More clues about a flat earth; many videos; last thread

Did you figure out why the height of the camera matter?

Did you figure out why the height of the camera matter?

In this video how much further would the ship need  to be before it sinks. Er, if it was out any further you would not even know it was there to film.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Funny thing is I see sinking ship easily, clear, big and close by with the naked eye regularly.

Quote from: tappet on June 21, 2015, 03:10:20 AM

In this video how much further would the ship need  to be before it sinks. Er, if it was out any further you would not even know it was there to film.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Funny thing is I see sinking ship easily, clear, big and close by with the naked eye regularly.

Has anybody on this forum except Tom seen sinking ship in real life.

Quote from: tappet on June 21, 2015, 03:10:20 AM

In this video how much further would the ship need  to be before it sinks. Er, if it was out any further you would not even know it was there to film.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Funny thing is I see sinking ship easily, clear, big and close by with the naked eye regularly.

Has anybody on this forum except Tom seen sinking ship in real life.

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:13:29 PM

Did you figure out why the height of the camera matter?

Quote from: tappet on June 21, 2015, 02:23:20 PM

Quote from: tappet on June 21, 2015, 03:10:20 AM

In this video how much further would the ship need  to be before it sinks. Er, if it was out any further you would not even know it was there to film.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Funny thing is I see sinking ship easily, clear, big and close by with the naked eye regularly.

Has anybody on this forum except Tom seen sinking ship in real life.

Do you mean the sinking ship effect at a distance of more than 15-20 km away behind the bubbling sea line?

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:21:19 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:13:29 PM

Did you figure out why the height of the camera matter?

All my 18 videos show objects at a large distance that not sink one centimeter below your imaginary calculated horizon. Not one centimeter.

Everyone can figure out the height of the cameraman and the distance of the objects.

There are many many more on youtube. Go and find them while your are looking for your ten videos that show a curvature of the earth.

I am still waiting for your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

You are making a fool of yourself!

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:13:29 PM

Did you figure out why the height of the camera matter?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Behind the horizon.

Quote from: tappet on June 21, 2015, 02:23:20 PM

Quote from: tappet on June 21, 2015, 03:10:20 AM

In this video how much further would the ship need  to be before it sinks. Er, if it was out any further you would not even know it was there to film.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Funny thing is I see sinking ship easily, clear, big and close by with the naked eye regularly.

Has anybody on this forum except Tom seen sinking ship in real life.

Do you mean the sinking ship effect at a distance of more than 15-20 km away behind the bubbling sea line?

I have. You also can see the bubbling of the sea line through a magnifying device.

Where did you see it?

Quote from: Tom Last on June 21, 2015, 02:27:22 PM

Quote from: tappet on June 21, 2015, 02:23:20 PM

Quote from: tappet on June 21, 2015, 03:10:20 AM

In this video how much further would the ship need  to be before it sinks. Er, if it was out any further you would not even know it was there to film.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Funny thing is I see sinking ship easily, clear, big and close by with the naked eye regularly.

Has anybody on this forum except Tom seen sinking ship in real life.

Do you mean the sinking ship effect at a distance of more than 15-20 km away behind the bubbling sea line?

I have. You also can see the bubbling of the sea line through a magnifying device.

Where did you see it?

I live near a shipping lane through the Great Barrier Reef. I see sinking ship every day. The ships travel in a channel on the East side of Low Isles which is exactly 15km from shore, Low Isles is major tourism diving/reef so the ships are quite a distance past this. I can see the ships very clearly and big just with my eyes.

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:39:14 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Behind the horizon.

How many kilometers away?

45 km: the buildings should sink 159 meters below an imaginary horizon

50 km: the buildings should sink 196 meters below an imaginary horizon

60 km: the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon

70 km: the buildings should sink 384 meters below an imaginary horizon


Tell us, mr sokarul! How far away is this video shot taken? How high is the tower and are all the building you see on the video?


Btw, I am still waiting for your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

Quote from: Tom Last on June 21, 2015, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:39:14 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Behind the horizon.

