Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

  • 1484 Replies
  • 245546 Views
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1260 on: September 14, 2017, 11:57:28 AM »

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.
Why is it you believe 77 meters of refraction is not possible?  I would like to see whatever it is that has led you to this conclusion.

Also, understand that this is an all or nothing proposition for you.  Seeing the top of the Ferris Wheel only and not the bottom indicates curvature, even if it's not the curvature that you're calculating.  It is not enough to see the Ferris Wheel from "too far away" unless you see the entire pier, without any bulge blocking the bottom.  Any part at the bottom not visible is blocked by a curve, proving that the surface is not flat.

Just know that going in.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1261 on: September 14, 2017, 12:06:42 PM »
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.
Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.

What you would need for indisputable proof is to show something impossibly far away, by the numbers, that is not occluded at all by a bulge in the Earth.  The pictures of Toronto you showed are missing the bottom of the city.  What exactly do you think is preventing you from seeing that?

In fact, why stop at a Ferris Wheel?  Turn your camera out to sea and give us a picture of England.  No curve means there should be an unobstructed view.  Don't settle for a 45 km parlor trick when you could deliver something monumental in scope.   You show me a picture of England from the Netherlands (subject to authenticity and verification) and you will have my attention.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1262 on: September 14, 2017, 12:08:10 PM »

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.
Why is it you believe 77 meters of refraction is not possible?  I would like to see whatever it is that has led you to this conclusion.

Also, understand that this is an all or nothing proposition for you.  Seeing the top of the Ferris Wheel only and not the bottom indicates curvature, even if it's not the curvature that you're calculating.  It is not enough to see the Ferris Wheel from "too far away" unless you see the entire pier, without any bulge blocking the bottom.  Any part at the bottom not visible is blocked by a curve, proving that the surface is not flat.

Just know that going in.
We'll see when i pan my camera along the entire beach what refraction does........

This isn't simply photographing over a huge body of water where superiour mirages seemingly pop out of nowhere ;D, we have dunes to the left (to the right in the picture) as a marker

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1263 on: September 14, 2017, 12:11:58 PM »
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.
Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.

What you would need for indisputable proof is to show something impossibly far away, by the numbers, that is not occluded at all by a bulge in the Earth.  The pictures of Toronto you showed are missing the bottom of the city.  What exactly do you think is preventing you from seeing that?

In fact, why stop at a Ferris Wheel?  Turn your camera out to sea and give us a picture of England.  No curve means there should be an unobstructed view.  Don't settle for a 45 km parlor trick when you could deliver something monumental in scope.   You show me a picture of England from the Netherlands (subject to authenticity and verification) and you will have my attention.
You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!

Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1264 on: September 14, 2017, 12:37:34 PM »
You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!

Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.
You think you can't see an 1300 km long island across only 300-400 km of ocean because of "vanishing points" and "perspective?????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

C'mon now.  Seriously.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1265 on: September 14, 2017, 12:46:37 PM »



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.
I demand an apology from both of you !!!
For what? You presented above image as both were taken from same place and from same height. They were not.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1266 on: September 14, 2017, 12:48:41 PM »
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.
Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.

What you would need for indisputable proof is to show something impossibly far away, by the numbers, that is not occluded at all by a bulge in the Earth.  The pictures of Toronto you showed are missing the bottom of the city.  What exactly do you think is preventing you from seeing that?

In fact, why stop at a Ferris Wheel?  Turn your camera out to sea and give us a picture of England.  No curve means there should be an unobstructed view.  Don't settle for a 45 km parlor trick when you could deliver something monumental in scope.   You show me a picture of England from the Netherlands (subject to authenticity and verification) and you will have my attention.
You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!

Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.
At the risk of derailing this again on another topic, can you explain the exact limits of perspective? Because from my understanding of how FE claims it should work, there should be a set distance you can see and no more. Going higher shouldn't allow you to see further. If you feel there is a lot to this I'd be more than happy to open up another thread, because nothing I've seen about it matches what is taught and there appears to be no consistency to it.

Slightly on topic: The biggest issue that is coming here, is the inherent flaws of our vision. Even camera's, built to somewhat mimic it, have this problem. The reason it's so difficult to 'simply disprove' a round Earth with an image is this intense variability. Now, it can be accounted for, but it requires specific tools and knowledge that generally aren't used. There's also the simple fact that Earth's curve isn't constant.

