Does anyone on this forum have visual proof that the Earth is flat?

If yes please present said proof in the comment section.

Oh, it looks flat!  That should be so obvious, that anyone who provides evidence to the contrary is being paid off by NAZA! 

[/sarcasm]

Any picture that does not show the curvature.  There are many out there and I would wager there are more pictures not showing the curvature then ones showing it.

Not a great argument.  The problem is that any picture showing the curvature will be considered faked.  Pictures are only acceptable evidence if they support the hypothesis according to the FE Zetetic Method.  Anything saying they may be wrong is obviously faked, a lie and part of a conspiracy.

Well the ones that don't show the curvature are either taken from a low altitude or have mountains or hills in the picture.
Sorry about the weird quoting before, I don't understand the code for the site.

All of the visual evidence tends to point towards the Earth being flat. 

All of the visual evidence tends to point towards the Earth being flat.

Ha!  Hahahahahahahahaha!  That's hilariously wrong, and frankly pretty close-minded. 
"All visual evidence," huh?  Only if you completely ignore:
Satellites
Planets
The sun
The moon
Orbits in general
Maps
Satellite imagery
Videos of rocket launches
Basic physics
Anything having to do with NASA
All the other space programs
Third party evidence for NASA
Geodesy
Tides
Plane flights
Astronomy
Stellarium
Neutrino astronomy
Neutrinos in general
Particle accelerator measurements
Weather
Navigation
Surveying
Every single expert in each of these fields (including myself)

All explained by FET. 

All explained by FET.

Only if you are a flat earth believer. 

People often say that observations show that the Earth is flat. The thing is though, observations is what lead people to believe the Earth was curved in the first place. Shadows on the Moon, watching ships disappear bottom first over the horizon, etc.

All of the visual evidence tends to point towards the Earth being flat.

I said if you have such evidence, please present it to us.
I'l be nice and present visual evidence that the Earth is round
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

All explained by FET. 

Explain it then. All of it.

For some reason I wouldn’t have associated that long list with the question being asked.
Maybe I’m wrong to have assumed it was about a single perspective view from Earth, at the rest of the Universe around us.
I’m still thinking about that I can observe enough so far to gather we are in three dimensional space,
but not yet that the Earth or planets are spherical solids in that space.
But I think light sourcing and graduation, etc. gives one that impression.
and of course, over time, I think it could be observed that at least other planets move around us from the same view point on Earth.

Thousands upon thousands of photos from space including video footage and the FE conspiritards say it's all fake.  It's not. Now we await for visual proof of a flat earth by dimwitted FE "investigators"...at which point the rest of us will simply say that it's faked, discredited and for certain Photo-shopped.  No, there is nor there ever will be proof of any kind that there is a flat earth since it's round.  End of story.

All explained by FET.

Really... please explain how from Australia, you can see the stars BELOW the South Celestial Pole as they are on the other side of the Flat Earth (over S.America):


Also, from South Georgia Island, the stars BELOW the South Celestial Pole, as they are above Australia on the other side of the Flat Earth:


See the RE S.Pole projection here (2nd image):
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65369.0)

All of the visual evidence tends to point towards the Earth being flat.

Then provide it.

All explained by FET.

Saying it is explained is NOT science. They are just words on a page.  No math, no experimentation nothing but my eyes tell me so it must be so.

I've flown a C-172 in clouds. The instructor said to climb through it. I set up a climb of 750  feet per minute. As long as I kept my eye on the vertical speed indicator and the artificial horizon I was fine. But the second I looked out the window at nothing but cloud, my senses told my I was diving and I'd pull back until the stall warning horn sounded.

So this is why in flight school there is an exercise called Recovery from unusual attitudes. For the exercise, you cover your eyes and put your head down while the instructor flies the plane. Your job is tell the instructor what he is going, climbing, descending, turning etc.

It takes just a few minutes for you to be completely confused as to what the aircraft is doing. Then the instructor throws up his hands and says "Your aircraft"  your job is sit up open your eyes and put the aircraft in a straight and level flight in the shortest time possible. 

The object of the exercise is instill in you the fact that your senses are crap for figuring out what the aircraft is doing.

It is an enlightening experience and the only time I have ever been nauseous while flying.

What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim? 

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

Looks flat to me... 

What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim? 

We want math or some other explanation for the things Blue Moon listed in a FE system, if an explanation for those things even exists in the FE system.

Also we want visual evidence that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: jroa on March 27, 2016, 06:44:56 PM

What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim? 

We want math or some other explanation for the things Blue Moon listed in a FE system, if an explanation for those things even exists in the FE system.

Also we want visual evidence that the Earth is flat.

