Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.
The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is telling, because you like to get intimidated by the cosmology club who presents you with placebo proof for the curvature and other outragious claims !

I have no objection to a test.  But I also have no need of further proof because it has been proven over and over again in a number of different ways.  If you feel those proofs are lacking, then you have every opportunity to actually do the test or tests you want and provide evidence of your own. 

In the real world, flat or round, people that have ideas in conflict with the accepted paradigm bear the responsibility of providing the necessary evidence to overturn that paradigm.  Stop asking for people to provide evidence that you're just going to handwave away anyway and go get your own. 

Please note, "It feels..." or "I think..." or "It seems to me..." are not examples of evidence.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on September 13, 2017, 03:47:34 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 13, 2017, 03:34:12 PM

It is only logical that with far better tools and technology the curvature should be measured, observed and tested with all new technologies at work for a far better result than ''seeing shipmasts disappear'', ''measuring shadows in Cairo with sticks'',''attaching a pendulum to a ceiling'' and more backward attempts that can never have a precise outcome that could be achieved with modern technologies.

So how about we build a particle accelerator that will only function if it is perfectly level over the course of kilometers, and we have to use modern engineering to account for Earth's curvature to build it?  Would that be better than ship masts?

Oh wait...we've done that already. 

Maybe you could build a particle accelerator designed around a flat earth and see if you can get it to work...

Do you mind that i raise an eyebrow when they claim to have measured ripples the size of 1/10000 of a proton as indisputable proof for gravitational waves ?
Next time they claim to find a ''god particle'', ''string'' and ''dark matter''.

Gravitational waves are considered proof for the insiders of the cosmology club !(wonder who dares to disagree though....)
Guess who is funding them ?
Nobody understood at the time that some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell.
Did some scientific satelite imagery expert told the media they were fake ?
Did the president tell us they were fake ?
Did the UN tell us they were fake ?

No, no and no.

And there lies the problem,......non of us ordinary men can dispute their cosmological wetdreams.
You can pretend to be more than you are, but i am not buying it for one second.
If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.
The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is telling, because you like to get intimidated by the cosmology club who presents you with placebo proof for the curvature and other outragious claims !

You've been answered by a few others as well, but we have the tools and device to do this. It's used all the time in surveying, which isn't a difficult thing to learn overall. The few I've had a chance to talk to were very happy to discuss what they do and how they do it. But you'll never have an equation or 'universal device' for measuring curvature to those degrees of accuracy, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. Add in refraction, which is all but impossible to measure accurately all the time, and it's a pipe dream that no one cares to pursue. There's nothing to be made from doing it. The device isn't going to make you a bunch of money from ordinary people, and surveyors can already do it with their own set of tools I doubt they would be ready to jump on it either.

Now, do I think such a device could be rather neat to have? Absolutely. But the reality is there's no market for it, and no drive to make it. So it's not likely to happen. Perhaps it could be useful for when we go to another planet, but that won't be for some time.

I do confess to having no idea what you mean with Cyrus Teed's device, and a quick Google search isn't turning up anything to do with such a construction either.

Do you mind that i raise an eyebrow when they claim to have measured ripples the size of 1/10000 of a proton as indisputable proof for gravitational waves ?

Whoever claimed that was "indisputable proof for gravitational waves?"

Next time they claim to find a ''god particle'', ''string'' and ''dark matter''.

Who know?, maybe!

Gravitational waves are considered proof for the insiders of the cosmology club !(wonder who dares to disagree though....)
Guess who is funding them ?

Who claims that? Nothing more than a bit more evidence.

But, to me the cosmology of things far removed from us in distance and time have nothing to do with determining the shape of the earth or whether it rotates. They came long, long before there was any thought of these things.

Just as they came long, long before your nemesis, NASA, was even thought of.

Nobody understood at the time that some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell.
Did some scientific satelite imagery expert told the media they were fake ?
Did the president tell us they were fake ?
Did the UN tell us they were fake ?

What evidence do you have that "some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell"?

If there were any mistakes it would have been in the photo-interpretation. If there was any fakery (not at all unlikely) it was from there to the president, or even . . . . . .

. . . . . .
If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.