That said, if you want anything even approaching convincing you must be ready to complete this check list (imo)
1) Document everything to a precise degree. You should be showing the height you're at and the height you're seeing to at least a few cm on your end and meters on the other.
2) Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. If you can't produce a similar image multiple times under different conditions, then you haven't proven anything. This is the biggest one I see YouTube videos and such not doing. They do something once and claim victory, not understanding their experiment must be repeatable.
3) Documentation (yes again). You should be able to give someone this documentation, and using it they can recreate your experiment and your results to a T without needing to ask you any questions.
4) Proof. Show how what you're seeing can only ever happen on a FE. Ideally this would be seeing the bottoms of buildings, or people cavorting on a beach at an incredible distance. I'm sure there are other ways, but that would be one of the best.

In my mind these are the most important factors to such a 'visual proof' of a FE. You also have to be ready and willing to admit you're wrong if it can be shown what you're seeing is a RE phenomenon. What constitutes that is somewhat on you, but your experiment should lay it out exactly before you take the first step onto the beach for your shots.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1267 on: September 14, 2017, 01:06:04 PM »
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.
Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.

What you would need for indisputable proof is to show something impossibly far away, by the numbers, that is not occluded at all by a bulge in the Earth.  The pictures of Toronto you showed are missing the bottom of the city.  What exactly do you think is preventing you from seeing that?

In fact, why stop at a Ferris Wheel?  Turn your camera out to sea and give us a picture of England.  No curve means there should be an unobstructed view.  Don't settle for a 45 km parlor trick when you could deliver something monumental in scope.   You show me a picture of England from the Netherlands (subject to authenticity and verification) and you will have my attention.
You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!

Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.

i know a but about vanishing points and perspective.

you can not use that to explain that something that is far away drops below the horizon.

perspective is a tool in drawings to let objects look smaller that are further away.
in this tool of perspective drawing you use a vanishing point to be able to get the correct ratio the objects get smaller according to  the distance.
this vanishing point does not exist in the reality.
also in the drawings, the vanishing point is always located in the direction you are looking in the drawing.

if you would look horizontal and parallel to your flat earth, you would look at the far object at the same height as your viewpoint.
than the drawing lines that start below your view point would be drawn upwards.
if you than would zoom in you would be able tho see the whole object and it would never drop below the horizon.

you see that perspective drawing is not usable as an argument for Flat Earth.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1268 on: September 14, 2017, 01:26:36 PM »
i know a but about vanishing points and perspective.

you can not use that to explain that something that is far away drops below the horizon.

perspective is a tool in drawings to let objects look smaller that are further away.
in this tool of perspective drawing you use a vanishing point to be able to get the correct ratio the objects get smaller according to  the distance.
this vanishing point does not exist in the reality.
also in the drawings, the vanishing point is always located in the direction you are looking in the drawing.

if you would look horizontal and parallel to your flat earth, you would look at the far object at the same height as your viewpoint.
than the drawing lines that start below your view point would be drawn upwards.
if you than would zoom in you would be able tho see the whole object and it would never drop below the horizon.

you see that perspective drawing is not usable as an argument for Flat Earth.
Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.
An 83x zoom is not a magic tool !


Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
If you change the angle by raising your camera considerably we can see further of course.

I commented on someone claiming i should photograph England from eyelevel instead of Scheveningen.
This is impossible the more when you realise that waves (higher than 1.80,...the highest wave measured on the Northsea was a whopping 26 meters) easily interfere with our line of sight in the middle of the Northsea.

Don't tell me you think that photographing England from eyelevel standing on the beach in the Netherlands should be possible if the earth was flat.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 01:30:26 PM by dutchy »

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1269 on: September 14, 2017, 01:36:26 PM »
...

Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.
An 83x zoom is not a magic tool !


Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
If you change the angle by raising your camera considerably we can see further of course.

...
you do not understand perspective.
the vanishing point is and imaginary point it does not exist in reality.
why would you be able to see further if you raise you viewpoint?
what is different between 1m high and 10m high?
yes the atmospheric pressure change a little bit, but that changes way more with the weather.

the only explanation is the earth curvature

you said it yourself that you do not know much about vanishing points and perspective therefore i explained it to you.


?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1270 on: September 14, 2017, 02:01:40 PM »
...

Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.
An 83x zoom is not a magic tool !


Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
If you change the angle by raising your camera considerably we can see further of course.

...
you do not understand perspective.
the vanishing point is and imaginary point it does not exist in reality.
why would you be able to see further if you raise you viewpoint?
what is different between 1m high and 10m high?
The height of the waves interfering with our line of sight for instance ?
Quote
yes the atmospheric pressure change a little bit, but that changes way more with the weather.

the only explanation is the earth curvature
Nonsense i went to the euromast several times and was amazed how limited the view was on most occasions do to atmospheric interference.
Even your ball should allow from 180 meters a 50 km view !
I never was able to see any further than 25 km do to the atmosphere.
Quote
You said it yourself that you do not know much about vanishing points and perspective therefore i explained it to you.
You did not comment on the photograph though......
You can clearly see what happens...... the windmills are getting closer to eachother in the distance, up to the point that they scramble together without being able to discern one over the other.
It even happens in the photograph with a modest set of windmills.
If the set of windmills was tripled, you couldn't make out the last one reaching the vanishing point.
And with the ''vanishing point'' i mean that opjects become to small to distinguish but become blurs in the distance where land and the sky meet.