None of the things that Blue Moon listed had any kind of argument attached to it.  It was just a list.  He might as well have added paper clips, rocks, and beer to the list.  It is meaningless.  How am I supposed to explain something that is meaningless? 

Quote from: Deostructor on March 28, 2016, 04:27:41 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 27, 2016, 06:44:56 PM

What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim? 

We want math or some other explanation for the things Blue Moon listed in a FE system, if an explanation for those things even exists in the FE system.

Also we want visual evidence that the Earth is flat.

None of the things that Blue Moon listed had any kind of argument attached to it.  It was just a list.  He might as well have added paper clips, rocks, and beer to the list.  It is meaningless.  How am I supposed to explain something that is meaningless?

The argument is that the FE theory does not explain those things on the list, but I gave you a chance to prove me wrong.

Also you have yet to provide the visual evidence that the Earth is flat.

All explained by FET.

Oh, isn't that great? How marvellous!
Please Jora, would you summarise how FET explains these things from the list above:
1. Navigation, specifically how inertial navigation systems work on a flat earth.
2. Neutrinos, specifically observations of solar neutrinos which appear to have passed through the earth.
3. Surveying, specifically why the horizon viewed through a theodolite is below horizontal level from any appreciable altitude.
4. Maps, specifically why it appears to be impossible to produce a functional FE map but very easy to produce a functional RE map.

I'll get the popcorn and we can watch him fail to answer these.
Oh BTW Jora, I'm rather puzzled why you think the horizon isn't visual evidence of curvature? It's exactly what you'd expect to see on a big ball.

If yes please present said proof in the comment section.

Good morning and I hope you had a Blessed Easter Morning yesterday. Thanks to my young American friend on this site I was able to finally down load the two photos I scanned into my trusty computers that are of my recent flight on British Airways taken a few weeks ago. Unfortunately three of the most important photos of the sun rising (as we moved towards the east) showed nothing because of the suns glare on the window of the airplane.

The first photo is proof of our Turkish colleague's hypothesis on viewing the moon, and how the view would not be possible on a round earth.The second show NO curvature of the earth from a terrific height.
Edit: I am unable to post the photos (upload them?) so I am attempting to past the link that will take readers to my two most excellent photographs.
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/719x471q90/r/924/4z1Vx7.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/601x451q90/r/923/ACpaWC.jpg

After my recent journey that included air flight allowing me to see from very high elevations there is no doubt the Earth is flat (with a small chance of concavity(.

This will be the very last time I waste a lot of time accommodating idiots who demand answers to a list of questions, Neil.  I don't know why you people feel the need to be rude by demanding I waste my time on things like this.  This is not a test; the site is for civilized discussions and rolling out a list as long as your arm does not make for a civilized discussion.  If any more thoughts pop into your little head, ask them one at a time. 

1. Navigation, specifically how inertial navigation systems work on a flat earth.

Inertial navigation is a joke.  It is so inaccurate that it must be constantly corrected for using another navigation method.

2. Neutrinos, specifically observations of solar neutrinos which appear to have passed through the earth.

Scientists have no way to identify individual neutrinos.  They have no way of knowing where the neutrino originated from or what it has passed through.  They detect a neutrino and conclude that it must have passed through the Earth.  This is not science, it is speculation and assumption. 

3. Surveying, specifically why the horizon viewed through a theodolite is below horizontal level from any appreciable altitude.

Theodolites can not see what is on the other side of the horizon, dummy. 

4. Maps, specifically why it appears to be impossible to produce a functional FE map but very easy to produce a functional RE map.

Who said it is impossible to produce a functional FE map?  All maps, after all, are flat. 

This will be the very last time I waste a lot of time accommodating idiots who demand answers to a list of questions, Neil.  I don't know why you people feel the need to be rude by demanding I waste my time on things like this.  This is not a test; the site is for civilized discussions and rolling out a list as long as your arm does not make for a civilized discussion.  If any more thoughts pop into your little head, ask them one at a time. 

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 28, 2016, 05:16:01 AM

1. Navigation, specifically how inertial navigation systems work on a flat earth.

Inertial navigation is a joke.  It is so inaccurate that it must be constantly corrected for using another navigation method.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 28, 2016, 05:16:01 AM

2. Neutrinos, specifically observations of solar neutrinos which appear to have passed through the earth.

Scientists have no way to identify individual neutrinos.  They have no way of knowing where the neutrino originated from or what it has passed through.  They detect a neutrino and conclude that it must have passed through the Earth.  This is not science, it is speculation and assumption. 

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 28, 2016, 05:16:01 AM

3. Surveying, specifically why the horizon viewed through a theodolite is below horizontal level from any appreciable altitude.

Theodolites can not see what is on the other side of the horizon, dummy. 