Here's a pretty complete write-up Turning the Universe Inside-Out. Ulysses Grant Morrow's Naples Experiment.by Donald E. Simanek
The big problem:

The rectilineator isn't as rigid as it looks.
But there's no such thing as a perfectly rigid body. Bodies flex and warp under load, even under the load of their own weight. A horizontal beam suspended or supported at its center will bend so that the ends droop downward. This can be minimized by suspending or supporting the beam at two points, carefully located. Even then the beam bends somewhat, but in a way that doesn't affect the parallelism at each end. Knowing the materials and the dimensions of the parts, these points can be calculated precisely. Was that done? Morrow doesn't say.

The thing that flat earth's cannot comprehend is just how small the curvature really is.
There is no mechanical structure that have anywhere near the rigidity to test the curvature. The only other means that I can see are optical ones.
The problem the is refraction and the way to overcome that is to use a long evacuated cylinder.
There are lots of other practical aspects, but I'll leave that in your competent hands.

But, why would anyone but flat earthers bother? Others are prepared to accept all the other evidence or the earth being a rotating globe.
And besides, it works and your flat earth doesn't - that's pretty good evidence.

The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is telling,

I didn't say it wasn't a good idea, but ideas have to be put into practice. Cyrus Tweed failed and maybe Donald Simanek knows why.
If you can improve on it, please do. In the meantime stop bitching!

You seem to insist on "proof of curvature" all the time, as though there is no other evidence of the Globe.

But even so, there are numerous cases where curvature has been shown and some where much more can be seen than "should be".
Get used to it! There are numerous examples of "anomalous refraction ". 
Many that even you must admit are anomolous and others where there is little out of the ordinary to be seen, but still more visible than there should be.

You should be familiar with this!

Could the Joshua Nowicki ''superiour mirage'' from the Chicago skyline enter the competition, or was it to much of a ''fata morgana''  to compete in the first place ?

Of course the "Joshua Nowicki 'superior mirage' from the Chicago skyline" could "enter the competition", but since it's only 80 km or so he wouldn't bother!

You should know better than to bring up the "the Chicago skyline" in a situation like this as there are all sorts of hidden/not hidden photos.
Take a look at Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan Posted on June 13, 2014 by Matthew Wolf.
But, here's your "Joshua Nowicki 'superiour mirage' from the Chicago skyline" and a few others taken under different condidtions.

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park

Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)

Chicago from Michigan City, IN (33 miles from skyline) - the lake ate 1/2 the sun too!

It's funny how, except for the so-called mirage photo, as you get closer, more and more of Chicago appears - and still there's more!

Chicago from Burns Harbor, IN (26 miles from skyline)

Chicago from Whiting, IN (15 miles from skyline)

Chicago from Harold Washington Park, IL (6 miles from skyline)

Somehow it seems that the closer you get, the less is hidden! Maybe that lake really is curved.


Get used to it refraction, looming, mirages and Fata Morgana all are real and all do occur from time to time, whatever you might claim.

Red Ship with Mirage

Boats disappear over horizon proof of curvature - DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED

And how do you like a "flying boat"?

There any many examples of this sort of thing, especially over water, because the water temperature can be very different from the air temperature somewhat above it.

Don't worry, I know that you can never be convinced,
but at least others might see that there is more to it than simply claiming that because you can see something that the earth must be flat.

because you like to get intimidated by the cosmology club who presents you with placebo proof for the curvature and other outragious claims !

This is the famous Pier in Scheveningen.
The length of the main posts, total height etc are known .
The total Pier is clearly visible through binoculars in towns 20-40 km up North.

I call on your BS. That means  the pier should be clearly visible from beach near Haarlem, to be more precise beach next to Zuid-Kennemerland National Park. Maybe you can see a little if you climb on top of some high building/tower but from the ground you definitely don't see it entirely. Its more possible that you don't see it all but maybe in good conditions only the top of it.

 And I still urge you do measure the curvature of circle on map. Measure the curvature of 5 kilometer section of the ring with radius of 3000 km . Tool is here http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius . Draw a circle, zoom in at the edge, get some 5 kilometer section and show me clearly measured curvature. And that is circle with less than twice the earth radius.
 If you ignore it and don't do anything then its clear that you know that you can't measure such small curvature easily and you are just being obstinate here.

Boehoehoe your precious globe is under attack

It isn't mine, it isn't precious, and I wouldn't call throwing shit at it an attack.
You are yet to bring any rational challenge to it.

you should be proud to show what you've got

We do, and you just ignore it or dismiss it as fake.
The only person that can convince you is you. If anyone else presents evidence, you will dismiss it as fake.

instead of relying on fake satelite constructs and imaginary cgi

You are yet to show it is. So far all the evidence indicates it is real.