If england had ''New York kinda'' skyscrapers lined up at the cost and you'd remove the atmosphere and waves over 1.50m and gave me a superiour camera then of course i could make a distorted photograph of Egland from eyeheight standing at the beach in the Netherlands.

The Jenna Freda Toronto skyline is a perfect example.
Without a 83 zoom we see noting but water. When zoomed in the skyline (albite distorted) becomes visible.
She perfectly demonstrates this in the video !!
But Toronto has skyscrapers and is only 30 miles away.
England has no skyscrapers at the coast and is 70 miles away from the Netherlands.

How do you think i could see that with a camera ?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 02:17:00 PM by dutchy »

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1271 on: September 14, 2017, 02:20:35 PM »
Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
Sure, if you're looking down a 400 km line of windmills they will fade together like your picture.  What if you're not looking down the line?  What if the line extends to the left and right instead of moving away from you?  Do you honestly believe 400 km of windmills to your left and right will vanish to a single point?  You maintain you can see a 50m wide Ferris wheel over a distance nearly 100 times its visible surface, and yet the island of Britain is about 1300 km long and behind almost the entire Netherlands horizon, and it will somehow come to a vanishing point after a distance of less than 0.33 times it's visible edge?

Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
If you change the angle by raising your camera considerably we can see further of course.

I commented on someone claiming i should photograph England from eyelevel instead of Scheveningen.
This is impossible the more when you realise that waves (higher than 1.80,...the highest wave measured on the Northsea was a whopping 26 meters) easily interfere with our line of sight in the middle of the Northsea.

Don't tell me you think that photographing England from eyelevel standing on the beach in the Netherlands should be possible if the earth was flat.
I will acknowledge that waves could be an issue.  It's hard to imagine a wave stretching for the entire 1300 km of Britain, but just in case, I have modified my proposal. 

I will accept a picture of England from the Netherlands coast taken at a height of 30 meters.  That should give you the cushion you need to get over the highest wave measured.  On a clear day, with no pesky curvature to impede vision, there is no reason you couldn't get an image of Britain from the Netherlands coast assuming a Flat Earth. 

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1272 on: September 14, 2017, 02:25:46 PM »
How do you think i could see that with a camera ?
Camera has better angular resolution than your eyes. Thats why you zee things when you zoom in. But you still don't see bottom part of objects however much you zoom in.
 It also gets tiresome to see you complain how earth curvature calculator does not work. Please, provide another one for flat earth where you can calculate how far you can see and how much of the object you see. For now RE gives you a estimate. FE gives you nothing. And somehow you only complain about RE side.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 02:38:14 PM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1273 on: September 14, 2017, 03:14:32 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 still onto the "pear shaped spinning earth" you're not prepared for any serious debate. I wrote specifically in reply to you about the total dishonesty of using that stupid out of context description to ridicule what you can't understand.
Read what Neil DeGrasse-Tyson actually said, not the out-of-context quotes so many flat earth deceivers are known for:

          "Earth is not only oblate — wider at the equator than pole-to-pole, but pear shaped — slightly wider just south of the equator.  Sep. 19, 2014".
In case you cannot understand the words "slightly wider" that means just a little bit wider.
Maybe for people like flat-earthers, out to dishonestly trap someone on every word spoken, he might have said "very slightly wider".
But, the earth is almost precisely an oblate spheroid (ellipsoid if you like)
having a polar diameter of 12,714 km and an equatorial diameter of 12, 756 km, only 0.34% different.
And the deviation from this ellipsoid is no more than a couple of hundred metres.
You might say "who cares?" and on the surface, it would not seem to matter.
The uncorrected GPS altitude, however, is from the "reference ellipsoid" and you would not want that out by a couple of hundred metres.
Would you, in all honesty, use the unqualified description "pear shaped spinning earth" had you not picked it from your "Source-of-all-wisdom a Flat-earth Youtube video or worse still someone else's unsupported statement?

Quote from: dutchy
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 !
Don't you tell me what I have to swallow!
The Globe was the accepted shape thousands of years before "modern cosmology".
There seems little doubt that the Globe was accepted in the early "Church" and early Islam, at least to the time of the crusades.
And the Heliocnetric Globe became accepted over the period from Copernicus to say Kepler - not serious consideration was given to the earth's being flat.

