How do roundies explain away high-altitude photos/footage of the flat Earth?

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 30, 2017, 07:19:58 AM

I've not seen any such evidence. You're welcome to show some.

Refer to the OP, for once.

I did. Here, with reference to the video:

That's almost certainly a wide-angle lens. Since the horizon is off-centre and below, it looks slightly concave.

And here, with reference to the photos:

In the first picture the field of view of the horizon is too narrow for any curvature to be noticeable. The second picture is from a wide-angle lens and the horizon is off-centre and above so it looks considerably more convex than it is in reality.

I think we have probably come full circle on this discussion, since the above comprise my first reply to your OP.

Not even slightly. Again, you're saying the horizon is hidden by the horizon... and that's just dumb.

Maybe https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com.ee/2017/06/where-is-curve.html gives little more illustrative material. All that is being said here is that the curvature you see is not actual curvature of earth circumference.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 02:33:20 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 01, 2017, 02:14:56 AM

If that isn't simple enough for you to understand then how about this:

The equator is one such great circle. Lets say you move 683.7 km north of some point on the equator.

How far is the equator from you in the direction SE?

Is it still 683.7 km, or is it now further?

Further, but that's not even close to an equivalent scenario.

No, they are equivalent.
If I had thought a bit more I would have used south instead.
So lets just pretend I did, as it makes it even better.
So you have the equator some 683.7 km north of you. That is the red line in my diagram and represents the great circle you claim you should see the curvature of.

But your horizon is the same distance from you all around, a circle around you, the black line in my diagram.
That means that off to your NE, the horizon is not the equator. The equator, the great circle, is much further.

So you don't see the great circle. It is not your horizon. It is beyond your horizon. It is hidden behind the horizon.

If you wish to disagree you will need more than just baseless claims if you want to try and convince any rational person.

You need to explain why you should see the great circle as your horizon, even though it is much to far away.

If you have forgotten, I had math to back up what I said. You just keep saying the same thing over and over and it still doesn't make sense.
Are you trying to say that the horizon is further away in some directions? It's not.
Are you trying to say that the horizon is closer than 683.7 km? It's not.
Are you trying to say it's further away? It's not.
I still don't know what you're really trying to say. No matter how you spin it (it doesn't matter how you think about it, there's only one correct way) - the horizon is 683.7 km away in all directions. The example of the equator is a false equivalence and absolutely does not apply here. Give me a number and show me your work.

I think you might be misunderstanding something, because I'm not even talking about a great circle. Do you not know what a great circle is? The cross section image was there to have an example of what the curve might look like. The area I'm describing is, if you would imagine, a circle laid out on the surface of a globe. This is not a great circle.

Once again, I'll say that the horizon cannot be hidden by the horizon, because that is nonsensical. The closer would override the further. One would not be a horizon.

Simple math tells you how far the horizon is. Care to explain why and how you're coming up with 966.9 km? Also, this is further than I've said - so if anything, there would be more curve. Either way, you seem to be working against yourself here, as 72.95 - 36.27 = 36.68. If your numbers are somehow more correct, that put the horizon at 684.63 km away, further away than I originally stated - thus covering a larger percentage of Earth's circumference and accentuating the curve further. Are you trying to tell me that I was underestimating the distance ever so slightly?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 01:58:27 AM

Not even slightly. Again, you're saying the horizon is hidden by the horizon... and that's just dumb.

Maybe https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com.ee/2017/06/where-is-curve.html gives little more illustrative material. All that is being said here is that the curvature you see is not actual curvature of earth circumference.

That page seems to agree with my math - not sure what you're trying to say here.

They've figured out the ISS's distance to the horizon with the same method - at an elevation of 400 km, distance to the horizon using the Pythagorean Theorem and nothing else is 2292.77 km - which they've rounded up to 2293 km. The curvature that would be observed is illustrated by the visible portion of the green circle. Are you trying to agree with me? I don't understand.



The visible curve, just for fun, would look like this.



Which, for the record, is relatively consistent with the fakes.



Here, matches pretty well in this example where I assume the lens has about an 80 degree FOV. Keep in mind this is an assumed FOV, and therefore pretty much entirely just for fun.