(bundled, photoshopped and interpreted by NASA photoshop personell who have come forward about this

It isn't just NASA. There are numerous space agencies out there.

The blue marble is nothing more than a construct according to NASA photoshop artists.

They never claimed it was a single photo of Earth. From the start they indicated it was a collage of multiple pictures.
The blue marble was a model of the entire Earth, what is commonly known of it is a single rendering of that.
But it wasn't just a construct. It was taken from real satellite photos of Earth which were stitched together into the only shape that works, a globe.

Why are you so angree that there are people who don't accept this as a presentation of reality ?

I'm not angry.
How about you stop focusing on this compilations and instead focus on the numerous single images that there are?

I do have some sympathy for you though,........RiF must have smashed your ego big time

Why would me continually refuting him have smashed my ego?

Tell me when your anger reaches normal levels again.....

My anger is at normal levels.
How about you cut out the pathetic crap and start acknowledging that people have given you what you have asked for?
How about you start trying to respond rationally to the comments of others?

as indisputable proof for gravitational waves ?

Where have they ever claimed it is indisputable proof?

If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.

They have. It is called a theolodite. You can even get an app for it on your phone (although that is limited in accuracy).

You are aware that modern devices, especially high precision ones, typically cost quite a bit of money?

The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is telling

Yes, it is telling that I am a rational human being that realises there will be a significant cost and that people like you will still deny it.

Rowbotham had the chance to use one of these devices. Do you know what he did?
He said it showed that the horizon wasn't at eye level, that there was a dip angle to it as predicted by round Earth models. Rather than accept this he removed the telescope from it and then claimed to not be able to see it any more.

The issue is not our inability to show the curvature, it is your unwillingness to see it.

Because of this, I see it as a complete waste of time and money. If what is already there wont convince you, why would this?

How about you start to address the concerns raised with your hypothetical device?
How about you tell us what it would take to actually convince you that Earth is round?

Quote from: markjo on September 13, 2017, 12:23:46 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 13, 2017, 12:09:32 PM

Of course i would accept a roundearth if a proper test was carried out ....that is the whole idea of testing !

Would you need to conduct the test yourself, or would you accept the results of someone else's test?

A bit of both.
You know what i think about Apollo moonlandings and the dozens of anomalies present in the ISS,....i fully dismiss both as pure fantasy and nothing will ever change my mind unless i went to outerspace myself.
When people have no problem faking just a tiny aspect on some space related occasion, they loose all further credibilty to me !
Without getting into details, trust is extremely delicate, and before i trust any experiment i must understand how it is conducted before i can agree.
...

you just confirmed that you are extreme intolerant.

you say nothing will change your believe. with one exception. but this exception will never be happen because even if you would be offered to travel to the ISS, you will refuse with what ever excuse you can up with, i am 100% shure about that.

and if only that would change your believe, why do you want to do the experiment. as you said nothing else would change your believe, than also the result of that experiment would not change your believe in a flat earth.

you also said that someone looses credibility when he just lies about a little tiny bit of something.
Than i say that every single person on earth has no credibility. because at one point everyone has lied one time.
Yes i lied and you also lied one time, so did also the person that you believe that tell you that the earth is flat in the first place lied.
So why do you believe other FEIB that has also no credibilities?

I am certain that you will never change your believe, even if you do experiments that shows you that the earth is not flat. you will find excuses to not trust the results.

you do not even have to do experiments, you have simply watch a ship drop below the horizon when it drives away from you or look at a sun set and see how the sun drops below the horizon.

But, to me the cosmology of things far removed from us in distance and time have nothing to do with determining the shape of the earth or whether it rotates. They came long, long before there was any thought of these things.
Just as they came long, long before your nemesis, NASA, was even thought of.

Funny because the pear shaped spinning earth is a result of ALL the cosmological bullshit you so eagerly try to remove from the discussion !!!
If you are a spinning pear shaped ball believer in the helicentric model then you simple have to swallow all the rest, wether you like to ignore it or not !

Most flatearthers believe in a creator, so the cosmic pea that somehow exploded into a flat universe beyond any comrpehensible size and the rest of the exotic cosmic magic can be dismissed.
I for one trust the biblical accounts and the magic involved in the current cosmological model surpasses the magic needed for a divine creation with ease.

What evidence do you have that "some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell"?
If there were any mistakes it would have been in the photo-interpretation. If there was any fakery (not at all unlikely) it was from there to the president, or even . . . . . .

