alert him to trouble. Since you're from Central Europe, you wouldn't be expected to know about this (I hope).[/nb]" tingle?

modestman gets it. Where are the bottoms of those buildings from "60 miles" (or whatever they really are) away?

If the surface of that water was a flat plane, we should see the bottoms, but it's not, so we don't. The curvature of the surface of the water maintaining a constant elevation is what causes this. Simple.

But, hey! We're discussing Chicago from across the lake (topic). At least there's that!

From memory that picture is taken from a ginormous sand dune about 760 feet high.   Even so at that distance the camera would only see the very top of 440m Willis tower (Sears Tower)

Of course if the earth was flat no part of the buildings would be missing and you would be able to see the shore line and the hills behind the buildings.

Someone ? why there is no correlation between the curve and the building position it looks very straight it should be slanted according to the curve. it's look more like stairs which in one staircase you have a drop to the next and the next is flat.

Someone ? why there is no correlation between the curve and the building position it looks very straight it should be slanted according to the curve. it's look more like stairs which in one staircase you have a drop to the next and the next is flat.

From that small distance the buildings are only leaning 1 degree away from the camera.  The one degree lean is far too tiny to change the shape of the building so it can be noticed

Well,i don't know how you came up with this number but my common sense says that as much as the curve goes the slanting should be the same.
there are like 20 floors missing in one of the photos in wills tower why the tower isn't leaning back as the curve goes ? it should be as noticeable as the curve.

Well,i don't know how you came up with this number but my common sense says that as much as the curve goes the slanting should be the same.
there are like 20 floors missing in one of the photos in wills tower why the tower isn't leaning back as the curve goes ? it should be as noticeable as the curve.

There are 360 degrees around the entire earth.  One degree of that distance around the earth is  111 Km 

It is just a maths/geometry thing

Quote from: modestman on May 15, 2015, 03:40:41 PM

Well,i don't know how you came up with this number but my common sense says that as much as the curve goes the slanting should be the same.
there are like 20 floors missing in one of the photos in wills tower why the tower isn't leaning back as the curve goes ? it should be as noticeable as the curve.

There are 360 degrees around the entire earth.  One degree of that distance around the earth is  111 Km

so the curve displayed is much bigger than it should be.much much bigger.

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 15, 2015, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: modestman on May 15, 2015, 03:40:41 PM

Well,i don't know how you came up with this number but my common sense says that as much as the curve goes the slanting should be the same.
there are like 20 floors missing in one of the photos in wills tower why the tower isn't leaning back as the curve goes ? it should be as noticeable as the curve.

There are 360 degrees around the entire earth.  One degree of that distance around the earth is  111 Km

so the curve displayed is much bigger than it should be.much much bigger.

I dont understand what you are meaning.

The world is very very large.  There are only 360 degrees all way around the world.  It is not possible to notice a building leaning away from you by only the tiny amount of one degree.

Quote from: modestman on May 15, 2015, 03:47:07 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 15, 2015, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: modestman on May 15, 2015, 03:40:41 PM

Well,i don't know how you came up with this number but my common sense says that as much as the curve goes the slanting should be the same.
there are like 20 floors missing in one of the photos in wills tower why the tower isn't leaning back as the curve goes ? it should be as noticeable as the curve.

There are 360 degrees around the entire earth.  One degree of that distance around the earth is  111 Km

so the curve displayed is much bigger than it should be.much much bigger.

I dont understand what you are meaning.

The world is very very large.  There are only 360 degrees all way around the world.  It is not possible to notice a building leaning away from you by only the tiny amount of one degree.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
look at 6:41, 8:38
the curve is huge and the building are straight.
the curve shouldn't be that huge this are building half way covered and they don't follow the huge curve.if the earth is so huge why we see that huge curve over 20 miles.

HAHAha the flat earther the video above seems so convinced this video prove flat earth why is that ?

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 15, 2015, 03:49:26 PM

Quote from: modestman on May 15, 2015, 03:47:07 PM

Quote from: Aliveandkicking on May 15, 2015, 03:45:47 PM

Quote from: modestman on May 15, 2015, 03:40:41 PM

Well,i don't know how you came up with this number but my common sense says that as much as the curve goes the slanting should be the same.
there are like 20 floors missing in one of the photos in wills tower why the tower isn't leaning back as the curve goes ? it should be as noticeable as the curve.

There are 360 degrees around the entire earth.  One degree of that distance around the earth is  111 Km

so the curve displayed is much bigger than it should be.much much bigger.

I dont understand what you are meaning.

The world is very very large.  There are only 360 degrees all way around the world.  It is not possible to notice a building leaning away from you by only the tiny amount of one degree.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
look at 6:41, 8:38
the curve is huge and the building are straight.
the curve shouldn't be that huge this are building half way covered and they don't follow the huge curve.if the earth is so huge why we see that huge curve over 20 miles.

The curve is not huge.  I just explained the world is enormous and the amount of curvature at that distance is very very small - much less than one degree.

HAHAha the flat earther the video above seems so convinced this video prove flat earth why is that ?

In simple terms the video maker is confused

If an object is 55,000m away there is 0.5 degree of 'curve'.   This small amount of curve with a big 55,000m distance creates a 'small' loss of view of say 100m .