Didn't think the OP would even consider to come back to this board after the rough bitchslapping he received from Mikey in the antarctica thread, or that he used the time out for some good effort and contemplate how he lost every single ounce of credibility around here.
Some folks will never learn obviously... 

If you have forgotten, I had math to back up what I said.

No you didn't.
You had math to back up what portion of a great circle that distance corresponds to.
You did not have any math to back up that great circle being the horizon, nor to back up your claim that you should be able to see that much curvature.

On the other hand, I had math to back up the fact that the great circle is not your horizon and that you shouldn't be able to see that much curvature.
I had the math to show that great circle at 45 degrees would be over 30 km below the horizon.

You just keep saying the same thing over and over and it still doesn't make sense.

Again, that is what you are doing. You seem to just be playing stupid and claiming that you are right.
I wasn't just repeating the same thing again and again. I was explaining it in different ways, yet you still refuse to accept it.

My only question is if you are that deluded/stupid that you truly cannot understand and accept it or if you know you are full of shit and just don't care.

From your prior activities I shall assume the latter.

Are you trying to say that the horizon is further away in some directions? It's not.

No. I'm not.
I am saying the horizon would be the same 683.7 km away in all direction.
I have never indicated that the horizon would be further away in some directions.
Instead, I explained why the great circle, what you falsely claimed should be the horizon, is further in some directions and thus not the horizon.

You even admitted the great circle is further in some directions, which would mean it can't be the horizon.
If you are 683.7 km south of the equator, the equator is not 683.7 km to your NE, or NW, or in any direction other than north. As such, that great circle is further away in all directions except due north.

Are you trying to say that the equator is the same distance in all directions from a point 683.7 km south of the equator? It's not.
Are you trying to say that the horizon is not the same distance in all directions?

I still don't know what you're really trying to say.

I have made that abudantly clear, so how about you cut the crap?
Here it is again:
THE GREAT CIRCLE IS NOT THE HORIZON! IT IS BELOW THE HORIZON EXCEPT IN ONE DIRECTION!!!
Got it that time?

If you wish to disagree, PROVE IT!
I have proven beyond any doubt that the great circle is not the same distance all around and thus it can't be the horizon.
You even admitted that.
So if you want to claim that the great circle is the horizon, you need to prove it.
Stop it with your pathetic strawmen.

No matter how you spin it (it doesn't matter how you think about it, there's only one correct way) - the horizon is 683.7 km away in all directions.

That is correct, unlike the great circle which has a different distance in each direction.

The example of the equator is a false equivalence and absolutely does not apply here. Give me a number and show me your work.

I did give you the numbers, and the equator is not a false equivalence.
The equator is not equivalent to the horizon, it is equivalent to the great circle that you claim is the horizon, which I have shown cannot be the horizon.
The equator is further in the NE direction by a factor of roughly sqrt(2), due to it being at 45 degrees.

I think you might be misunderstanding something, because I'm not even talking about a great circle. Do you not know what a great circle is? The cross section image was there to have an example of what the curve might look like.

Let me remind you:

Quote from: JackBlack on October 01, 2017, 12:53:14 AM

are you suggesting you should see a curve akin to the curve you showed us, where you highlighted the 3.4% to show what that curvature should look like?

Given a 180 degree FOV, yes. Are you suggesting otherwise?

So there you go lying.
You provided that image claiming that that 3.4% region that you highlighted corresponds to the curve you should see (i.e. as your horizon).
That curve is a great circle.
As such, you are claiming you should see the great circle as your horizon.

Now cut the crap, admit you were wrong and move on.

The area I'm describing is, if you would imagine, a circle laid out on the surface of a globe. This is not a great circle.

That was not what you were claiming before. So now you are effectively stating that you were wrong before, but you are trying to cover it up.

Once again, I'll say that the horizon cannot be hidden by the horizon, because that is nonsensical. The closer would override the further. One would not be a horizon.

And once again, I'll say that I never said that.
I said the great circle, what you showed to indicate the expected curvature, is not the horizon and instead is hidden by the horizon.

Care to explain why and how you're coming up with 966.9 km?

I already did.
It is the distance to the great circle, what you claimed we should be able to see as the curvature, at a 45 degree angle (roughly).
It is much further than the horizon and thus is hidden by the horizon.

The visible curve, just for fun, would look like this.