Exactly ! the whole construct was fake because the photographs could not show non excistent weapons....
It is proof that authorities can fake photographs with ease.
1 Real photographs with deliberate false implications (example : studio photographs they claim are recorded on the moon)
2 Photoshopped photographs with leading assumptions (example : ISS timelaps,  blue marble, dark moon crossing earth)
3 Real photographs that helps to clarify a real situation (example : a girl and other victims burned after a US napalm bombardment in 'Nam that shows what is really going on)

NASA, the government, the military hardly ever use the third option,....it's against their nature full of deceit and corruption.
They show photographs to help them carry out their evil agenda's.

My point is ,nobody seemed to have noticed and nobody cared (Saddam photographs)...poor. poor inhabitants of Iraque who had to pay dearly because of it.
The chances that outerspace is a reality as shown by NASA and other space agencies is absolutely zero, when are you finally going to lift the veil of your own mind ??

The big problem : The rectilineator isn't as rigid as it looks.

I know it, but like always you somehow missed my point.
I have never claimed it to be correct or anything, simply stating that Teed put a lot of effort into a clever device that globers did not need, because their magic pendulum had swung and the answer was ''YES'' the earth is a sphere 

The thing that flat earth's cannot comprehend is just how small the curvature really is.

That is dishonest of you !
Globers have claimed for very long to see a curve from an airplane window or the high mountains or even Burj Khalifa !!!
I have told you that before, but you seem to ignore that.
If any group did not understand how small the curvature is, it must have been your average glober not flatearthers.
Most flatearthers undertsand the 8 inches per mile squared from the very beginning.....you should ask the average glober on the streets about that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And my answer to your photographic evidence is my logic !!
The default situation is we can see far away in the distance...way further than the supposed curvature line.
The amount of moisture in the air , temperature differences etc. are responsible for obscuring or distorting what can be seen on a good day with all sorts of strange results.

Your logic is :

There is a curvature line and beyond it buildings, ships will gradually dissapear over the curvature (bottom first)
When people do see far over the curvature some atmospheric magic is responsible for that.
Magic because some images rise for hundreds of meters to allign with the horizon perfectly.

Here is a very good example  of the flip flopping magic you support, or it shows reality albite with a bit distortion because of the distances :







This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!

No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.

you just confirmed that you are extreme intolerant.

Only intolerant to proven liars !!

you say nothing will change your believe. with one exception. but this exception will never be happen because even if you would be offered to travel to the ISS, you will refuse with what ever excuse you can up with, i am 100% shure about that.
you also said that someone looses credibility when he just lies about a little tiny bit of something.
Than i say that every single person on earth has no credibility. because at one point everyone has lied one time.
Yes i lied and you also lied one time, so did also the person that you believe that tell you that the earth is flat in the first place lied.
So why do you believe other FEIB that has also no credibilities?

I am certain that you will never change your believe, even if you do experiments that shows you that the earth is not flat. you will find excuses to not trust the results.

you do not even have to do experiments, you have simply watch a ship drop below the horizon when it drives away from you or look at a sun set and see how the sun drops below the horizon.

Totally wrong conclusion.
If one single photograph of the moonlandings was shot in a studio set up without anyone noticing it means :
That we have no certainty whatsoever about all other photographic outerspace evidence.
If one fake moon Apollo photograph could pass the reality test without anyone noticing, all other photographic evidence could be faked too !!!
You do understand this logic,....do you ?
Therefor they have to defend each and every photograph from their huge Apollo and other outerspace arsenal.
Because NASA does understand what it means when ONE single fakery would be revealed !!!

That is what i find so amusing over here, the NASA fanboys have to defend each and every uhh non destroyed photograph ever recorded and label it as genuine, because all of the photographic evidence will collapse like a house of cards if one single photograph was taken in a studio instead of the moon/mars after all.
Therefor they have to defend ALL at all times.

I hope they don't leave to many coke bottles lying around in the studio 

Your logic is :

There is a curvature line and beyond it buildings, ships will gradually dissapear over the curvature (bottom first)
When people do see far over the curvature some atmospheric magic is responsible for that.
Magic because some images rise for hundreds of meters to allign with the horizon perfectly.

You're being dishonest, whether deliberately or not I don't know.  Refraction isn't magic, it's science.  You claim that simple evidence like shadow lengths and ship masts aren't sophisticated enough, but evidence that uses more technology is going to depend on science, which you dismiss as "magic". 