How many kilometers away?

45 km: the buildings should sink 159 meters below an imaginary horizon

50 km: the buildings should sink 196 meters below an imaginary horizon

60 km: the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon

70 km: the buildings should sink 384 meters below an imaginary horizon


Tell us, mr sokarul! How far away is this video shot taken? How high is the tower and are all the building you see on the video?


Btw, I am still waiting for your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

The video is probably from Rochester, New York. I forgot what the forum came up with as a distance but maybe around 50 km? The CN tower is 553.33 meters.

I have provided 4 videos now. What makes 10 such a special number?

Did you learn why the height of the camera matters?

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 03:08:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Last on June 21, 2015, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:39:14 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Behind the horizon.

How many kilometers away?

45 km: the buildings should sink 159 meters below an imaginary horizon

50 km: the buildings should sink 196 meters below an imaginary horizon

60 km: the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon

70 km: the buildings should sink 384 meters below an imaginary horizon


Tell us, mr sokarul! How far away is this video shot taken? How high is the tower and are all the building you see on the video?


Btw, I am still waiting for your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

The video is probably from Rochester, New York. I forgot what the forum came up with as a distance but maybe around 50 km? The CN tower is 553.33 meters.

I have provided 4 videos now. What makes 10 such a special number?

Did you learn why the height of the camera matters?

The coordinates are given, it's 60 km.
So, the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon.
I see much more than half of the tower, at least 3/4, probably more.

How high are the buildings next to the tower?

Three videos are from RE-believers and are refuted already.

Now, come up with videos, showing a curvature (and sinking objects) closer by than 15-20 km.

Quote from: Tom Last on June 21, 2015, 03:12:51 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 03:08:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Last on June 21, 2015, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:39:14 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Behind the horizon.

How many kilometers away?

45 km: the buildings should sink 159 meters below an imaginary horizon

50 km: the buildings should sink 196 meters below an imaginary horizon

60 km: the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon

70 km: the buildings should sink 384 meters below an imaginary horizon


Tell us, mr sokarul! How far away is this video shot taken? How high is the tower and are all the building you see on the video?


Btw, I am still waiting for your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

The video is probably from Rochester, New York. I forgot what the forum came up with as a distance but maybe around 50 km? The CN tower is 553.33 meters.

I have provided 4 videos now. What makes 10 such a special number?

Did you learn why the height of the camera matters?

The coordinates are given, it's 60 km.
So, the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon.
I see much more than half of the tower, at least 3/4, probably more.

How high are the buildings next to the tower?

What did you use as the height of the camera for your calculations? You will have to look up the building's height yourself. I don't know it.

Quote

Three videos are from RE-believers and are refuted already.

"It's fake" isn't refuting it. You didn't even comment on the third one.

Quote

Now, come up with videos, showing a curvature (and sinking objects) closer by than 15-20 km.

So now it has to be closer than15-20km? Is that because I already showed it further than that distance?

Once again, if objects are closer than the horizon they weren't sink behind it. This is why the camera height matters, understand?

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 03:17:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Last on June 21, 2015, 03:12:51 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 03:08:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Last on June 21, 2015, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:39:14 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Behind the horizon.

How many kilometers away?

45 km: the buildings should sink 159 meters below an imaginary horizon

50 km: the buildings should sink 196 meters below an imaginary horizon

60 km: the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon

70 km: the buildings should sink 384 meters below an imaginary horizon


Tell us, mr sokarul! How far away is this video shot taken? How high is the tower and are all the building you see on the video?


Btw, I am still waiting for your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

The video is probably from Rochester, New York. I forgot what the forum came up with as a distance but maybe around 50 km? The CN tower is 553.33 meters.

I have provided 4 videos now. What makes 10 such a special number?

Did you learn why the height of the camera matters?

The coordinates are given, it's 60 km.
So, the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon.
I see much more than half of the tower, at least 3/4, probably more.

How high are the buildings next to the tower?

What did you use as the height of the camera for your calculations? You will have to look up the building's height yourself. I don't know it.

