My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth

  • 181 Replies
  • 28459 Views
?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #90 on: August 02, 2017, 05:39:42 PM »
Dutchy... your logic is weaker than your Kung Foo Grasshopper...

I mean, like, if you really really really really zoom in on something you can see more detail? I wonder... if I zoom in on it even more if I'll see... even more detail...

Like... if I had a Nikon camera.... and I was looking at a bird... And I added a 2x zoom lens onto my 32x zoom... I wonder if I would see more detail... I wonder if I could make out the birds eye from REALLY FAR AWAY... I wonder, if the bird held still enough for me... and I put another 2x zoom ontop of my already 64x zoom if I might see the birds nostril on its beak.... LIKE WOW
Hahahaha....the usual globular redicule  :'(

This is the world record for long distance photography zooming in on 430 km away with a zoom integrated 1200 mm – f./2.8
And why is that picture so special? Yes, it's a world record for a photograph over the earth, implying something exceptional about it.
So, you Mr Dutchy, being the ;D honest investigator that you are ;D carefully looked into it to find out why it is exceptional.

The source of that photograph is very easy to track down and is That states
Quote
Current world record of distance landscape photography
The silhouette of Barre des Ecrins (4102 m) in the middle left of the image, from Pic de Finestrelles (2820 m)  at 440 Km, before the sunrise.  In other pictures, more left other summits a little more far away.
So claiming it as a record does imply something that is not usually seen.
Being the careful investigator that you are of course, you looked into exactly what these unusual conditions were.

According to Google Earth the highest part of Pic Gaspard has an elevation of 3826 m at Lat 44.997919°, Long 6.330865°.
The photo is taken from Pic de Finestrelles, which has an elevation of  2826 m and is at  Lat 42.414645°, Long 2.133794° .
The midpoint has an elevation of about 14 m so we need to subtract that from the viewing height.

The Metabunk curve calculator would indicate that about 5089 m should be hidden, yet we can see a little of Pic Gaspard. So something is happening!
For a start, a great deal is hidden, but not as much as expected under ideal conditions.

But normal refraction, like it or not Mr Dutchy, does appear to raise distant objects, like the sun when rising.
Maybe the website that presents that record photo has a clue.
Quote
We are sure that other records will come soon. From the Pyrenees the options are almost finished but any attempt to increase the distance is still possible if atmospheric conditions are especially favorable refractive exceptional transparency. We’re on that. By the other hand, also, maybe next arises from another continent, from another mountain range of our planet. We think it’s really probably.

From: Beyond Horizons, Pic de Finestrelles – Pic Gaspard (Ecrins) | 443 km.
But, of course, you would claim that those people are also part of this evil conspiracy!

Yes, this and other uncommonly seen distances are quite possibly rare cases of extreme refraction otherwise why would they be rare?

Quote from: dutchy
This is the moon  380.000 km away, that is roughly 884 times further away with a Nikon coolpix P900


The earth's atmosphere is more interfering in the example of the first mountain photograph, but the moon photograph has also a serious amount of atmosphere in between.
No not quite! In the 443 km photo there is 443 km of air (now how did I work that out?) ,
but if the moon is directly overhead, the effective thickness of the atmosphere is only about 9 km!
See The pressure scale height of an atmosphere.
In other words, above us, the atmosphere gets very thin and transparent very quickly.

Quote from: dutchy
My point was you could never imagine the moon was 884 times further away when looking at the results of photography from earth.
Quite true! Looking at any stationary object more than even 100 m away there is no way to even estimate the distance unless there are other objects nearby for reference.
There are numerous optical illusions like this.

BUT! The moon, for example, is not stationary. It appears to move across the sky and so the distance from the observer to the moon changes.
The amount of change depends on you "earth model".
On the globe, the change in distance can be up to 6370 km and
on the flat earth could be around double that.  -  you can work that out for whatever you think the moon does.

Now the apparent size of the moon does not change more that 1 or 2% over the course of a night. I have plenty of photos showing that!
So we could estimate that the moon has to be at least 50 x 6370 km away - you can do the sums.
And i am supposed to answer your ongoing gibberish ? But yeah because i like you  ;D

It is the world record of long distance photography !!!
But this simple logic escapes you completely and you don't even understand it's implications.

What amount of refraction is within the boundaries of the world record and when does a photograpgh becomes a mere reflection/mirage of a reality we don't really see from below a curvature and therefor NOT world record material ?
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 ?

Does the panel to determine the world record have all data about refraction, looming, lensing, mirage, superiour mirage present ?
And is there a refractional criterea the long distance photographs must not exeed ?

BTW did you receive your monthly pay check ? I would give you a salery cut, because you are getting sloppy lately Rab.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #91 on: August 02, 2017, 05:42:58 PM »
I'm still confused as to why that picture is supposed to be special.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #92 on: August 02, 2017, 07:06:06 PM »
Ask any random person with a globe in your hand where the nearest star is when you would use this scaled down reality.
The nearest star Alpha Centauri is located at 1.000.000 km away using a globe with a diameter of 30cm.
Andromeda the nearest galaxi is at 650.000.000.000 km from the tiny 30cm globe.

No ORDINARY person can grasp the cosmological reality <gratuitous remark>

Astronomical sizes, distances, and time scales are way beyond ordinary human experience, true. That's why large numbers are sometimes colloquially referred to as "astronomical". So? Are you saying that because most humans aren't used to dealing with astronomically vast distances means they don't exist? Sorry. That's wrong.

Quote
If you say you do, you are simply lying to yourself.

Thank you for sharing your uninformed opinion. It will be given consideration commensurate with what it cost to obtain.

Quote
Not a single indication what we are dealing with when looking at the stars.
Everything on earth, in the air, at sea gives us a rough estimation what we are dealing with distance wise.
Only when it comes to the cosmos, our senses are off by an idiotic margin.
No matter how many times we have wittinessed the sun, moon and the stars.
We cannot [fathom] the supposed cosmological distances compared to long rides/ flights we made on earth.

Well, yeah... so? That's why we don't rely on our senses to determine cosmological distances. We use instruments - they're much more precise and much more reliable.

Quote
No, that sun doesn't look like it is 150.000.000 km away, no matter how many years you walked the earth or how many rationalisations you have made.