If you reject science, that's fine, but you have to accept the observational evidence of shadow lengths, hemispheric differences in stars, and ships going over the horizon.  Doesn't the Zetetic method emphasize this type of evidence anyway?

If you want more sophisticated proof, you have to have an understanding of science that you just don't have right now.  Until you can see predictable, repeatable results as something other than "magic", then you will need to depend on simpler evidence.  If you reject both, your mind is closed and debate with you is a pointless exercise.

You're being dishonest, whether deliberately or not I don't know.  Refraction isn't magic, it's science.  You claim that simple evidence like shadow lengths and ship masts aren't sophisticated enough, but evidence that uses more technology is going to depend on science, which you dismiss as "magic". 

Fail !!!
I believe in refraction,....not in back flip flopping mirages that defy all odds.


This is recorded 30+ miles out....the Rogers centre should be over the curvature in it's totallity when the numbers are inserted into your globe curvature calculator + refraction

Quote from: rabinoz on September 13, 2017, 07:21:07 PM

But, to me the cosmology of things far removed from us in distance and time have nothing to do with determining the shape of the earth or whether it rotates. They came long, long before there was any thought of these things.
Just as they came long, long before your nemesis, NASA, was even thought of.

Funny because the pear shaped spinning earth is a result of ALL the cosmological bullshit you so eagerly try to remove from the discussion !!!
If you are a spinning pear shaped ball believer in the helicentric model then you simple have to swallow all the rest, wether you like to ignore it or not !

Most flatearthers believe in a creator, so the cosmic pea that somehow exploded into a flat universe beyond any comrpehensible size and the rest of the exotic cosmic magic can be dismissed.
I for one trust the biblical accounts and the magic involved in the current cosmological model surpasses the magic needed for a divine creation with ease.

Quote

What evidence do you have that "some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell"?
If there were any mistakes it would have been in the photo-interpretation. If there was any fakery (not at all unlikely) it was from there to the president, or even . . . . . .

Exactly ! the whole construct was fake because the photographs could not show non excistent weapons....
It is proof that authorities can fake photographs with ease.
1 Real photographs with deliberate false implications (example : studio photographs they claim are recorded on the moon)
2 Photoshopped photographs with leading assumptions (example : ISS timelaps,  blue marble, dark moon crossing earth)
3 Real photographs that helps to clarify a real situation (example : a girl and other victims burned after a US napalm bombardment in 'Nam that shows what is really going on)

NASA, the government, the military hardly ever use the third option,....it's against their nature full of deceit and corruption.
They show photographs to help them carry out their evil agenda's.

My point is ,nobody seemed to have noticed and nobody cared (Saddam photographs)...poor. poor inhabitants of Iraque who had to pay dearly because of it.
The chances that outerspace is a reality as shown by NASA and other space agencies is absolutely zero, when are you finally going to lift the veil of your own mind ??

Quote

The big problem : The rectilineator isn't as rigid as it looks.

I know it, but like always you somehow missed my point.
I have never claimed it to be correct or anything, simply stating that Teed put a lot of effort into a clever device that globers did not need, because their magic pendulum had swung and the answer was ''YES'' the earth is a sphere 

Quote

The thing that flat earth's cannot comprehend is just how small the curvature really is.

That is dishonest of you !
Globers have claimed for very long to see a curve from an airplane window or the high mountains or even Burj Khalifa !!!
I have told you that before, but you seem to ignore that.
If any group did not understand how small the curvature is, it must have been your average glober not flatearthers.
Most flatearthers undertsand the 8 inches per mile squared from the very beginning.....you should ask the average glober on the streets about that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And my answer to your photographic evidence is my logic !!
The default situation is we can see far away in the distance...way further than the supposed curvature line.
The amount of moisture in the air , temperature differences etc. are responsible for obscuring or distorting what can be seen on a good day with all sorts of strange results.

Your logic is :

There is a curvature line and beyond it buildings, ships will gradually dissapear over the curvature (bottom first)
When people do see far over the curvature some atmospheric magic is responsible for that.
Magic because some images rise for hundreds of meters to allign with the horizon perfectly.

Here is a very good example  of the flip flopping magic you support, or it shows reality albite with a bit distortion because of the distances :







This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!