And once again, you are lying and claiming that their horizon should magically be the great circle.

*nonsensical ramblings with no math to back it up*

Let me say, one more time, that we are not dealing with a great circle here. Maybe you should brush up on your non-euclidean geometry a bit before engaging in an argument about it.

You still have not shown math to prove otherwise, and I've told you how the numbers you gave me would just result in the horizon being just slightly further than I'd suggested. I'm assuming you just rounded my numbers and did the reverse of what I did, approximating the height (120,000 ft) and in turn arriving at a slightly higher viewpoint. That's what I have to assume, as you still haven't shown any work. It would make the most sense considering the numbers you did share.

I'll ask again - do you have math? Or are you just going to keep trying to say words that mean absolutely nothing without it?

I mean, if you're right, it shouldn't be a problem to prove it, right?

I'll say it again, just so you really understand. We're not discussing a great circle.

The illustration was meant to be an adequate cross sectional view of the curve of the circle that would represent the horizon. The math is no different.

Also, as it seems there's confusion about this, I'm assuming a 180 degree FOV, and the observer would be in the center of the blue portion of the curve in the illustration.

Quote from: zork on October 01, 2017, 03:45:07 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 01:58:27 AM

Not even slightly. Again, you're saying the horizon is hidden by the horizon... and that's just dumb.

Maybe https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com.ee/2017/06/where-is-curve.html gives little more illustrative material. All that is being said here is that the curvature you see is not actual curvature of earth circumference.

That page seems to agree with my math - not sure what you're trying to say here.

If you read little bit farther then "Curvature #2" part deals with this curvature hidden behind horizon stuff.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 04:01:46 AM

Quote from: zork on October 01, 2017, 03:45:07 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 01:58:27 AM

Not even slightly. Again, you're saying the horizon is hidden by the horizon... and that's just dumb.

Maybe https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com.ee/2017/06/where-is-curve.html gives little more illustrative material. All that is being said here is that the curvature you see is not actual curvature of earth circumference.

That page seems to agree with my math - not sure what you're trying to say here.

If you read little bit farther then "Curvature #2" part deals with this curvature hidden behind horizon stuff.

I read the whole thing. If you could point me in the direction of the math that gives a better answer than I did, I'm all ears.

We're not discussing objects being behind the horizon, here. We're discussing the actual horizon. Again, if you think the horizon can somehow be obscured by the horizon, show me the math that proves this illogical claim.

I read the whole thing. If you could point me in the direction of the math that gives a better answer than I did, I'm all ears.

We're not discussing objects being behind the horizon, here. We're discussing the actual horizon. Again, if you think the horizon can somehow be obscured by the horizon, show me the math that proves this illogical claim.

And Curvature #2 sections talks about what BlackJack is trying to explain. From there - Curvature #2 is the horizon apparent Sagitta curvature.  This is the apparent 'hump' of the horizon due to viewing a circle at a very oblique angle.  This is probably what most people think of when they think of seeing the "curvature of Earth" -- but you CANNOT, you ALWAYS see a horizon.
 Or if not then he can correct me.

straw man
great circle
great circle
great circle
great circle
great circle
great circle
great circle
great circle
great circle
great circle
great circle
great circle

I just had to point out how excellent this was. Thank you for a good laugh. Still waiting for the math that results in a different answer. Until then, you're wrong.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 12:06:11 PM

I read the whole thing. If you could point me in the direction of the math that gives a better answer than I did, I'm all ears.

We're not discussing objects being behind the horizon, here. We're discussing the actual horizon. Again, if you think the horizon can somehow be obscured by the horizon, show me the math that proves this illogical claim.

And Curvature #2 sections talks about what BlackJack is trying to explain. From there - Curvature #2 is the horizon apparent Sagitta curvature.  This is the apparent 'hump' of the horizon due to viewing a circle at a very oblique angle.  This is probably what most people think of when they think of seeing the "curvature of Earth" -- but you CANNOT, you ALWAYS see a horizon.
 Or if not then he can correct me.

Right. That's how it would work. Nobody is arguing that. Jack is just upset he was wrong.

That page is also quite dishonest (or just stupid, can't tell) - even when you're viewing the horizon, the curve that would be evident in a round Earth situation would be due to the curvature of the Earth's circumference. That's what makes the horizon.