It does to me. The sun is really, really, big compared with anything on earth, so to appear the size it is, it must be really, really, far away (compared with distances on earth).

Obviously, YMMV.

Quote
It still looks like it's much, much closer than 150.000.000km.

Which is why you shouldn't rely on your senses alone to determine the distance to the sun.

Quote
So why does our brain not correct this misconception ?
We know the earth is a globe and millions km away for more than 2000 years.

It was much more recent than 2000 years ago before a good measure of the size of the astronomical unit [mean radius of the earth's orbit] was determined, and, thus, the size of solar system became known. The ancients knew the sun was "far away", and through the ages some wild-ass guesses were made (all terribly low, as far as I know), but a realistic size was much later.

Do you know how difficult it was to measure the distance to the sun? It was very difficult, but some well-educated people devised a clever method to determine it with reasonable accuracy, and it succeeded.
Quote
When does our collective brain estimates the distance properly in relation to the 'well known facts"

Even modern children when asked how far the sun is , fail to remotely come up with the right answer.

According to you, modern children come up with "a dome in sort of an aquarium type home" models of the cosmos, too. Most, but obviously not all, children learn why that isn't right, but only if they're reasonably astute, inquisitive, or both.

Quote
We know the sun is millions of km away for very long
We teach our children that the sun is millions of km away

Do you? "We" do, because it makes absolute sense.

Quote
We repeat it as much as we can
We still do not click with this cosmic reality when we observe the stars, moon and the sun.
Strange, because 'evolution' should have corrected our brain by now.

"Corrected" in what way? Why? Where's the heritable trait that would be an advantage in reproductive success, which is what drives evolution.

Quote
The input is there, the timespan, education,..... but nothing has changed over the last 2000 years.

It may seem like an astronomical number to you, but 2000 years, in terms of primate evolution, is *nothing*.

Even more important, skills learned through education, practice, and discovery do not affect DNA, so those skills are not a heritable trait. Even if both of your parents were virtuoso pianists, you will still have to learn how to play the piano if you want to be able to play the piano. I first heard this in 9th grade biology; it made sense then, has been extensively backed by experiments, and makes sense now.

Quote
The cosmos seems way, way closer than the hardcore numbers suggest.

Which has been the point all along. Our senses are optimized to enable us the best chance of surviving human-scale perils and obstacles. Whether the sun, moon, and stars were hundreds, thousands, or gazillions of km away mattered not at all to our distant (and not so distant) ancestors' survival; they simply were what they were.

Quote
Maybe because we are hardwired in the proper way by our creator ??

More likely it's because these things had no bearing at all on whether our ancestors survived and have to be learned by each individual. Most simply don't care, because none of this directly affects them. Some actively resist learning these things.

[Edit] typo.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 07:11:54 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #93 on: August 02, 2017, 07:13:34 PM »
And i am supposed to answer your ongoing gibberish ? But yeah because i like you  ;D
Exactly what of that was "gibberish"? But you usual tactic is to ridicule anything you cannot understand.

Quote from: dutchy
It is the world record of long distance photography !!!
That is what that website purports to show, that's all I can say.

Quote from: dutchy
But this simple logic escapes you completely and you don't even understand it's implications.
What simple logic escapes me completely?

All I can see is that over 440 km about 1500 m of extra elevation was visible - all that needs another 0.2° of refraction, big deal!
At any ordinary sunrise we get about 0.5° extra elevation of the sun, so an extra 0.2° does not seem a big ask.

Quote from: dutchy
What amount of refraction is within the boundaries of the world record and when does a photograpgh becomes a mere reflection/mirage of a reality we don't really see from below a curvature and therefor NOT world record material ?
As far as I know, there are no such "boundaries of the world record", it's just a matter of distance, and pre-dawn in that region seems to favour it.
These photographers aren't in the slightest bit concerned about any flat earth/globe aurgment.

Quote from: dutchy
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.

Quote from: dutchy
Does the panel to determine the world record have all data about refraction, looming, lensing, mirage, superiour mirage present ?
And is there a refractional criterea the long distance photographs must not exeed ?
As I said before, it does not come into it. If someone os lucky enough to catch those conditions and very clear air, good luck to them!

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!

And how do you like a :o "flying boat"?  :o

Quote from: dutchy
BTW did you receive your monthly pay check ? I would give you a salery cut, because you are getting sloppy lately Rab.
Nobody pays me, but you are the one who never has any answers and can only ridicule with attempted put downs!

I do what little I can to counter the hatred that comes from three or four on this site
and the numerous YouTube hangers on who express there vehement hatred of good people in utterly vile language.
I one case a very well known Flat Earth poster on YouTube literally called another couple of posters "Satanists and pedophile lovers" for doing no more than present evidence that he did not like! I'll gives the names of all involved if you like.

I will fight that sort of thing here and on YouTube in whatever little and inadequate way that I can. If that's the crowd you want to ally yourself with, good luck!
Take it or leave it Mr Dutchy!

Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #94 on: August 02, 2017, 08:08:35 PM »
Hello. I never thought Earth was a globe. I am new to this forum; however, I am not new to truth and FE ideology. Children have thoughts about who they are and where they live. I ALWAYS  thought I was protected by a dome and lived in sort of an aquarium type home. In school, I never accounted for the globe being anything BUT a theory. I apparently did not understand why there was a globe in all of the classrooms. It wasn't until I was in my late 30's early 40s, OK so maybe 10 or 12 years ago that I had a discussion with one of my daughter's friend about living on a ball that I was completely disorientated for approximately one year. He stated such things as living on a globe and I said we do not. We couldn't possibly. For one year I was afraid to go outside or ride on a swing with my youngest daughter. I was afraid I was going to fall off of this supposed magical ball that spins in space. I was truly afraid.

When I have flat earth arguments with people they think I am insane for saying that I know Earth is flat because I cannot conceive of a ball spinning in space. It makes no sense and if I cannot conceive of it, it just can't be. They do not understand that comment. They ask if I think I know something to be true SIMPLY because I cannot CONCEIVE of it? I say no, my intelligence on IQ tests scored high in verbal and geometric areas. I mean, a magical round ball that a plane cannot possibly land on without an anchor? Come on!!! Really? The elite are something. Lies upon lies. I am so tired of arguing and showing proof that globalists respond by saying, "That is not proof!" OK. People have known Earth is flat for as long as our existence and for 500 years society has been told we live on a magical ball. Who owes the burden of proof? They do. We have proof, they do not. Oh, man was on the moon. Please prove this!!! Thanks for listening.