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 28, 2016, 05:16:01 AM

4. Maps, specifically why it appears to be impossible to produce a functional FE map but very easy to produce a functional RE map.

Who said it is impossible to produce a functional FE map?  All maps, after all, are flat.

Where is a functional, verified, accurate FE map available?

Where is a functional, verified, accurate FE map available?

Give me enough money for equipment, travel, expenses, and to hire a survey team, and I will be happy to produce one for you. 

What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim? 

Then show us the math that proves constant acceleration does not mean an increase in velocity .

Quote from: jroa on March 27, 2016, 06:44:56 PM

What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim? 

Then show us the math that proves constant acceleration does not mean an increase in velocity .

What?  Who said it does not mean an increase in velocity?  You are simply using Newtonian Physics to solve a Relativist problem.  You are thinking to yourself that the speed of light is just a number, and there for it is obtainable.  I know that you have no understanding of Relativity, like that Rabinoz guy who tried unsuccessfully to use time dilation to prove the Earth can't be flat, but you can not use the same formulae to calculate speeds approaching the speed of light as you do when calculating a trip to Yellow Stone.  If you want the proper formulae, then I will be happy to furnish you with them; however, I doubt you would understand them, much less be capable of punching them into a calculator. 

Quote from: Round and Proud on March 28, 2016, 07:12:53 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 27, 2016, 06:44:56 PM

What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim? 

Then show us the math that proves constant acceleration does not mean an increase in velocity .

What?  Who said it does not mean an increase in velocity?  You are simply using Newtonian Physics to solve a Relativist problem.  You are thinking to yourself that the speed of light is just a number, and there for it is obtainable.  I know that you have no understanding of Relativity, like that Rabinoz guy who tried unsuccessfully to use time dilation to prove the Earth can't be flat, but you can not use the same formulae to calculate speeds approaching the speed of light as you do when calculating a trip to Yellow Stone.  If you want the proper formulae, then I will be happy to furnish you with them; however, I doubt you would understand them, much less be capable of punching them into a calculator.

I understand more than you think I do. What you are saying is the velocities approaching c is relative to the observer, in this case Earth. We are watching the edge of the known universe expanding at .9c which would seem to mean that the "west" half  is moving away from the "east" half at 1.8c. We both know that is impossible.

But it still means that we, under UA would be approaching 99.9999999c And the math says we would notice if of only because of the Redshift.

Unless you are saying  the ENTIRE universe is involved in UA.

Quote from: jroa on March 28, 2016, 07:27:17 AM

Quote from: Round and Proud on March 28, 2016, 07:12:53 AM

Quote from: jroa on March 27, 2016, 06:44:56 PM

What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim? 

Then show us the math that proves constant acceleration does not mean an increase in velocity .

What?  Who said it does not mean an increase in velocity?  You are simply using Newtonian Physics to solve a Relativist problem.  You are thinking to yourself that the speed of light is just a number, and there for it is obtainable.  I know that you have no understanding of Relativity, like that Rabinoz guy who tried unsuccessfully to use time dilation to prove the Earth can't be flat, but you can not use the same formulae to calculate speeds approaching the speed of light as you do when calculating a trip to Yellow Stone.  If you want the proper formulae, then I will be happy to furnish you with them; however, I doubt you would understand them, much less be capable of punching them into a calculator.

I understand more than you think I do. What you are saying is the velocities approaching c is relative to the observer, in this case Earth. We are watching the edge of the known universe expanding at .9c which would seem to mean that the "west" half  is moving away from the "east" half at 1.8c. We both know that is impossible.

But it still means that we, under UA would be approaching 99.9999999c And the math says we would notice if of only because of the Redshift.

Unless you are saying  the ENTIRE universe is involved in UA.

Of course it is.

Quote from: Deostructor on March 26, 2016, 11:00:03 AM

If yes please present said proof in the comment section.

Good morning and I hope you had a Blessed Easter Morning yesterday. Thanks to my young American friend on this site I was able to finally down load the two photos I scanned into my trusty computers that are of my recent flight on British Airways taken a few weeks ago. Unfortunately three of the most important photos of the sun rising (as we moved towards the east) showed nothing because of the suns glare on the window of the airplane.

The first photo is proof of our Turkish colleague's hypothesis on viewing the moon, and how the view would not be possible on a round earth.The second show NO curvature of the earth from a terrific height.
Edit: I am unable to post the photos (upload them?) so I am attempting to past the link that will take readers to my two most excellent photographs.
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/719x471q90/r/924/4z1Vx7.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/601x451q90/r/923/ACpaWC.jpg

After my recent journey that included air flight allowing me to see from very high elevations there is no doubt the Earth is flat (with a small chance of concavity(.

How do you mean the second one shows no curvature, the curvature seems pretty obvious.