Again, I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you agreeing with me? Are you not? If you're not, how much am I off by? Do you have math to back it up?

It really seems that you don't understand. I just give up at this point.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on September 29, 2017, 04:23:08 PM

Different lenses.

Name one lens that makes round things appear flat. Provide pictorial and video evidence.

Most lenses that display barrel distortion, e.g. very wide angle lenses, will show the same edge as concave, convex, or flat depending on where if the field of view it is.

If it's above the horizontal it will appear convex and below center it will appear concave.  When the earths horizon is centered in the field of view you will see it's real curvature.  As it goes below the horizontal line it will appear flat and the further below center you go it well appear concave.

Here is link to an example of barrel distortion.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Barrel_distortion.svg

As lenses increase the width of the field of view the barrel distortion increases until you get to whats called a fish-eye lens. 

My GoPro software will correct for this distortion.  Other imaging software will do this too.  It's a common fix and easy to do. 

Which begs the question...if pictures like these were meant to deceive the public into believing the earth is round, don't you think they would have corrected the barrel distortion?  Just something to ponder.

Mike

It really seems that you don't understand. I just give up at this point.

And he claim victory because you gave up.
It's the standard reaction of a FEIB.

By how about he present som math that supports his FEI.
How about he show mathematically how that sun drops below the horizon as we can see each evening.

It really seems that you don't understand. I just give up at this point.

It would appear it's you that doesn't understand. I have math that supports my point. Where's yours? If you don't have any, what you say is pointless. Maybe you should reread that page and point out exactly where I'm wrong. The horizon is created by the Earth's alleged curvature, right? Are you disputing this?

Quote from: zork on October 01, 2017, 12:37:58 PM

It really seems that you don't understand. I just give up at this point.

And he claim victory because you gave up.
It's the standard reaction of a FEIB.

By how about he present som math that supports his FEI.
How about he show mathematically how that sun drops below the horizon as we can see each evening.

What are you even talking about? It seems like you don't know what you're saying. I'm not even arguing for FET here. We're arguing the method of determining how far the horizon is on a round Earth.

Quote from: Logick on September 30, 2017, 04:20:30 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 30, 2017, 07:19:58 AM

I've not seen any such evidence. You're welcome to show some.

Refer to the OP, for once.

I did. Here, with reference to the video:

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 30, 2017, 12:33:07 AM

That's almost certainly a wide-angle lens. Since the horizon is off-centre and below, it looks slightly concave.

So you're just contradicting yourself?

I think we have probably come full circle on this discussion, since the above comprise my first reply to your OP.

What?! Is English your native language, sir?

Didn't think the OP would even consider to come back to this board after the rough bitchslapping he received from Mikey in the antarctica thread...

*Antarctica

Just because Mikey bitchslapped me doesn't mean he was right. He kept talking about raping me. Would you continue discussing things with people who talk about inserting foreign objects into your anus?

How about I skip the crap of going through everything you said and make it shorter, skimming over the bullshit.

we are not dealing with a great circle here.
[Irrelevant strawman bullshit removed]
The illustration was meant to be an adequate cross sectional view of the curve of the circle that would represent the horizon. The math is no different.

There you go lying again.
Here let me remind you again:

Quote

are you suggesting you should see a curve akin to the curve you showed us, where you highlighted the 3.4% to show what that curvature should look like?

Given a 180 degree FOV, yes.

This is you claiming you should be seeing the great circle.
And here:

The visible curve, just for fun, would look like this.

Again, suggesting you should see a part of a great circle as the curve of the horizon.
Your subsequent comparison to a photo from the ISS (or the like) further shows this, that you are acting like you should see the great circle as the horizon.

But now you are stating that is wrong.
So which is it?
Should we be seeing the great circle (that diagram you showed) or not?

So perhaps I should ask again:
are you suggesting you should see a curve akin to the curve you showed us, where you highlighted the 3.4% to show what that curvature should look like?

Or perhaps another one, in what direction is this 180 degrees?
Is it looking straight out, level with Earth, and thus 180 degrees left to right, or is it looking straight down, and having 180 degrees front to back?