Quote

Three videos are from RE-believers and are refuted already.

"It's fake" isn't refuting it. You didn't even comment on the third one.

Quote

Now, come up with videos, showing a curvature (and sinking objects) closer by than 15-20 km.

So now it has to be closer than15-20km? Is that because I already showed it further than that distance?

Once again, if objects are closer than the horizon they weren't sink behind it. This is why the camera height matters, understand?

I repeat,

The coordinates are given, The video is recordered 60 km away from the tower and the buildings.
So, the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon.
I see much more than half of the tower, at least 3/4, probably more (7/8).

see, http://www.canadawanderer.com/top-5-attractions-in-toronto/cn-tower-toronto-ilkerender/

How high are the buildings next to the tower? Most are lower than 200 meters.
Why do we see them in your video?

If you watch at 1.03-1.10 (minute) you see a clue how high the cameraman stands! Not very high, agreed?

All your 4 videos are now debunked and refuted.

Please show us several videos that show a real curvature and sinking objects. Not a bottom that disappears at a (very) large distance at sea.
Real ones!

I showed you mine. 18 videos with not one centimeter sinking objects below an imaginary horizon.
There are so many....

All your 4 videos are now debunked and refuted.

Please show us several videos that show a real curvature and sinking objects. Not a bottom that disappears at a (very) large distance at sea.
Real ones!

I showed you mine. 18 videos with not one centimeter sinking objects below an imaginary horizon.
There are so many....

I actually refuted your videos.  Did you learn why the height of the camera is important?

Think again, please.

If you watch the video at the beginning and at 1.03-1.10 (minute) you see a clue how high the cameraman stands! Not very high, agreed? So, we have to account for these, let's say, 2 meters.

The coordinates are given, The video is recorded 60 km away from the tower and the buildings.
So, the buildings should sink 280 meters below an imaginary horizon. See, http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

I see much more than half of the tower, probably more about 7/8 or more (if you look closely). You see it too. Let's say more or less 483 meters we can see.

see, http://www.canadawanderer.com/top-5-attractions-in-toronto/cn-tower-toronto-ilkerender/

How high are the buildings next to the tower? Most are lower than 200 meters. You can see that on the picture (comparing the height of the buildings with the height of the tower).

Why do we see them in your video?

We can see a very big part of the buildings.

More than half of the tower and the complete buildings should not be seen if the earth is round. Then, you would only see (part of) objects that are higher than 280 meters.

But, we see much more!

As explained earlier, the bottom of objects at sea at a large distance disappear because of the bubbling sealine-effect. It's an act of nature. Sorry, I didn't make it. It distorts our vision a bit. We can live with that.
Let's say we can't see about 1/8 of the tower, which is about 70 meters. So, we can see 210 meters of the tower that should not be seen on a round earth!

We see so much more 'building', it can only mean one thing: your video of the CN Tower and buildings is proof of a flat earth!

Thank you for another flat earth video. It will be added to the list!

Please show us several videos that show a real curvature and sinking objects. Not a bottom that disappears at a (very) large distance at sea.
Real ones!

I showed you mine. 18 videos with not one centimeter sinking objects below an imaginary horizon.
There are so many....

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:39:14 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Behind the horizon.

How many kilometers away?

45 km: the buildings should sink 159 meters below an imaginary horizon

50 km: the buildings should sink 196 meters below an imaginary horizon

60 km: the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon

70 km: the buildings should sink 384 meters below an imaginary horizon


Tell us, mr sokarul! How far away is this video shot taken? How high is the tower and are all the building you see on the video?


Btw, I am still waiting for your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

Quote from: Tom Last on June 21, 2015, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:39:14 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Behind the horizon.

How many kilometers away?

45 km: the buildings should sink 159 meters below an imaginary horizon

50 km: the buildings should sink 196 meters below an imaginary horizon

60 km: the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon

70 km: the buildings should sink 384 meters below an imaginary horizon


Tell us, mr sokarul! How far away is this video shot taken? How high is the tower and are all the building you see on the video?