TROLL

*

napoleon

  • 913
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #95 on: August 02, 2017, 10:44:48 PM »
If you never know how you have been brainwashed, you will call some of us nuts! I am simply NOT brainwashed and I have a very open mind. Just because I do not share your viewpoints does not make me an idiot. Stop saying that I had my imagination and viewpoints as a child and it followed me throughout school and that is why I did not believe what I was taught. Get this...I do NOT have to believe what I was taught in this matrix of lies. I was taught by a higher power, so insult me, think I am crazy as you do to those who believe the same as I do. I am NOT the only one. Shoot me, hang me on a cross, do what you need to do. My only hope is that you WAKE UP.

Is it so wrong to have my own mind?
let me clear some things up for you:

If you have observations X,
and you have 3 Theories:
Theory A, in line with observations X,
Theory B, not or only partially in line with observations X,
Theory C, in line with observations X but a completely different Theory.

-now, if you choose to believe Theory B, you are brainwashed;
-If you choose to believe Theory A, but Theory C sounds also plausible, then you are open minded;
-If you choose to believe Theory A, but refuse to even check out the arguments for Theory C, then you are close minded.

We already know which one of these three options applies to you...how about you?
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #96 on: August 03, 2017, 03:08:05 AM »
I simply stated "My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth." I threw nothing down anyone's throat for the poster who thinks I was trying to.

I have explained several times what I meant; yet still, yahoos are stuck on stupid that I only use my senses alone to justify theory. Hmmmm  Well; that's all you've got, I guess.

I certainly do not need a grammar lesson, but thanks. I am a writer. I have seen; many times, people writing god rather than God.

Call me TROLL in huge, bold and in the color red if it makes you feel better about yourself to insult me. That was pretty ignorant!

I wonder; if our viewpoints were reversed, how silly I would sound to you. A magical spinning ball revolving around the sun. Such nonsense. Further, debunking all flat Earth experiments and videos shows you are closed-minded. We all had to learn about the spinning ball in school. Not everyone believes. Sorry, and we do not have to. Different viewpoints create deliberation and answers, which inevitably lead to revolution and/or truth. You are narrow-minded. I am not. I am looking for truth. You are stuck on BS. A spinning ball in space...give me a break. I certainly do not care if this is your belief; however, I don't think open-minded people (that which you call yourselves) should insult others for their beliefs.

Here are more experiments you can debunk the second you hear them instead of having an open mind and taking the time to see the possibility that some of this may be true.


*

napoleon

  • 913
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #97 on: August 03, 2017, 03:56:52 AM »
I simply stated "My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth." I threw nothing down anyone's throat for the poster who thinks I was trying to.

I have explained several times what I meant; yet still, yahoos are stuck on stupid that I only use my senses alone to justify theory. Hmmmm  Well; that's all you've got, I guess.
No, if that was what you did, then everything would be OK. But you do NOT use your senses at all to justify your theory. you just believe it, just because someone said so...without any evidence or whatsoever.
I certainly do not need a grammar lesson, but thanks. I am a writer. I have seen; many times, people writing god rather than God.
This is a forum...not all people are evenly skilled in English....some do not even care to capitalize a word always, I must say that I also do not write God if I am in a hurry.
but having your definitions wrong is a different matter and had nothing to do with grammer. you can't have a proper discussion if your definition for a word is wrong...which is essential for a forum.
Call me TROLL in huge, bold and in the color red if it makes you feel better about yourself to insult me. That was pretty ignorant!

I wonder; if our viewpoints were reversed, how silly I would sound to you. A magical spinning ball revolving around the sun. Such nonsense. Further, debunking all flat Earth experiments and videos shows you are closed-minded.
Debunking experiments of a theory is not close minded at all. it is a natural thing to do. If you can't debunk it, that means something about that theory might be true...so you will get interested in that theory and maybe you can even accept it...but if every experiment can be debunked...that is an indication that that theory is of no use.
We all had to learn about the spinning ball in school. Not everyone believes. Sorry, and we do not have to.
You don't have to do anything...but in this case...there is no room for 'believe'. you have tons of evidences in the form of facts which can be proven true and observations which can be made when you like, whereever you like...ignoring or rejecting that is ignorant.
Different viewpoints create deliberation and answers, which inevitably lead to revolution and/or truth. You are narrow-minded. I am not.
OK, whatever rocks your boat
I am looking for truth.
of course you do.
You are stuck on BS. A spinning ball in space...give me a break. I certainly do not care if this is your belief; however, I don't think open-minded people (that which you call yourselves) should insult others for their beliefs.

Here are more experiments you can debunk the second you hear them instead of having an open mind and taking the time to see the possibility that some of this may be true.
I already saw this video thank you very much. The question is, have you seen it, and you had no questions or no doubts about it whatsoever?
If not, then I have nothing to say anymore.
Good luck living in a lie.
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #98 on: August 03, 2017, 04:03:00 AM »
I simply stated "My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth." I threw nothing down anyone's throat for the poster who thinks I was trying to.

I have explained several times what I meant; yet still, yahoos are stuck on stupid that I only use my senses alone to justify theory. Hmmmm  Well; that's all you've got, I guess.

I certainly do not need a grammar lesson, but thanks. I am a writer. I have seen; many times, people writing god rather than God.

Call me TROLL in huge, bold and in the color red if it makes you feel better about yourself to insult me. That was pretty ignorant!

I wonder; if our viewpoints were reversed, how silly I would sound to you. A magical spinning ball revolving around the sun. Such nonsense. Further, debunking all flat Earth experiments and videos shows you are closed-minded. We all had to learn about the spinning ball in school. Not everyone believes. Sorry, and we do not have to. Different viewpoints create deliberation and answers, which inevitably lead to revolution and/or truth. You are narrow-minded. I am not. I am looking for truth. You are stuck on BS. A spinning ball in space...give me a break. I certainly do not care if this is your belief; however, I don't think open-minded people (that which you call yourselves) should insult others for their beliefs.