No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.

i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.

if you go to the waterlevel (i did it a few times) you can clearly see that the lower levels of the building a below the horizon.
and if you than go to a higher viewpoint you can see more of the lower level.
That even proves the curvature of the earth.
if it would only cause by refraction it also would depend on the weather how much you can see from the buildings.
but i can assure you that it did not change that much at different kind of weather and temperature of the air and water.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on September 14, 2017, 05:34:46 AM

You're being dishonest, whether deliberately or not I don't know.  Refraction isn't magic, it's science.  You claim that simple evidence like shadow lengths and ship masts aren't sophisticated enough, but evidence that uses more technology is going to depend on science, which you dismiss as "magic". 

Fail !!!
I believe in refraction,....not in back flip flopping mirages that defy all odds.


This is recorded 30+ miles out....the Rogers centre should be over the curvature in it's totallity when the numbers are inserted into your globe curvature calculator + refraction

First of all, you've provided no information about where these photographs were taken and from what height.  You claim 30+ miles, but don't substantiate that claim which makes it conveniently difficult for others to try to duplicate the phenomenon. 

Second, while approximately 595 feet would be required to show over 30 miles, the Rogers Centre (in Toronto) is nearly 300 feet tall and this is within the range of possibility for a refraction explanation under the right conditions.

You say you believe in refraction and then promptly dismiss an effect of refraction as "magic".  You just can't have it both ways.  Either you understand and accept the math, or you don't.

Quote from: Canadabear on September 14, 2017, 04:25:37 AM

you just confirmed that you are extreme intolerant.

Only intolerant to proven liars !!

Quote

you say nothing will change your believe. with one exception. but this exception will never be happen because even if you would be offered to travel to the ISS, you will refuse with what ever excuse you can up with, i am 100% shure about that.
you also said that someone looses credibility when he just lies about a little tiny bit of something.
Than i say that every single person on earth has no credibility. because at one point everyone has lied one time.
Yes i lied and you also lied one time, so did also the person that you believe that tell you that the earth is flat in the first place lied.
So why do you believe other FEIB that has also no credibilities?

I am certain that you will never change your believe, even if you do experiments that shows you that the earth is not flat. you will find excuses to not trust the results.

you do not even have to do experiments, you have simply watch a ship drop below the horizon when it drives away from you or look at a sun set and see how the sun drops below the horizon.

Totally wrong conclusion.
If one single photograph of the moonlandings was shot in a studio set up without anyone noticing it means :
That we have no certainty whatsoever about all other photographic outerspace evidence.
If one fake moon Apollo photograph could pass the reality test without anyone noticing, all other photographic evidence could be faked too !!!
You do understand this logic,....do you ?
Therefor they have to defend each and every photograph from their huge Apollo and other outerspace arsenal.
Because NASA does understand what it means when ONE single fakery would be revealed !!!

That is what i find so amusing over here, the NASA fanboys have to defend each and every uhh non destroyed photograph ever recorded and label it as genuine, because all of the photographic evidence will collapse like a house of cards if one single photograph was taken in a studio instead of the moon/mars after all.
Therefor they have to defend ALL at all times.

I hope they don't leave to many coke bottles lying around in the studio 

if you call it lies, you must have proof to be certain about that.

i like to see your evidence that every single of the picture of the moonlanding, the ISS, and all the other picture from space from all space agencies are fake.

also you have to prove how this video is made:



and this one:



please explain the technique they used to make these long continuous shots.
not even in the movie Gravity we that long single shots and look up how long it took to produce this movie.

EDIT ADD:

how about this over 10 year old video:



now lets see your evidence.

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on September 13, 2017, 03:47:34 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 13, 2017, 03:34:12 PM

It is only logical that with far better tools and technology the curvature should be measured, observed and tested with all new technologies at work for a far better result than ''seeing shipmasts disappear'', ''measuring shadows in Cairo with sticks'',''attaching a pendulum to a ceiling'' and more backward attempts that can never have a precise outcome that could be achieved with modern technologies.

So how about we build a particle accelerator that will only function if it is perfectly level over the course of kilometers, and we have to use modern engineering to account for Earth's curvature to build it?  Would that be better than ship masts?

Oh wait...we've done that already. 

Maybe you could build a particle accelerator designed around a flat earth and see if you can get it to work...

Do you mind that i raise an eyebrow when they claim to have measured ripples the size of 1/10000 of a proton as indisputable proof for gravitational waves ?
Next time they claim to find a ''god particle'', ''string'' and ''dark matter''.