Here is an actual cross sectional view of the curve that makes up the horizon:
.                          .
Notice how it is 2 dots?
That is because the cross section of a circle (that which makes up the horizon), is 2 dots. It is not a curve.
The curve you have shown, the great circle, has a few sections.
There is the region between the 2 dots. This is not the horizon. This is before the horizon. It is underneath you. Thus you won't see the curve here as the horizon.
There are the regions outside the 2 dots. These are not the horizon. These are further away than the horizon and thus are hidden by the horizon.
Then there are the 2 dots. These make up part of the horizon, but they are only 2 dots and you can't tell what the curve would be just from those 2 dots.

Also, as it seems there's confusion about this, I'm assuming a 180 degree FOV, and the observer would be in the center of the blue portion of the curve in the illustration.

Yes, there is "confusion" regarding this as you have completely changed your claim after it was disproven so you can pretend you were never wrong.

the curve that would be evident in a round Earth situation would be due to the curvature of the Earth's circumference. That's what makes the horizon.

And here you are changing your story again.
Which is it?
Is the curve that makes up the horizon a great circle (i.e. the circumference of Earth), or is it not?

Again, I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you agreeing with me? Are you not? If you're not, how much am I off by? Do you have math to back it up?

Considering you are contradicting yourself, it is impossible to agree with you as agreeing with one part would disagree with the other.

I have math that supports my point.

No you don't.
You have math that supports how much the curve should be in a great circle, not how much it should be as the horizon. The 2 are fundamentally different.

The horizon is created by the Earth's alleged curvature, right? Are you disputing this?

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean you are seeing a great circle.
The horizon is an intersection of a plane some distance below you with the sphere of Earth.

We're arguing the method of determining how far the horizon is on a round Earth.

Really?
You seemed to be trying to argue about the apparent curvature of the horizon, and how much you should see, not how far it is from you.

So how about this:
Go away for a while, have a think about what it is you are trying to do, and then clearly layout your argument from scratch, starting with what it is you are claiming.

How about I skip the crap of going through everything you said and make it shorter, skimming over the bullshit.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 04:54:56 AM

we are not dealing with a great circle here.
[Irrelevant strawman bullshit removed]
The illustration was meant to be an adequate cross sectional view of the curve of the circle that would represent the horizon. The math is no different.

There you go lying again.
Here let me remind you again:

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 01:12:10 AM

Quote

are you suggesting you should see a curve akin to the curve you showed us, where you highlighted the 3.4% to show what that curvature should look like?

Given a 180 degree FOV, yes.

This is you claiming you should be seeing the great circle.
And here:

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 04:01:46 AM

The visible curve, just for fun, would look like this.

Again, suggesting you should see a part of a great circle as the curve of the horizon.
Your subsequent comparison to a photo from the ISS (or the like) further shows this, that you are acting like you should see the great circle as the horizon.

But now you are stating that is wrong.
So which is it?
Should we be seeing the great circle (that diagram you showed) or not?

So perhaps I should ask again:
are you suggesting you should see a curve akin to the curve you showed us, where you highlighted the 3.4% to show what that curvature should look like?

Or perhaps another one, in what direction is this 180 degrees?
Is it looking straight out, level with Earth, and thus 180 degrees left to right, or is it looking straight down, and having 180 degrees front to back?

Here is an actual cross sectional view of the curve that makes up the horizon:

Code: [Select]

.                          .
Notice how it is 2 dots?
That is because the cross section of a circle (that which makes up the horizon), is 2 dots. It is not a curve.
The curve you have shown, the great circle, has a few sections.
There is the region between the 2 dots. This is not the horizon. This is before the horizon. It is underneath you. Thus you won't see the curve here as the horizon.
There are the regions outside the 2 dots. These are not the horizon. These are further away than the horizon and thus are hidden by the horizon.
Then there are the 2 dots. These make up part of the horizon, but they are only 2 dots and you can't tell what the curve would be just from those 2 dots.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 04:54:56 AM

Also, as it seems there's confusion about this, I'm assuming a 180 degree FOV, and the observer would be in the center of the blue portion of the curve in the illustration.

Yes, there is "confusion" regarding this as you have completely changed your claim after it was disproven so you can pretend you were never wrong.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 12:27:18 PM

the curve that would be evident in a round Earth situation would be due to the curvature of the Earth's circumference. That's what makes the horizon.