I could just as easily claim that you have to swallow the earth moving "up" at the speed of light because Universal Acceleration is the only feasible explanation of gravity on a flat earth. I posted this to you a few days ago showing that many flat earthers do believe that:
You flat earthers are a weird mob. You claim that "The earth is at rest, just like you feel it!"
But here we have th3rm0m3t3r0 suggesting that the "entire universe" accelerates upwards at ~9.8 m/s2.
The traditional model involves a force known as universal acceleration. This entails the Earth being accelerated "upwards" at ~9.8 m/s2. My idea is that it's not just the Earth doing it, it's the entire universe. This solves and relativistic issues caused by the UA (universal accelerator).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And the Flat Earth Society has similar ideas,
Quote
Gravity
In the Flat Earth model, 'gravity', rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model. Like the force of gravity, the Earth's acceleration causes several commonly observed phenomena in our daily lives.
Universal Acceleration' is a theory of gravity within the Flat Earth Model. The traditional theory of gravity (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

Rather than a downward pull due to the presence of mass, the theory of Universal Acceleration asserts that the roughly disk-shaped Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
There are two Universal Acceleration models. The first model deals with the Universal Accelerator, which sits underneath the Earth and accelerates anything it touches. The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.

VELOCITY OF THE EARTH
According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever without reaching or passing the speed of light. Relative to an observer on Earth, the Earth's acceleration will always be 1g. Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, however, the Earth's acceleration decreases as the its velocity approaches c. It all depends on our frame of reference to measure and explain the Earth's motion. Thus, despite what most people think, there is no absolute "speed"; or velocity of the Earth.
So not only do we have the earth accelerating upwards at g, but the Wiki invokes Einstein's Special Relativity to justify part of it!

Now, dutchy, these are not my words. They are from "the Wiki" and many flat earthers accept this UA idea.

I don't accept this stuff!
My earth is a Globe that rotates sedately at one revolution in about and 23 hours and 54 minutes and orbits the sun in about 365.24 days.
That makes far more sense to me than all this gobbledegook about all the differing explanations of gravity that your mob come up with.

Quote from: dutchy
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.
But many flatearthers do not believe in a creator and many who believe the earth is a Globe do believe in a creator - that is no argument.

Quote from: dutchy
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.
No, you insist that your interpretation of "the biblical accounts" even though many millions disagree with that interpretation.
You really should read:
Flat Earth Myth - More Bogus History, Creating  Bogus  History, What is the Myth About the Flat Earth ? and
The flat earth myth.
Creation Ministries, The flat-earth myth and creationism
A flat earth, and other nonsense, Dealing with ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet
Creation Ministries, Flat earth leader is an evolutionist!
But, you are so indoctrinated that you never take the slightest notice of anything written to you!
So please stop this silly connection between the shape of the earth and evolution - there is none.

Quote from: dutchy
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.
No, it is an indication that aerial or satellite photos are hard to interpret!
Quote from: dutchy
1 Real photographs with deliberate false implications (example : studio photographs they claim are recorded on the moon)
Proof thank you! There were numerous photos of mockups and "real" Apollo modules photographed during testing and crew training, so what?

Quote from: dutchy
2 Photoshopped photographs with leading assumptions (example : ISS timelaps,  blue marble, dark moon crossing earth)
What is wrong with ISS time lapses?
Sure NASA announced that a "blue marble" was a composite of images and data gathered from satellites in low earth orbit, so they had a high resolution representation of the whole earth,
but there are thousands of photographs of earth from space from satellites of numerous space agencies.
Is all the world lying just to preserve your fiction? I don't think so!
What is wrong with the photographs of the "dark moon crossing earth" other than your inability to understand it?

Quote from: dutchy
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.
Reprehensible as that is, it is totally irrelevant to NASA or any discussion on the shape of the earth

Quote from: dutchy
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 ??
It would be far more accurate to say
"Outerspace is a reality as shown by NASA and other space agencies is totally proven, when are you finally going to lift the veil of your own mind?"
It fits precisely with the picture of the earth and the solar system developed over centuries before "NASA and other space agencies" were thought of.

<< This has got too long and the rest is more on current evidence, so I'll make that a separate reply >>

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1274 on: September 14, 2017, 04:44:06 PM »
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 !
Again, that is just part of the explanation for why. It isn't needing to show Earth is round.

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.
Nope. No magic is required in the current cosmological model. Fare more is needed for your biblical bullshit, including the very magic that is needed to have your god exist in the first place.

All a god does is push the problem back.

But thanks for finally admitting (basically) that your belief is not based upon any rational thought and instead is just based upon religious bullshit.

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.
Are you capable of providing these photos clearly showing weapons of mass destruction? Until you do, it is not proof of anything.