Gravitational waves are considered proof for the insiders of the cosmology club !(wonder who dares to disagree though....)
Guess who is funding them ?
Nobody understood at the time that some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell.
Did some scientific satelite imagery expert told the media they were fake ?
Did the president tell us they were fake ?
Did the UN tell us they were fake ?

No, no and no.

And there lies the problem,......non of us ordinary men can dispute their cosmological wetdreams.
You can pretend to be more than you are, but i am not buying it for one second.
If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.
The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is telling, because you like to get intimidated by the cosmology club who presents you with placebo proof for the curvature and other outragious claims !

The thing is Dutchy they have built such devices you just ignore them or call them fake.
The measure the earth from satellites and you have never once proven them to be fake you just claim it.
Don't you find it odd that to support your world view you have to invent a conspiracy that involves thousands of people?

Quote from: dutchy on September 14, 2017, 05:00:24 AM

This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!

No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.

i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.

I guess that shows exactly how deceitful dutchy is. As with every presentation from flat earthers they must misrepresent something to deceive their viewers and to get desired results.

Quote from: Canadabear on September 14, 2017, 06:05:43 AM

Quote from: dutchy on September 14, 2017, 05:00:24 AM

This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!

No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.

i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.

I guess that shows exactly how deceitful dutchy is. As with every presentation from flat earthers they must misrepresent something to deceive their viewers and to get desired results.

[youtube][/youtube]

I demand an apology from both of you !!!

Umm...  You do realize that the video is debunking FE claims, don't you?

Yes of course i understand every possible observation fits into your magic model. i have been here long enough to understand that.
The magic ball always prevails !!

Quote from: markjo on September 14, 2017, 07:01:25 AM

Umm...  You do realize that the video is debunking FE claims, don't you?

Yes of course i understand every possible observation fits into your magic model. i have been here long enough to understand that.
The magic ball always prevails !!

Just as an FYI, any time that you see heat shimmers near the horizon, that's a sure sign that some form of atmospheric refraction is present.

Quote from: zork on September 14, 2017, 06:34:36 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on September 14, 2017, 06:05:43 AM

Quote from: dutchy on September 14, 2017, 05:00:24 AM

This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!

No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.

i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.

I guess that shows exactly how deceitful dutchy is. As with every presentation from flat earthers they must misrepresent something to deceive their viewers and to get desired results.

[youtube][/youtube]

I demand an apology from both of you !!!

for what?
that you trust pictures without any information from where they were taken and under which circumstances and do not believe somebody that tell you what you can see because that person did see it by himself.

i could more demand an apology for me accusing of lying.

what about the explanations for the videos?

for what?
that you trust pictures without any information from where they were taken and under which circumstances and do not believe somebody that tell you what you can see because that person did see it by himself.

i could more demand an apology for me accusing of lying.

what about the explanations for the videos?

You can clearly see it's taken from the waterlevel at eyeheight ....contrary to your insinuations.
The video explains itself perfectly with the required details, if you'd be bothered to watch it when zooming in and out towards Toronto.

Any discussion with you is futile, i might as well skipp the idea of any decent possibility in that direction all together.
Bye !

Quote from: Canadabear on September 14, 2017, 07:09:01 AM

for what?
that you trust pictures without any information from where they were taken and under which circumstances and do not believe somebody that tell you what you can see because that person did see it by himself.

i could more demand an apology for me accusing of lying.

what about the explanations for the videos?

You can clearly see it's taken from the waterlevel at eyeheight ....contrary to your insinuations.
The video explains itself perfectly with the required details, if you'd be bothered to watch it when zooming in and out towards Toronto.

Any discussion with you is futile, i might as well skipp the idea of any decent possibility in that direction all together.
Bye !

we can not see the lower levels of the buildings in the video, you clearly presented a proof of the curvature.

you got disproven by your own video link.

as i said, you will find excuses to still believe in you flat earth idea even the poof is clearly seen that you are wrong.

Quote from: zork on September 14, 2017, 06:34:36 AM

Quote from: Canadabear on September 14, 2017, 06:05:43 AM

Quote from: dutchy on September 14, 2017, 05:00:24 AM

This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!

No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.

i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.

I guess that shows exactly how deceitful dutchy is. As with every presentation from flat earthers they must misrepresent something to deceive their viewers and to get desired results.

[youtube][/youtube]

I demand an apology from both of you !!!

True or false: there is a mirage effect in those pictures.