And here you are changing your story again.
Which is it?
Is the curve that makes up the horizon a great circle (i.e. the circumference of Earth), or is it not?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 12:27:18 PM

Again, I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you agreeing with me? Are you not? If you're not, how much am I off by? Do you have math to back it up?

Considering you are contradicting yourself, it is impossible to agree with you as agreeing with one part would disagree with the other.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 01:04:56 PM

I have math that supports my point.

No you don't.
You have math that supports how much the curve should be in a great circle, not how much it should be as the horizon. The 2 are fundamentally different.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 12:27:18 PM

The horizon is created by the Earth's alleged curvature, right? Are you disputing this?

Yes, it is, but that doesn't mean you are seeing a great circle.
The horizon is an intersection of a plane some distance below you with the sphere of Earth.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 01:05:38 PM

We're arguing the method of determining how far the horizon is on a round Earth.

Really?
You seemed to be trying to argue about the apparent curvature of the horizon, and how much you should see, not how far it is from you.

So how about this:
Go away for a while, have a think about what it is you are trying to do, and then clearly layout your argument from scratch, starting with what it is you are claiming.

Determining how far away the horizon is is the only way to know what the perceived curvature would be.
I never changed my position, I thought it was pretty clear from my first post when I said "it would be x distance in every direction".

Once more, I'll ask, do you have any math at all contradicting mine and giving a more accurate answer, or not? If not, you have no base on which to make an argument.
The only straw man here is your great circle argument. I understand that taking an arbitrary slice of the horizon line given a section of the circle created by the horizon is a great circle, but the math is the same. The arc would be the same as any semicircular portion of the circumference of that circle.

Once again... if it's not, show me that correct math, and if you can't, you have to concede.

If you'll take this (from a roundie site) as an example:



Again, what I have shown is exactly the same as what would be the visible portion of the green circle in the illustration. They use the same method I used to determine distance to the horizon.

I'll say one more time, just so it's clear - if you don't have math that contradicts mine and can prove it to be a better answer, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Show me the math and your work, or shut up.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on October 01, 2017, 03:09:15 AM

Quote from: Logick on September 30, 2017, 04:20:30 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 30, 2017, 07:19:58 AM

I've not seen any such evidence. You're welcome to show some.

Refer to the OP, for once.

I did. Here, with reference to the video:

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 30, 2017, 12:33:07 AM

That's almost certainly a wide-angle lens. Since the horizon is off-centre and below, it looks slightly concave.

So you're just contradicting yourself?

What have I written that you deem contradictory?

Quote from: Copper Knickers on October 01, 2017, 03:09:15 AM

I think we have probably come full circle on this discussion, since the above comprise my first reply to your OP.

What?! Is English your native language, sir?

It is. Is my use of it beyond your level of comprehension? Which part do you not understand?

Quote from: Logick on October 01, 2017, 01:55:39 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on October 01, 2017, 03:09:15 AM

Quote from: Logick on September 30, 2017, 04:20:30 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 30, 2017, 07:19:58 AM

I've not seen any such evidence. You're welcome to show some.

Refer to the OP, for once.

I did. Here, with reference to the video:

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 30, 2017, 12:33:07 AM

That's almost certainly a wide-angle lens. Since the horizon is off-centre and below, it looks slightly concave.

So you're just contradicting yourself?

What have I written that you deem contradictory?

>I have not seen any such evidence.
>I did [see such evidence].

Quote from: Logick on October 01, 2017, 01:55:39 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on October 01, 2017, 03:09:15 AM

I think we have probably come full circle on this discussion, since the above comprise my first reply to your OP.

What?! Is English your native language, sir?

It is. Is my use of it beyond your level of comprehension? Which part do you not understand?

It's not that I don't understand your feeble attempts at communication. It's just that they're strange.

Quote from: Canadabear on October 01, 2017, 12:56:25 PM

Quote from: zork on October 01, 2017, 12:37:58 PM

It really seems that you don't understand. I just give up at this point.

And he claim victory because you gave up.
It's the standard reaction of a FEIB.

By how about he present som math that supports his FEI.
How about he show mathematically how that sun drops below the horizon as we can see each evening.

What are you even talking about? It seems like you don't know what you're saying. I'm not even arguing for FET here. We're arguing the method of determining how far the horizon is on a round Earth.