Btw, I am still waiting for your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

If you measure how far an object should appear to sing in distance then you are calculating it wrong.  That calculation assumes that the camera is infinitely close to the surface of the Earth, which it never actually is.  You have to take the altitude of the camera into account.  This is how you calculate it properly.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 21, 2015, 10:35:58 PM

Quote from: Tom Last on June 21, 2015, 02:54:20 PM

Quote from: sokarul on June 21, 2015, 02:39:14 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Behind the horizon.

How many kilometers away?

45 km: the buildings should sink 159 meters below an imaginary horizon

50 km: the buildings should sink 196 meters below an imaginary horizon

60 km: the buildings should sink 282 meters below an imaginary horizon

70 km: the buildings should sink 384 meters below an imaginary horizon


Tell us, mr sokarul! How far away is this video shot taken? How high is the tower and are all the building you see on the video?


Btw, I am still waiting for your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

If you measure how far an object should appear to sing in distance then you are calculating it wrong.  That calculation assumes that the camera is infinitely close to the surface of the Earth, which it never actually is.  You have to take the altitude of the camera into account.  This is how you calculate it properly.

Did you watch the video?

At the beginning of the video and at 1.04 minute you can see the height of the camera. It's about 2 meters.

The distance of the camera recording from the Tower and buildings is 60 km (coordinates are given).
The tower and building should sink 280 meters below your illusionary horizon. See, http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
It does not happen. The video is proof of a flat earth. (Please read my post #78 at the end of page 4 of this thread).

All my 18 videos show objects at a large distance that not sink one centimeter below your imaginary calculated horizon. Not one centimeter.

There are many many more on youtube. Go and find them yourself.

I would love to see your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

once again, the tripod alone would be 1.5 meters. The add the dock's height and you would be closer to 5 meters. Probably more.

I disproved your videos already. I told you and now mike told you, are you ever going to learn why the height of the camera matters?

[All my 18 videos show objects at a large distance that not sink one centimeter below your imaginary calculated horizon. Not one centimeter.

Quote from: Tom Last on June 22, 2015, 06:48:18 AM

[All my 18 videos show objects at a large distance that not sink one centimeter below your imaginary calculated horizon. Not one centimeter.

So,  you are quite sure that the objects in the video are exactly as predicted by the round earth calculated horizon,  to within a centimeter no less.   That's pretty impressive proof of a round earth. 

To the centimeter you say...   I'm impressed no end by your measuring abilities.

By your own admission all 18 of your videos show that objects at a large distance do not sink one centimeter below the calculated horizon Not one centimeter.    Your words, not mine.
Why would they,  if  that's the calculated horizon.   That's exactly what you should expect to see.  So why all the fuss.

I find it odd that when watching some of those videos, the horizon is behind the boat or object in question.  This means that reported distance is incorrect, even for a Flat Earth explanation.  So what you are saying, for at least a few of the videos, is that you are reporting false parameters, i.e. lying.  Also why is the video of the large sailboat a fake?  What evidence do you have for this, other than modest's assumption that it is sinking too fast.  Odd how they add in times showing that it took quite awhile for it to happen.  But I guess you want to watch the whole few hours long uncut video.
Nope, once again FE people shooting themselves in the face trying to wave their arms around and claim experiments without any type of experimental controls, or reporting truthful parameters.  I posted the same two videos saying hey, here ya go some videos without any experimental data that disprove your videos.  You just claim they are fakes without any reason.  Sure, thats believable.  Please, try harder.  Your videos disprove themselves, your integrity is shot, and you have the balls to claim we are dishonest.
The only reasons you guys even have for claiming that any of the rest of us lie is because it doesn't match with your fantasies.  I still await something that resembles an honest rebuttal of anything I have ever shown here.  BTW, I have made some mistakes too, but at least I admit when i mistyped or misphrased something, I have yet to make a blatantly false statement.
So, can we get someone honest to argue for the FE please, so far all I see are little whiny babies whose only recourse is to claim the opposition is lying, all while giving obvious false information.  Ohh the irony.