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.
Sure they do, such as the countless images from space you just ignore.

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 ??
Perhaps when you provide proof for your baseless claims?

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
And it was not enough to actually get a result. As such it was an entire waste.

their magic pendulum had swung and the answer was ''YES'' the earth is a sphere
You mean the real pendulum based upon real physics that showed Earth was rotating.
It was already shown to be a sphere long ago.

And my answer to your photographic evidence is my logic !!
Yes, your special logic which is pure bullshit rather than actual logic.

The default situation is we can see far away in the distance...way further than the supposed curvature line.
You mean the supposed curvature line for a vacuum and a perfect sphere?

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.
Yes, exactly as you would expect.


This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!
Still clearly showing a large section of the buildings missing, which would not be the case on a flat Earth. Additionally, there is no indication of height of the observation so no indication that it wouldn't be expected on a round Earth.

Only intolerant to proven liars !!
Except you are yet to prove they are liars.

Totally wrong conclusion.
If one single photograph of the moonlandings was shot in a studio set up without anyone noticing it means :
And you are yet to show this to be the case.

[youtube][/youtube]
I demand an apology from both of you !!!
Show you just show your own dishonesty, where it wasn't hidden due to the curve, it just appeared too small to see.

And it shows clear evidence that it suffers from serious atmospheric refraction due to the distortion at the bottom.
So no apology for you.

You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!

Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.
I know a lot about it. You clearly don't.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away.
Perspective makes things appear smaller. Telescopes and the like make them appear bigger. You can use telescopes or zoom lenses to get around the issue of perspective.

Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.
And by zooming in, they are not.

Don't tell me you think that photographing England from eyelevel standing on the beach in the Netherlands should be possible if the earth was flat.
Then go higher. Say 50 m?

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1275 on: September 14, 2017, 04:50:04 PM »
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.
Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.

What you would need for indisputable proof is to show something impossibly far away, by the numbers, that is not occluded at all by a bulge in the Earth.  The pictures of Toronto you showed are missing the bottom of the city.  What exactly do you think is preventing you from seeing that?

In fact, why stop at a Ferris Wheel?  Turn your camera out to sea and give us a picture of England.  No curve means there should be an unobstructed view.  Don't settle for a 45 km parlor trick when you could deliver something monumental in scope.   You show me a picture of England from the Netherlands (subject to authenticity and verification) and you will have my attention.
You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!

Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.
I don't know whether he knows much about it or not but it seems like you don't.
A telescope would bring back the image if the earth were flat.
Perspective makes things appear smaller as they grow in distance and going higher would only help if the world were round.
Again though, I think you should do these experiments to see what happens.  It won't be proof of anything regardless of the results but it might be evidence of something.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1276 on: September 14, 2017, 07:20:42 PM »
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  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I fail to see you point.

Quote from: dutchy
Quote
The thing that flat earthers 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.
You have "told me" lots of things without any basis before, so what? What about a little justification for your claims.

Quote from: dutchy
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.....
No most flat earthers completely misunderstand the "8 inches per mile squared" and think it gives the height of the bulge and the hieight hidden.
The "8 inches per mile squared" is nothing more than the amount a distant point i lower that the "local horizontal".
You, yourself made the same error in Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe « Reply #1183 on: September 13, 2017, 07:01:03 AM ».
The same problem crops up over and over, with flat earthers claiming, say, that over 30 miles 600 feet should be hidden with no allowance made for viewing height.
The viewing height is rarely less than 10 feet above the water level. Even that height brings the hidden height down to 455 feet and
further investigation often shows that the viewing height was really about 30 feet.

Quote from: dutchy
you should ask the average glober on the streets about that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Probably true, sumply because most people don't give the matter much thought. They justs go about their life accepting the "status quo".
That is probably, as has been stated by Neil Degrasse Tyson and many here at least partly due to the failure of "modern education" not teaching "how to think".

Quote from: dutchy
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.
Well, it's up to you to prove that is the "default case" then! It is complicated by most of these photographs being over water, where there is often a big difference between the water temperature and the general air temperature.
Quote from: dutchy
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.
I guess so do "align with the horizon perfectly" and some appear even high above the horizon as in
Really? You don't believe in mirages!

You don't accept mirages - read: MIRAGES IN FINLAND, You can observe shifting horizons, eerie ships and other mirages along the Finnish coastline.

Neither does anyone doubt that we sometimes see quite large ships well above the water nor sailing boats flying.



The Red Ship Rides above the Ocean!
   