Oh than sorry that I saw you as a FEIB.
At least you believe that the earth is a globe in the Heliocentric system.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 01:05:38 PM

Quote from: Canadabear on October 01, 2017, 12:56:25 PM

Quote from: zork on October 01, 2017, 12:37:58 PM

It really seems that you don't understand. I just give up at this point.

And he claim victory because you gave up.
It's the standard reaction of a FEIB.

By how about he present som math that supports his FEI.
How about he show mathematically how that sun drops below the horizon as we can see each evening.

What are you even talking about? It seems like you don't know what you're saying. I'm not even arguing for FET here. We're arguing the method of determining how far the horizon is on a round Earth.

Oh than sorry that I saw you as a FEIB.
At least you believe that the earth is a globe in the Heliocentric system.

I am a flat Earth enthusiast. The Earth is not a globe.
This is a matter of math, not the shape of the Earth.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on October 01, 2017, 02:36:03 PM

Quote from: Logick on October 01, 2017, 01:55:39 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on October 01, 2017, 03:09:15 AM

Quote from: Logick on September 30, 2017, 04:20:30 PM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 30, 2017, 07:19:58 AM

I've not seen any such evidence. You're welcome to show some.

Refer to the OP, for once.

I did. Here, with reference to the video:

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 30, 2017, 12:33:07 AM

That's almost certainly a wide-angle lens. Since the horizon is off-centre and below, it looks slightly concave.

So you're just contradicting yourself?

What have I written that you deem contradictory?

>I have not seen any such evidence.
>I did [see such evidence].

The "I did" was in reference to the fact that I had already replied to your OP and stated that it was not, in my view and for the reasons given, evidence supportive of a flat earth. Maybe I could have been clearer about that - apologies.

I'd suggest we move on and you can present evidence supportive of a flat earth, be it from high-altitude photography or otherwise, if you wish.

Quote from: Canadabear on October 01, 2017, 02:47:15 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 01:05:38 PM

Quote from: Canadabear on October 01, 2017, 12:56:25 PM

Quote from: zork on October 01, 2017, 12:37:58 PM

It really seems that you don't understand. I just give up at this point.

And he claim victory because you gave up.
It's the standard reaction of a FEIB.

By how about he present som math that supports his FEI.
How about he show mathematically how that sun drops below the horizon as we can see each evening.

What are you even talking about? It seems like you don't know what you're saying. I'm not even arguing for FET here. We're arguing the method of determining how far the horizon is on a round Earth.

Oh than sorry that I saw you as a FEIB.
At least you believe that the earth is a globe in the Heliocentric system.

I am a flat Earth enthusiast. The Earth is not a globe.
This is a matter of math, not the shape of the Earth.

What shape do you believe the earth to be and what measurements and observations prove it?

What shape do you believe the earth to be and what . . . observations prove it?

Have you looked out your window? RET is pure theorization. It's not directly observable.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 02:49:35 PM

Quote from: Canadabear on October 01, 2017, 02:47:15 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 01, 2017, 01:05:38 PM

Quote from: Canadabear on October 01, 2017, 12:56:25 PM

Quote from: zork on October 01, 2017, 12:37:58 PM

It really seems that you don't understand. I just give up at this point.

And he claim victory because you gave up.
It's the standard reaction of a FEIB.

By how about he present som math that supports his FEI.
How about he show mathematically how that sun drops below the horizon as we can see each evening.

What are you even talking about? It seems like you don't know what you're saying. I'm not even arguing for FET here. We're arguing the method of determining how far the horizon is on a round Earth.

Oh than sorry that I saw you as a FEIB.
At least you believe that the earth is a globe in the Heliocentric system.

I am a flat Earth enthusiast. The Earth is not a globe.
This is a matter of math, not the shape of the Earth.

What shape do you believe the earth to be and what measurements and observations prove it?

I think I made my stance pretty clear when I said "the Earth is not a globe".
Personally, I believe this mostly because I've never seen it to be anything other than flat. This, however, is not the topic of the current argument.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 01, 2017, 03:03:58 PM

What shape do you believe the earth to be and what . . . observations prove it?

Have you looked out your window? RET is pure theorization. It's not directly observable.

The path of the sun from different places at different times proves a round earth.  The maths prove it.