Here are more experiments you can debunk the second you hear them instead of having an open mind and taking the time to see the possibility that some of this may be true.

Keep switching the fishing line bait. You might get a bite. But I doubt your wishy washy talk peppered with the old well trodden FE cliches will see much return. The 200 "proofs" link was particularly weak.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 06:23:56 AM by kennykirklan »

Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #99 on: August 03, 2017, 04:35:21 AM »
Well Napoleon, that i exactly what I stated in the topic and you are telling me NO? Read the topic. I also explained what I meant several times and other posters continued to let crap roll out of their ignorant mouths continuing to say that I only use my senses. No one listens. They just want to argue.

The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut... Is this your belief?

*

napoleon

  • 913
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #100 on: August 03, 2017, 04:50:58 AM »
Well Napoleon, that i exactly what I stated in the topic and you are telling me NO? Read the topic. I also explained what I meant several times and other posters continued to let crap roll out of their ignorant mouths continuing to say that I only use my senses. No one listens. They just want to argue.

The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut... Is this your belief?
OK, let's give you another chance to explain yourself about trusting your own senses:
on a clear morning, you see a sharp sun, in full size rising slowly behind a sharp horizon...
(you do not see it grow in size above the horizon as it comes nearer)
How does this observation fit in your theory?
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #101 on: August 03, 2017, 06:58:31 AM »
Exactly what of that was "gibberish"? But you usual tactic is to ridicule anything you cannot understand.
I showed the photographs of the moon and a long distance mountain to explain that i have a hard time to believe the latter is 880 times closer, yet with hardly any detail compared to the moon photograph 880 times further away....with lots of detail.
Sure you could and should take the atmosphere into account, but the mountain photograph was taken on considerable height with a much thinner atmosphere than those long distance photographs over large bodies of water.
That was a trigger for you to talk about the curvature, refraction etc.,.......while i did not intend anything of the sorts.
How do you manage to corrupt the majority of posts with your ongoing lectures.(gibberish) ?

I played along in my reply, but the sole reason for me to post the initial two photographs was to compare them distance wise. 430 km vs 380.000 km, with the former using even better equipment.
You took it as an oppertunity to completely derail my observations and start your ''globe'' lecture about taking height, distance, refraction into account.
It sounded gibberish to me, because i most certainly wasn't trying to proof the absense of curvature with this particular long distance photograph. I was trying to proof the absent details compared to the details seen in moon photographs 880 times further away.

Sure, i replied afterwards about your curvature remarks, because ''i like you'' ....
Look up your first reply,....it has little to do with my initial post when presenting the two photographs.

*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • What do you, value?
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #102 on: August 03, 2017, 08:36:02 AM »
keep in mind that the moon photo you posted also has 2.6x digital zoom.
):

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #103 on: August 03, 2017, 09:39:05 AM »
we've already argued and debated with you (all of you) what else is there than to resort to calling you names?

You say you take a photo (I'm sorry, someone else took the photo) and that there is more detail acquired on a cosmic body (the moon) which does not have much of an atmosphere of its own and the picture was probably taken while shooting through not a whole lot of atmosphere, but you compare it to a picture of this mountain that has, I'm sorry, how many miles of atmosphere between it and the camera? 

Why don't go underwater and see how far you can see... Apples and oranges... also, with the moon photos that you see so much more detail on... how much space is each pixel covering?

When that shill Nasa agency has Cassini up there circling Saturn, sending back fake pictures of the rings (which I have seen through a backyard telescope), they say EACH PIXEL COVERS THIS MANY MILES which means you cannot see details less than that many miles wide...

Jesus, I hate having to or watching people re-explain standard logic... If you WANT to have a debate on pictures from space versus pictures on the horizon at least do what JANE does and study up on it... Or, have a base line knowledge... this whole... It doesn't make sense to me so it can't be real bullshit is burning me out fast.... I DON'T UNDERSTAND JAVA SCRIPT BUT IT WORKS!!!!!!!

Com'on... I have MsPhilospher that says.... life always seemed this way... and because that is what makes sense to me I am #Woke and open minded to what I already believe...

If light does funny things on the horizon then it is not a source.... Ever stand over a creek or stream  or look through the top of a fish tank... The light does funny things... You know when light also does funny things? In Space... when it gets stretched and bent by gravity... Look that stuff up...

You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INVESTED in arguing this stance that overwhelming evidence does not support. Not even the CHURCH supports flat earth.

And for the faithful... Until the world can agree on one god.... no god is the one true god... in my humble opinion
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #104 on: August 03, 2017, 10:55:02 AM »
we've already argued and debated with you (all of you) what else is there than to resort to calling you names?
Trying to be more inventive ?? I know it's hard because the majority of globers posting here are among the most humorless internet examples i've encountered online.
''here to laugh at you'' is an exception !!
Advise : no real sense of humor........no predictable redicule like ''flattards'', ''living in mom's basement'', highschool dropouts'' etc.
Rabinoz is not equiped with any particular sense of humor i know of, but at least he sticks to what he is good at most of the time,.......boring fellow posters with his whole arsenal of math and accompagnying pictures.
Quote
You say you take a photo (I'm sorry, someone else took the photo) and that there is more detail acquired on a cosmic body (the moon) which does not have much of an atmosphere of its own and the picture was probably taken while shooting through not a whole lot of atmosphere, but you compare it to a picture of this mountain that has, I'm sorry, how many miles of atmosphere between it and the camera? 
The photo taken from the mountains was at a considerable height with a far less dense atmosphere than over water for instance.
Of course 430 km (even if the shot was made from a considerable height) accounts for more atmospheric pollution than standing at ''sea level'' looking at the moon.
But does it account for the fact that the moon is 800+ times further away when comparing those both pictures ??
Quote
Why don't go underwater and see how far you can see... Apples and oranges... also, with the moon photos that you see so much more detail on... how much space is each pixel covering?

When that shill Nasa agency has Cassini up there circling Saturn, sending back fake pictures of the rings (which I have seen through a backyard telescope), they say EACH PIXEL COVERS THIS MANY MILES which means you cannot see details less than that many miles wide...