Quote from: Canadabear on September 14, 2017, 07:09:01 AM

for what?
that you trust pictures without any information from where they were taken and under which circumstances and do not believe somebody that tell you what you can see because that person did see it by himself.

i could more demand an apology for me accusing of lying.

what about the explanations for the videos?

You can clearly see it's taken from the waterlevel at eyeheight ....contrary to your insinuations.
The video explains itself perfectly with the required details, if you'd be bothered to watch it when zooming in and out towards Toronto.

YOU can clearly see it's taken from water level, because that's what you want to see.

Those of us who don't have preconceived notions see that there is no frame of reference in the foreground to give any indication to the actual elevation of the camera.  We have only your word, based on your desperate need to be right and the biases you entertain to make that happen. 

Regardless, even at water level, there's nothing preventing this from being explained by refraction under the right conditions.

Quote from: Canadabear on September 14, 2017, 07:09:01 AM

for what?
that you trust pictures without any information from where they were taken and under which circumstances and do not believe somebody that tell you what you can see because that person did see it by himself.

i could more demand an apology for me accusing of lying.

what about the explanations for the videos?

You can clearly see it's taken from the waterlevel at eyeheight ....contrary to your insinuations.
The video explains itself perfectly with the required details, if you'd be bothered to watch it when zooming in and out towards Toronto.

Any discussion with you is futile, i might as well skipp the idea of any decent possibility in that direction all together.
Bye !

look at this video, especially start at 12:22 :



there you can see a good explanation that even you should be able to understand. it shows very clear how much of the CN-Tower is hidden and also it shows how refraction works.

what do you say to this video?

> Says the Earth is flat
> Posts picture of buildings partially obscured by curvature

Congrats, you played yourself.

Here Jeranism is working on a test, showing the parameters and test area. IDK if he has completed the test yet or not, but it looks promising.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K1gCLhByQH4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The replies are as i expected, but somehow i had an ignorant bit of hope for something that resembles some forthcoming from both sides.

Please disable the online curvature tool, because it sucks big time  or .....??
I am going to take things into my own hands and going to do it properly after some intense phonecalls this afternoon.


I am going to video/photograph the Pier from Scheveningen from IJmuiden as shown in the picture.
I will do so while gently panning along the coastline to see if some of my end object isn't a superiour mirage..


And trying to see if i can catch a glimpse during dusk/night from the lights.

The distance is between IJmuiden and the Pier in Scheveningen is 45km as the crow flies.
The height of the Ferris wheel is 50 meter.

Accoding to the curvature calculator 127 meters should be hidden behind the curvature if i photograph from IJmuiden from 1.80m eyeheight at the beach.
That means that without taking refraction into consideration the Ferris wheel is not visible by a whopping 77 meters behind the curvature.
If i can somehow record this Ferris wheel from the proposed distance i will show you the results of undeniable proof !

I will have to wait for the dry season, because visuality the coming weeks is extremely poor.

Here Jeranism is working on a test, showing the parameters and test area. IDK if he has completed the test yet or not, but it looks promising.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K1gCLhByQH4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I know, but thanks anyway....he is a flatearther i always follow !

You don't need an online calculator. There is a chart in this link and the formula for calculating it yourself. The REtards even agree it is correct.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

The whole book is on this link.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

You don't need an online calculator. There is a chart in this link and the formula for calculating it yourself. The REtards even agree it is correct.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

The whole book is on this link.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

Samuel Birley Rowbotham was the first one i read about when researching flatearth....even before Eric Dubay took his own direction and started to post video's and accused the flatearth society of being an uncontroled shillfest   

The problem is, like in this whole discussion, that i am trying to figure out exactly how the mind of a glober works....therefor my moderate approach the last pages.
They have the hardcore numbers of their curvature, but always end up by adding truckloads of refraction and other magic to dismiss any evidence.
I simply have to find out what they consider as indisputable proof.
I did find out a few things though......

1 A laser test will not proof a thing
2 As long as bottoms are obscured (Toronto pictures) they see it as proof for the globe no matter how far away that city is in perspective to the amount of hidden curvature.
3 I have to photograph something they agree will always be behind the curvature, no matter what. !!!


But since they have the super duper backflipping horizontal alligning ''SUPERIOUR MIRAGE, MIRAGE, MIRAGe, MIRAge, MIRage, MIrage, Mirage, mirage, mirag, mira, mir, mi ,m,......'' in their deck of ''Illuminati cards''  i have the feeling they will play this trump card no matter what i show.