And how do you like a :o "flying boat"?  :o
   
even back when everyone
 ;D knew that the earth was a Globe. ;D

This is a drawing, but of a sighting that
may have led to the Flying Dutchman myth
No, seeing that sort of thing a few times is evidence of nothing more than uncommon optical effects and they have been observed for centuries,

Quote from: dutchy
Here is a very good example  of the flip flopping magic you support
No it's not - and I thought that YOU were the expert. A Professor once said to me (just to "cheer me up" when entering an exam room)
"Do you know the definition of an 'expert'?", of course, I didn't, so he said "The 'ex' is the unknown you're trying to find and the 'spurt is a 'little drip under pressure'!".
Well, dutchy, you are beginning to sound like that 'spurt'!
Quote from: dutchy
, 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.
Give me a photo of what "can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day" and I won't need any "refractional magic". Look at your photos a bit more critically!
I wouldn't even waste my time calculating hidden heights etc, etc for a photo like that! Metabunk, Mick West is a bit smarter than I, so he might.

Now go and find some photos with a sharp horizon, maybe this sort of thing:

Toronto 30 miles across Lake Ontario.
The Lewiston GardenFest Comes to a Close, Posted on July 16, 2014
     
Toronto across Lake Ontario
On a clear day, which it was, you can see Toronto across Lake Ontario
from Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario (it's only about 30 miles or 50 km).
A Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus) is flying close to shore.
You might wonder why so many posted photos show so much refraction, looming and even mirage effects. I think that there are two solid reasons:

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1277 on: September 14, 2017, 08:14:03 PM »
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 !!
Sure, the Heliocentric Globe "always prevails" because  "every possible observation fits into your magic model" the Heliocentric Globe and
your Pitiful Pepperoni Pizza Planet simply does not fit such simple observation as:
That's enough for now, but there are plenty more simple observations the will not fit your model.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1278 on: September 15, 2017, 12:37:14 AM »
And he just brushes all these off, ignores and says - but I can't see the curvature and I can't go and measure it easily with my ruler.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1279 on: September 15, 2017, 02:08:24 AM »
And he just brushes all these off, ignores and says - but I can't see the curvature and I can't go and measure it easily with my ruler.
Wotcha problem looks flat as a pancake to me. I can't see any curvature!

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1280 on: September 15, 2017, 05:36:18 AM »
...

Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.
An 83x zoom is not a magic tool !


Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
If you change the angle by raising your camera considerably we can see further of course.

...
you do not understand perspective.
the vanishing point is and imaginary point it does not exist in reality.
why would you be able to see further if you raise you viewpoint?
what is different between 1m high and 10m high?
The height of the waves interfering with our line of sight for instance ?
look on a day without waves.
you only bring up new excuses
Quote
Quote
yes the atmospheric pressure change a little bit, but that changes way more with the weather.

the only explanation is the earth curvature
Nonsense i went to the euromast several times and was amazed how limited the view was on most occasions do to atmospheric interference.
Even your ball should allow from 180 meters a 50 km view !
I never was able to see any further than 25 km do to the atmosphere.
again, you do not realise what i want to say:
what is the reason of the different distance i can see in different heights?
i got before an answer from somebody that said id was because of the difference in the atmospheric pressure at different heights.
Quote
Quote
You said it yourself that you do not know much about vanishing points and perspective therefore i explained it to you.
You did not comment on the photograph though......
You can clearly see what happens...... the windmills are getting closer to eachother in the distance, up to the point that they scramble together without being able to discern one over the other.
It even happens in the photograph with a modest set of windmills.
If the set of windmills was tripled, you couldn't make out the last one reaching the vanishing point.
And with the ''vanishing point'' i mean that opjects become to small to distinguish but become blurs in the distance where land and the sky meet.
what you described is not the vanishing point, it is the limit of visibility.
that limit depends on the atmospheric properties at the moment and also on the tool you use to look at the distant object.
if  you only look with your naked eye your limit is shorter than if you use a telescope.
Quote

If england had ''New York kinda'' skyscrapers lined up at the cost and you'd remove the atmosphere and waves over 1.50m and gave me a superiour camera then of course i could make a distorted photograph of Egland from eyeheight standing at the beach in the Netherlands.

The Jenna Freda Toronto skyline is a perfect example.
Without a 83 zoom we see noting but water. When zoomed in the skyline (albite distorted) becomes visible.
She perfectly demonstrates this in the video !!
But Toronto has skyscrapers and is only 30 miles away.
England has no skyscrapers at the coast and is 70 miles away from the Netherlands.

How do you think i could see that with a camera ?

BTW: you also did not answer at any time to my question about the videos i posted from the ISS and the MIR.
you claim that they are fake, please explain how they got made? you should have some explanation to support your claim.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1281 on: September 23, 2017, 03:24:30 PM »
As we can all see you REtards still refuse to answer my questions regarding the Black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.