Jesus, I hate having to or watching people re-explain standard logic... If you WANT to have a debate on pictures from space versus pictures on the horizon at least do what JANE does and study up on it... Or, have a base line knowledge... this whole... It doesn't make sense to me so it can't be real bullshit is burning me out fast.... I DON'T UNDERSTAND JAVA SCRIPT BUT IT WORKS!!!!!!!

Com'on... I have MsPhilospher that says.... life always seemed this way... and because that is what makes sense to me I am #Woke and open minded to what I already believe...

If light does funny things on the horizon then it is not a source.... Ever stand over a creek or stream  or look through the top of a fish tank... The light does funny things... You know when light also does funny things? In Space... when it gets stretched and bent by gravity... Look that stuff up...

You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INVESTED in arguing this stance that overwhelming evidence does not support. Not even the CHURCH supports flat earth.

And for the faithful... Until the world can agree on one god.... no god is the one true god... in my humble opinion
I can perfectly explain why we can't see the Apollo artifacts from earth (the space of each pixel is larger than the ''moonbuggie'')

Question is : Do i want to believe the explaination that was given to me for so long ?
Not anymore after ''discovering'' not one single astronaut went to the moon in the late sixties and early seventies and there awfull testimonies are exemplary of that statement.
And also modern astronauts like Don Pettit and NASA spokesman Neil deGrasse Tyson. Both have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no one went to the moon and back by the testimonies they made.
Mistake from every glober over here is, that flatearthers do not understand the basics of the heliocentric model and spacetravel. They do, albite like myself i did not look into everything like eclipses !!.....
I did research many aspects and the Apollo missions on top of the pile of shit NASA has been serving us with.
The failed moonlandings meant a total reset of everything i was spoonfed with.

Yes of course that means starting from the basics and asking myself why i can see the moon so extremely sharp while it is 380.000 km away....and Polaris more than 3 quadrilliuon km away.
No amount of philosophical cosmological nonsense alters that fact..... what we were told is philosophical based instead of hardcore science.
Even the supposed rocksolid movements of earth (spin, wobble, orbit, milkyway, away from the initial bang) is only a guess.....nothing more,...nothing less.
Luckily more and more insiders are man enough to acknowledge that
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 10:56:39 AM by dutchy »

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #105 on: August 03, 2017, 11:15:37 AM »
dutchy recovered well from the massive blow he received in the eclipse thread, obviously...  :-\
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #106 on: August 03, 2017, 11:17:43 AM »
we've already argued and debated with you (all of you) what else is there than to resort to calling you names?
Trying to be more inventive ?? I know it's hard because the majority of globers posting here are among the most humorless internet examples i've encountered online.
''here to laugh at you'' is an exception !!
Advise : no real sense of humor........no predictable redicule like ''flattards'', ''living in mom's basement'', highschool dropouts'' etc.
Rabinoz is not equiped with any particular sense of humor i know of, but at least he sticks to what he is good at most of the time,.......boring fellow posters with his whole arsenal of math and accompagnying pictures.
Quote
You say you take a photo (I'm sorry, someone else took the photo) and that there is more detail acquired on a cosmic body (the moon) which does not have much of an atmosphere of its own and the picture was probably taken while shooting through not a whole lot of atmosphere, but you compare it to a picture of this mountain that has, I'm sorry, how many miles of atmosphere between it and the camera? 
The photo taken from the mountains was at a considerable height with a far less dense atmosphere than over water for instance.
Of course 430 km (even if the shot was made from a considerable height) accounts for more atmospheric pollution than standing at ''sea level'' looking at the moon.
But does it account for the fact that the moon is 800+ times further away when comparing those both pictures ??
Quote
Why don't go underwater and see how far you can see... Apples and oranges... also, with the moon photos that you see so much more detail on... how much space is each pixel covering?

When that shill Nasa agency has Cassini up there circling Saturn, sending back fake pictures of the rings (which I have seen through a backyard telescope), they say EACH PIXEL COVERS THIS MANY MILES which means you cannot see details less than that many miles wide...

Jesus, I hate having to or watching people re-explain standard logic... If you WANT to have a debate on pictures from space versus pictures on the horizon at least do what JANE does and study up on it... Or, have a base line knowledge... this whole... It doesn't make sense to me so it can't be real bullshit is burning me out fast.... I DON'T UNDERSTAND JAVA SCRIPT BUT IT WORKS!!!!!!!

Com'on... I have MsPhilospher that says.... life always seemed this way... and because that is what makes sense to me I am #Woke and open minded to what I already believe...

If light does funny things on the horizon then it is not a source.... Ever stand over a creek or stream  or look through the top of a fish tank... The light does funny things... You know when light also does funny things? In Space... when it gets stretched and bent by gravity... Look that stuff up...

You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INVESTED in arguing this stance that overwhelming evidence does not support. Not even the CHURCH supports flat earth.

And for the faithful... Until the world can agree on one god.... no god is the one true god... in my humble opinion
I can perfectly explain why we can't see the Apollo artifacts from earth (the space of each pixel is larger than the ''moonbuggie'')

Question is : Do i want to believe the explaination that was given to me for so long ?
Not anymore after ''discovering'' not one single astronaut went to the moon in the late sixties and early seventies and there awfull testimonies are exemplary of that statement.
And also modern astronauts like Don Pettit and NASA spokesman Neil deGrasse Tyson. Both have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no one went to the moon and back by the testimonies they made.
Mistake from every glober over here is, that flatearthers do not understand the basics of the heliocentric model and spacetravel. They do, albite like myself i did not look into everything like eclipses !!.....
I did research many aspects and the Apollo missions on top of the pile of shit NASA has been serving us with.
The failed moonlandings meant a total reset of everything i was spoonfed with.

Yes of course that means starting from the basics and asking myself why i can see the moon so extremely sharp while it is 380.000 km away....and Polaris more than 3 quadrilliuon km away.
No amount of philosophical cosmological nonsense alters that fact..... what we were told is philosophical based instead of hardcore science.
Even the supposed rocksolid movements of earth (spin, wobble, orbit, milkyway, away from the initial bang) is only a guess.....nothing more,...nothing less.
Luckily more and more insiders are man enough to acknowledge that

I appreciate what you are trying to say, but I go back to... If you do not like the pictures or science that someone else did, then you have to do your own. If you want to do an expensive expirement then you have to get a grant or some backers... Go on one of those Go Fund Me sites and get some money and prove once and for all that the earth is flat... Leave NO room for doubt.... Get a rocket that flies sooo high that it sees the ice wall... Or even better, go until the shoots down your rocket and live stream it...