This because I'm correct and you Heliocentrics can not provide an answer that is satisfactory.

Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .



The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is unsatisfactory.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 03:48:02 PM by Resistance.is.Futile »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1282 on: September 23, 2017, 03:47:42 PM »
Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .


I'm not wasting time watching these silly videos you dig up out the discard pile!

You go through it and list the major arguments and where they are presented in the video and I'll take in from there.
At least that way we might find out if you have the slightest idea of what it's all about,
          because from we've seen in the past you haven't a clue about either the Heliocentric Globe or the Pizza Planet!

Bye bye time-waster!

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1283 on: September 23, 2017, 03:57:12 PM »
Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .


I'm not wasting time watching these silly videos you dig up out the discard pile!

You go through it and list the major arguments and where they are presented in the video and I'll take in from there.
At least that way we might find out if you have the slightest idea of what it's all about,
          because from we've seen in the past you haven't a clue about either the Heliocentric Globe or the Pizza Planet!

Bye bye time-waster!

I have told you before NO ONE is able to give me direction regarding my posts .

You are yet again not able to provide any viable explanation to explain the many contradictions in the said video regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model.

I hope your inferior colleugue "Jack the Twat" will entertain me for a while; that being said I doubt he wants me to humiliate him again; he still hasn't answered my questions regarding black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 04:00:58 PM by Resistance.is.Futile »

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1284 on: September 23, 2017, 03:59:44 PM »
Another video presented by someone clearly lacking in understanding of the sizes and distances involved in our solar system.

It starts off claiming that, because all the diagrams of the eclipse aren't to scale, that NASA is lying to "us", and hiding the true cause of this celestial phenomenon.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1285 on: September 23, 2017, 04:02:48 PM »
Another video presented by someone clearly lacking in understanding of the sizes and distances involved in our solar system.

It starts off claiming that, because all the diagrams of the eclipse aren't to scale, that NASA is lying to "us", and hiding the true cause of this celestial phenomenon.

Incorrect.

I suggest you watch the video over and over until you are able to comprehend what is being said REtard.
 

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1286 on: September 23, 2017, 04:05:19 PM »
As we can all see you REtards still refuse to answer my questions regarding the Black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.
You mean we refuse to let you change the subject to avoid admitting your defeat?

Meanwhile, you have refused to answer so many questions it isn't funny.

This because I'm correct and you Heliocentrics can not provide an answer that is satisfactory.
No, it is because we are sick of you changing the subject to avoid discussing an issue or accepting a refutation.

Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .
Again, stop changing the subject. First, go back and read through what has been said regarding the eclipse on a RE model. See if you have any issues with it, and if so, clearly explain what the issue is. No crap of just saying you find it unacceptable.

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is unsatisfactory.
Except it does match reality. We have explained that. All you have done to counter it is say you don't find our explanation acceptable.
You are yet to provide a single issue where it doesn't match.

You are yet again not able to provide any viable explanation to explain the many contradictions in the said video regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model.
How about this then:
Your video is a load of crap which does not contain any contradictions regarding the HC model. Instead it just presents numerous strawmen.

If you think it has an actual contradiction, then provide it here, in text form, as a single argument.
If you are unable to do that, then it means you are unable to provide any actual contradiction.
I know, lets start with your claims regarding the apparent motion of the lunar eclipse.
The HC explanation (the actual explanation, not your pathetic strawman) has been provided in a prior post. Go back, read it, and then point out what is actually wrong with it.
If you are unable to, then admit you were wrong and we can move on.


I hope your inferior colleugue "Jack the Twat" will entertain me for a while; that being said I doubt he wants me to humiliate him again; he still hasn't answered my questions regarding black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.
The only twat here is you. I am not here to entertain you, I am here to point out your bullshit, which I have done repeatedly.
The only people you have humiliated is yourself and all others that subscribe to your nonsense of a FE.
You have repeatedly had your ass handed to you and have just tried to change the subject to avoid it.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1287 on: September 23, 2017, 04:07:22 PM »
I've seen it enough...

I'll just sit here and watch you get your ass handed to you again
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1288 on: September 23, 2017, 04:27:09 PM »
As we can all see you REtards still refuse to answer my questions regarding the Black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.
You mean we refuse to let you change the subject to avoid admitting your defeat?

Meanwhile, you have refused to answer so many questions it isn't funny.

This because I'm correct and you Heliocentrics can not provide an answer that is satisfactory.
No, it is because we are sick of you changing the subject to avoid discussing an issue or accepting a refutation.

Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .
Again, stop changing the subject. First, go back and read through what has been said regarding the eclipse on a RE model. See if you have any issues with it, and if so, clearly explain what the issue is. No crap of just saying you find it unacceptable.

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is unsatisfactory.
Except it does match reality. We have explained that. All you have done to counter it is say you don't find our explanation acceptable.
You are yet to provide a single issue where it doesn't match.

You are yet again not able to provide any viable explanation to explain the many contradictions in the said video regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model.
How about this then:
Your video is a load of crap which does not contain any contradictions regarding the HC model. Instead it just presents numerous strawmen.

If you think it has an actual contradiction, then provide it here, in text form, as a single argument.
If you are unable to do that, then it means you are unable to provide any actual contradiction.
I know, lets start with your claims regarding the apparent motion of the lunar eclipse.
The HC explanation (the actual explanation, not your pathetic strawman) has been provided in a prior post. Go back, read it, and then point out what is actually wrong with it.
If you are unable to, then admit you were wrong and we can move on.


I hope your inferior colleugue "Jack the Twat" will entertain me for a while; that being said I doubt he wants me to humiliate him again; he still hasn't answered my questions regarding black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.
The only twat here is you. I am not here to entertain you, I am here to point out your bullshit, which I have done repeatedly.
The only people you have humiliated is yourself and all others that subscribe to your nonsense of a FE.
You have repeatedly had your ass handed to you and have just tried to change the subject to avoid it.

You are incorrect.

Here is a quick summary :

I have constantly only spoke about the solar eclipse apart from our construction episode where you humiliated yourself when you claimed to have constructed buildings as a labourer with a ball as a level.

 ;D

Shadow direction.

Shadow size .

Small orb like projections cast on the ground by the small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of.

The distribution of light from the Sun during the Solar eclipse does not match the 3D simulation in the video I posted from globe busters this is because your model is incorrect.

In the last video I posted the video provided by NASA doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow crossing the USA.

The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video is about the same size as the imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .

This will do for now to keep me entertained for a while.

These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unsatisfactory and impossible.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 05:49:40 PM by Resistance.is.Futile »

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1289 on: September 23, 2017, 05:55:37 PM »
As we can all see you REtards still refuse to answer my questions regarding the Black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.
You mean we refuse to let you change the subject to avoid admitting your defeat?

Meanwhile, you have refused to answer so many questions it isn't funny.

This because I'm correct and you Heliocentrics can not provide an answer that is satisfactory.
No, it is because we are sick of you changing the subject to avoid discussing an issue or accepting a refutation.

Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .
Again, stop changing the subject. First, go back and read through what has been said regarding the eclipse on a RE model. See if you have any issues with it, and if so, clearly explain what the issue is. No crap of just saying you find it unacceptable.

The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is unsatisfactory.
Except it does match reality. We have explained that. All you have done to counter it is say you don't find our explanation acceptable.
You are yet to provide a single issue where it doesn't match.

You are yet again not able to provide any viable explanation to explain the many contradictions in the said video regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model.
How about this then:
Your video is a load of crap which does not contain any contradictions regarding the HC model. Instead it just presents numerous strawmen.

If you think it has an actual contradiction, then provide it here, in text form, as a single argument.
If you are unable to do that, then it means you are unable to provide any actual contradiction.
I know, lets start with your claims regarding the apparent motion of the lunar eclipse.
The HC explanation (the actual explanation, not your pathetic strawman) has been provided in a prior post. Go back, read it, and then point out what is actually wrong with it.
If you are unable to, then admit you were wrong and we can move on.


I hope your inferior colleugue "Jack the Twat" will entertain me for a while; that being said I doubt he wants me to humiliate him again; he still hasn't answered my questions regarding black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.
The only twat here is you. I am not here to entertain you, I am here to point out your bullshit, which I have done repeatedly.
The only people you have humiliated is yourself and all others that subscribe to your nonsense of a FE.
You have repeatedly had your ass handed to you and have just tried to change the subject to avoid it.

You are incorrect.

Here is a quick summary :

I have constantly only spoke about the solar eclipse apart from our construction episode where you humiliated yourself when you claimed to have constructed buildings as a labourer with a ball as a level.

 ;D

Shadow direction.

Shadow size .

Small orb like projections cast on the ground by the small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of.

The distribution of light from the Sun during the Solar eclipse does not match the 3D simulation in the video I posted from globe busters this is because your model is incorrect.

In the last video I posted the video provided by NASA doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow crossing the USA.

The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video is about the same size as the imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .

This will do for now to keep me entertained for a while.

These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unsatisfactory and impossible.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You, of course, are wrong about pretty much everything.
The path, direction, speed, pretty much everything about the eclipse was predicted by and in perfect accord with the heliocentric model.
Now you did claim that there would be, was it thousands, of videos from high altitude balloons proving we are wrong about what causes the eclipse.  What happened?