Short of doing some super duper science on your own, there is still back yard science. I have been asking this same question for a few threads now...  Is the sky fixed, or does it move.... are the stars in a fixed location or can they move? I saw a horribly horrible non-FE related video online where this guy takes his super camera and zooms in on every outer planet further... shit quality, but it's back yard science... at least he did it and you see Neptune.

Regardless, there are a ton of way out there claims using sources that are silly... That's why I am purposing back yard science be done, with this place as the Peer Review...  If someone says that The Moonlight Cools and Sunlight Warms... that is a super easy experiment to do... I'll do it with you.


But if you want to tell me that there are Ice Wall Guards, and that the Ice Wall extends forever in all directions and.... You lost me...

Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Proof...
So lets start with backyard science
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #107 on: August 03, 2017, 11:51:09 AM »
Yes of course that means starting from the basics and asking myself why i can see the moon so extremely sharp while it is 380.000 km away....
Why shouldn't you be able to see the moon sharply?  Of that 380,000 km, only about 100 km of it is atmosphere.  Even then it's density drops off rather quickly. 

...and Polaris more than 3 quadrilliuon km away.
I'm not sure why you're obsessed about being able to see Polaris.  Even at high magnification, it really isn't much more than just one dot of light among many in the night sky.  It's not even close to being the biggest, brightest of furthest visible star.

No amount of philosophical cosmological nonsense alters that fact..... what we were told is philosophical based instead of hardcore science.
When you say "hardcore science", do you mean something like rocket science?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #108 on: August 03, 2017, 11:56:12 AM »

Quote from: dutchy on Today at 10:55:02 AM
No amount of philosophical cosmological nonsense alters that fact..... what we were told is philosophical based instead of hardcore science.
When you say "hardcore science", do you mean something like rocket science?



HOW ABOUT BACKYARD SCIENCE?  YAY!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #109 on: August 03, 2017, 06:43:16 PM »
Oh goodness, she didn't link to the infamous "Eric Dubay - 200 proofs I'm brain dead" video did she? Boring troll. Try harder.
If I'm a complete Idiot for not believing in your Heliocentric fairytale then so be it.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #110 on: August 04, 2017, 01:38:00 AM »
dutchy recovered well from the massive blow he received in the eclipse thread, obviously...  :-\
Ummm no, that 'eclips' episode was a wellcome edition to give me better understanding of the heliocentric model i din't find particular interresting in the past.
And when i grasped it at last ( thanks to the input from you all ) it was 'easy peasy' and i scratched my head what all the(my) fuzz was about.
That is a human quality to acknowledge and learn from invalid insight or previous assumptions.

When i proof beyond a shadow of any doubt that the testimonies of Neil Armstrong made in multiple online interviews are the opposite of the claims from Neil deGrasse Tyson about "WHAT IS THE INTENSITY OF THE STARS FROM THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON SURFACE" ??

Any form of neutral objectivity is completely abbandoned by the Apollo and globe supporters.
The cognitive dissonance is kicking in real hard when confronted with clear examples like the one i mentioned.
To me it is obvious that most heliocentric posters have to stick to every single bit of the official storyline. No matter the absolute proof i provided for 100% inconsistancies like the example i mentioned.
It is so clear that it puzzles me why anyone would defend this opposite claims about the star intensity on the daylight side of the moon.

What are the odds that NASA was honoust about each and every ( photographic) claim and no astronaut ever claimed something untrue ?
The defenders are defending the impossible.
Space agencies and their personell are the only institutions that have supposedly mastered the invalid human characteristics and entered the holy realms.

Besides that, most flatearthers leave this place, because 'your' 100% right attitude in each and every topic gets long in the tooth after a while.

Enjoy the moment you can still make fun of me........ as long as it lasts  ;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 01:47:27 AM by dutchy »

Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #111 on: August 04, 2017, 02:33:53 AM »
dutchy recovered well from the massive blow he received in the eclipse thread, obviously...  :-\
Ummm no, that 'eclips' episode was a wellcome edition to give me better understanding of the heliocentric model i din't find particular interresting in the past.
And when i grasped it at last ( thanks to the input from you all ) it was 'easy peasy' and i scratched my head what all the(my) fuzz was about.
That is a human quality to acknowledge and learn from invalid insight or previous assumptions.

When i proof beyond a shadow of any doubt that the testimonies of Neil Armstrong made in multiple online interviews are the opposite of the claims from Neil deGrasse Tyson about "WHAT IS THE INTENSITY OF THE STARS FROM THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON SURFACE" ??

Any form of neutral objectivity is completely abbandoned by the Apollo and globe supporters.
The cognitive dissonance is kicking in real hard when confronted with clear examples like the one i mentioned.
To me it is obvious that most heliocentric posters have to stick to every single bit of the official storyline. No matter the absolute proof i provided for 100% inconsistancies like the example i mentioned.
It is so clear that it puzzles me why anyone would defend this opposite claims about the star intensity on the daylight side of the moon.

What are the odds that NASA was honoust about each and every ( photographic) claim and no astronaut ever claimed something untrue ?
The defenders are defending the impossible.
Space agencies and their personell are the only institutions that have supposedly mastered the invalid human characteristics and entered the holy realms.

Besides that, most flatearthers leave this place, because 'your' 100% right attitude in each and every topic gets long in the tooth after a while.

Enjoy the moment you can still make fun of me........ as long as it lasts  ;D ;D ;D

I still don't get how NASA being liars or not is in anyway intrinsically linked to whether the earth is round or not. In my mind NASA/Apollo doesn't even need to come into the conversation to prove round earth, but seems to be a requirement for flat earth.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #112 on: August 04, 2017, 03:33:12 AM »
dutchy recovered well from the massive blow he received in the eclipse thread, obviously...  :-\
Ummm no, that 'eclips' episode was a wellcome edition to give me better understanding of the heliocentric model i din't find particular interresting in the past.
And when i grasped it at last ( thanks to the input from you all ) it was 'easy peasy' and i scratched my head what all the(my) fuzz was about.
That is a human quality to acknowledge and learn from invalid insight or previous assumptions.

When i proof beyond a shadow of any doubt that the testimonies of Neil Armstrong made in multiple online interviews are the opposite of the claims from Neil deGrasse Tyson about "WHAT IS THE INTENSITY OF THE STARS FROM THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON SURFACE" ??

Any form of neutral objectivity is completely abbandoned by the Apollo and globe supporters.
The cognitive dissonance is kicking in real hard when confronted with clear examples like the one i mentioned.
To me it is obvious that most heliocentric posters have to stick to every single bit of the official storyline. No matter the absolute proof i provided for 100% inconsistancies like the example i mentioned.
It is so clear that it puzzles me why anyone would defend this opposite claims about the star intensity on the daylight side of the moon.

What are the odds that NASA was honoust about each and every ( photographic) claim and no astronaut ever claimed something untrue ?
The defenders are defending the impossible.
Space agencies and their personell are the only institutions that have supposedly mastered the invalid human characteristics and entered the holy realms.

Besides that, most flatearthers leave this place, because 'your' 100% right attitude in each and every topic gets long in the tooth after a while.

Enjoy the moment you can still make fun of me........ as long as it lasts  ;D ;D ;D

I still don't get how NASA being liars or not is in anyway intrinsically linked to whether the earth is round or not. In my mind NASA/Apollo doesn't even need to come into the conversation to prove round earth, but seems to be a requirement for flat earth.
It has everything to do with 'the well proven and repeated facts of science' concerning the globe.
The moonlanding was 'proof' for the accurate spin, tilt, distance, velocity of all involved celestial bodies, otherwise a rocket could never land on the moon that orbits with a velocity over 3000km an hour.
Every detail was calculated accordingly ( the math involved in the heliocentric model)

If by any change the moonlandings (and mars robot exploration) are  indeed grand hoaxes......then

1 we still don't know if the Copernican or Ptolomaic universe is true, ( landing on both the moon and mars excludes the Ptolomaic universe, because hardware doesn't land well on the surface of celestial bodies in the wrong universal model)

2 it becomes clear that spacetravel has prevented the induvidual cosmologist to consider other models of the cosmos ( other conclusion based on the observations from earth were abbandoned, because Apollo and mars hardware on their respective celestial bodies only proofs the Copernican model)

3 If you dismiss the Apollo missions beyond LEO and the mars mission, then the possibility of a geocentric cosmos is extremely plausible as the docu 'the Principle' has shown,
(because of hardware on celestial bodies this possibility has to be excluded, because they couldn't do the proper math or 'entry-landing-rendezvous-re-entry' when reality was very different than the prefered model)

4 If men did not go to the moon and back (and mars), then everything needs to go back to the drawing board.
And there will be a snowball effect that will lead to the determination of the real shape, position and velocity of earth in relation to observations from earth ONLY, not in relation to space fantasies and other science fiction.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 03:38:36 AM by dutchy »

Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #113 on: August 04, 2017, 03:39:43 AM »
How were the moon landings calculated and executed if the moon landings were first needed to provide proof of the calculations required?

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #114 on: August 04, 2017, 03:56:28 AM »
How were the moon landings calculated and executed if the moon landings were first needed to provide proof of the calculations required?
The chicken and the egg ???

Don't you think it's strange that the founders of the helicentric model (based on their observations only) changed the distance from the earth- sun varying from 5-150 million km ?
'We have better equipment now' is a very flawed answer. It is proof that observations made from earth + respective conclusions are extremely tricky !

In only a decade they mastered to go to a celestial body that orbits over 3000 km at a distance of 380.000 km.
The success rate compared to technological achievements on earth is unmatched by an incredibly huge factor.
All of a sudden the observations made from earth provided accurate data about absolute distance, angle, radiation and speed in relation to the earth - moon journey.

From earth they calculated the exact parameters for rendezvouz between the LM and the CM, re-entry and more. Not an inch off !!! , so to speak.

I totally escapes me that anyone who has studied this , simply believes this was and is possible based on data that was solely based on observations from earth in the first place.
Observations that have proven to be very debatable ( distance to the sun)

But when they went to the moon, all observations proved to be hardcore data, otherwise the moonlandings would have been a total disaster.
...    Apollo was the most expensive scifi movie ever.


*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #115 on: August 04, 2017, 04:03:26 AM »
I still have yet to see ANY evidence that NASA has faked anything.

Just a bunch of out of context comments, and conspiracy theories. All have been explained numerous times, and in great detail.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #116 on: August 04, 2017, 04:19:39 AM »
dutchy recovered well from the massive blow he received in the eclipse thread, obviously...  :-\
Ummm no, that 'eclips' episode was a wellcome edition to give me better understanding of the heliocentric model i din't find particular interresting in the past.
And when i grasped it at last ( thanks to the input from you all ) it was 'easy peasy' and i scratched my head what all the(my) fuzz was about.
That is a human quality to acknowledge and learn from invalid insight or previous assumptions.

When i proof beyond a shadow of any doubt that the testimonies of Neil Armstrong made in multiple online interviews are the opposite of the claims from Neil deGrasse Tyson about "WHAT IS THE INTENSITY OF THE STARS FROM THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON SURFACE" ??

Any form of neutral objectivity is completely abbandoned by the Apollo and globe supporters.
The cognitive dissonance is kicking in real hard when confronted with clear examples like the one i mentioned.
To me it is obvious that most heliocentric posters have to stick to every single bit of the official storyline. No matter the absolute proof i provided for 100% inconsistancies like the example i mentioned.
It is so clear that it puzzles me why anyone would defend this opposite claims about the star intensity on the daylight side of the moon.

What are the odds that NASA was honoust about each and every ( photographic) claim and no astronaut ever claimed something untrue ?
The defenders are defending the impossible.
Space agencies and their personell are the only institutions that have supposedly mastered the invalid human characteristics and entered the holy realms.

Besides that, most flatearthers leave this place, because 'your' 100% right attitude in each and every topic gets long in the tooth after a while.

Enjoy the moment you can still make fun of me........ as long as it lasts  ;D ;D ;D

I still don't get how NASA being liars or not is in anyway intrinsically linked to whether the earth is round or not. In my mind NASA/Apollo doesn't even need to come into the conversation to prove round earth, but seems to be a requirement for flat earth.
It has everything to do with 'the well proven and repeated facts of science' concerning the globe.
The moonlanding was 'proof' for the accurate spin, tilt, distance, velocity of all involved celestial bodies, otherwise a rocket could never land on the moon that orbits with a velocity over 3000km an hour.
Every detail was calculated accordingly ( the math involved in the heliocentric model)

If by any change the moonlandings (and mars robot exploration) are  indeed grand hoaxes......then

1 we still don't know if the Copernican or Ptolomaic universe is true, ( landing on both the moon and mars excludes the Ptolomaic universe, because hardware doesn't land well on the surface of celestial bodies in the wrong universal model)

2 it becomes clear that spacetravel has prevented the induvidual cosmologist to consider other models of the cosmos ( other conclusion based on the observations from earth were abbandoned, because Apollo and mars hardware on their respective celestial bodies only proofs the Copernican model)

3 If you dismiss the Apollo missions beyond LEO and the mars mission, then the possibility of a geocentric cosmos is extremely plausible as the docu 'the Principle' has shown,
(because of hardware on celestial bodies this possibility has to be excluded, because they couldn't do the proper math or 'entry-landing-rendezvous-re-entry' when reality was very different than the prefered model)

4 If men did not go to the moon and back (and mars), then everything needs to go back to the drawing board.
And there will be a snowball effect that will lead to the determination of the real shape, position and velocity of earth in relation to observations from earth ONLY, not in relation to space fantasies and other science fiction.

The moon landings, and every other probe that has ever been to any other celestial body, were sent there using established principles of celestial mechanics that were worked out long before NASA or any other space organisation existed. They were not sent there as proof of those principles, they used them.

There is a myriad of evidence that shows these space missions happened. There is no evidence whatsoever that they didn't, just prejudice and ignorance. "I don't believe it", "You have been lied to" and all the other garbage trotted out by conspiracy theorists are not evidence.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 04:23:56 AM by onebigmonkey »
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #117 on: August 04, 2017, 05:05:09 AM »

In only a decade they mastered to go to a celestial body that orbits over 3000 km at a distance of 380.000 km.

Please source this.  or clarify what you mean.  It appears you are saying in a decade they changed the distance to the Moon from 3000 km to 380,000 km.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 05:14:26 AM by frenat »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #118 on: August 04, 2017, 05:11:59 AM »
Exactly what of that was "gibberish"? But you usual tactic is to ridicule anything you cannot understand.
I showed the photographs of the moon and a long distance mountain to explain that i have a hard time to believe the latter is 880 times closer, yet with hardly any detail compared to the moon photograph 880 times further away....with lots of detail.
Sure you could and should take the atmosphere into account, but the mountain photograph was taken on considerable height with a much thinner atmosphere than those long distance photographs over large bodies of water.
That was a trigger for you to talk about the curvature, refraction etc.,.......while i did not intend anything of the sorts.
How do you manage to corrupt the majority of posts with your ongoing lectures.(gibberish) ?
Possibility because it's not always obvious what is in your mind when you make a post, not necessarily your fault.

Quote from: dutchy
I played along in my reply, but the sole reason for me to post the initial two photographs was to compare them distance wise. 430 km vs 380.000 km, with the former using even better equipment.
You took it as an opportunity to completely derail my observations and start your ''globe'' lecture about taking height, distance, refraction into account.
It sounded gibberish to me, because i most certainly wasn't trying to proof the absense of curvature with this particular long distance photograph. I was trying to proof the absent details compared to the details seen in moon photographs 880 times further away.

Sure, i replied afterwards about your curvature remarks, because ''i like you'' ....
Look up your first reply,....it has little to do with my initial post when presenting the two photographs.
So sorry about misinterpreting your motives. I must admit that I never passed the mind reading course.
But, considering that the subject is "My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth",
when you said "you could never imagine the moon was 884 times further away when looking at the results of photography from earth" I  took it to mean that you did not believe that the moon is really 380,000 km away.
Hence I tried to explain that there is no way that we can estimate such distances just with the unaided eyes.

And in any case I did answer your concerns about sharpness in that post by pointing out that there is far less atmosphere obscuring the view of the moon than of that distant view, as in this repeat of that part of the post.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is the world record for long distance photography zooming in on 430 km away with a zoom integrated 1200 mm – f./2.8
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is the moon  380.000 km away, that is roughly 884 times further away with a Nikon coolpix P900


The earth's atmosphere is more interfering in the example of the first mountain photograph, but the moon photograph has also a serious amount of atmosphere in between.
No not quite! In the 443 km photo there is 443 km of air (now how did I work that out?) ,
but if the moon is directly overhead, the effective thickness of the atmosphere is only about 9 km!
See The pressure scale height of an atmosphere.
In other words, above us, the atmosphere gets very thin and transparent very quickly.

Quote from: dutchy
My point was you could never imagine the moon was 884 times further away when looking at the results of photography from earth.
Quite true! Looking at any stationary object more than even 100 m away there is no way to even estimate the distance unless there are other objects nearby for reference.
There are numerous optical illusions like this.

BUT! The moon, for example, is not stationary. It appears to move across the sky and so the distance from the observer to the moon changes.
The amount of change depends on you "earth model".
On the globe, the change in distance can be up to 6370 km and
on the flat earth could be around double that.  -  you can work that out for whatever you think the moon does.

Now the apparent size of the moon does not change more that 1 or 2% over the course of a night. I have plenty of photos showing that!
So we could estimate that the moon has to be at least 50 x 6370 km away - you can do the sums.
So maybe I added material that you thought was uncalled for, but from your original post I did not realise that,
but I believe that I answered your points quite adequately.

Re: My Senses are my Proof of Flat Earth
« Reply #119 on: August 04, 2017, 05:30:45 AM »

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!

And how do you like a :o "flying boat"?  :o



If that photo is real, why can we see the lower of the boat, but not water just beneath?
Refraction or other optical phenomenon can not separate elements of the image like that.
Must be fake photo.