HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.

This is not the CN section.

The entire geological structure is above sea level.

We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.


There are no more captions on the page:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

"dodis 9y
50,95 km from place you took the picture 43°11'1.01"N , 79°22'7.03"W to CN Tower ;-)
 
Jackson Myers  9y (The photographer)
Cool, thanks for the data! "

Where did this come from, since the captions are not seen on the page itself?

It can't be 51 km, since the distance to Toronto from St. Catharines is 60 km.

You are incorrect again. You have to go to the photographer's photostream for the actual image itself:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/

Right there in the comments with the photographer verifying the location. 51 km.

St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.

This is not the CN section.

The entire geological structure is above sea level.

We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.


There are no more captions on the page:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

"dodis 9y
50,95 km from place you took the picture 43°11'1.01"N , 79°22'7.03"W to CN Tower ;-)
 
Jackson Myers  9y (The photographer)
Cool, thanks for the data! "

Where did this come from, since the captions are not seen on the page itself?

It can't be 51 km, since the distance to Toronto from St. Catharines is 60 km.


Let's go to Hamilton, distance to the other side of the lake, 60 km.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream

No curvature whatsoever, from Hamilton to Lakeshore West Blvd.





CAPTION: TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH

i am not finding it what does the Elevation of
76.5 m (251.0 ft) do to the curvature calculation?

Quote from: sandokhan on September 07, 2019, 02:50:29 PM

St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.

This is not the CN section.

The entire geological structure is above sea level.

We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.


There are no more captions on the page:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/

"dodis 9y
50,95 km from place you took the picture 43°11'1.01"N , 79°22'7.03"W to CN Tower ;-)
 
Jackson Myers  9y (The photographer)
Cool, thanks for the data! "

Where did this come from, since the captions are not seen on the page itself?

It can't be 51 km, since the distance to Toronto from St. Catharines is 60 km.


Let's go to Hamilton, distance to the other side of the lake, 60 km.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream

No curvature whatsoever, from Hamilton to Lakeshore West Blvd.





CAPTION: TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH

i am not finding it what does the Elevation of
76.5 m (251.0 ft) do to the curvature calculation?

And I guess from where in Hamilton and where on Lakeshore West Blvd? It's a really long road.

I proved that the rooftop of the Sky Dome can be seen from a distance of 60 km from the beach located in St. Catharines, a fact impossible on a round earth.

Therefore RE loses.

You might have "proven that the rooftop of the Sky Dome can be seen from a distance of 60 km from the beach located in St. Catharines" but you have not proven that is "a fact impossible on a round earth"!

- It is your claim that cameras possess some sort of ability to obscure the "lower portion of an object" and replace it with water even though the object is in the center of the frame.
- It is your claim that the reason why, for instance, 95% of the Sky Dome and the lower third of the CN Tower is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
- It is your claim that reason why, for instance, 25' (authors numbers from video) of the Torrox Lighthouse is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.

Not claims, BUT FACTS.

Here is the photograph to prove it:


You already know the numbers.

YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.

We don't have prove anything of the sort because slightly more that standard refraction can easily explain it - you prove it can't!

In fact that photo shows most of the Rogers Centre Sky Dome, the land from there to the water level and a considerable part of the tower are hidden.

That would seem to be a fact impossible on a flat earth!

Here is the perfect illustration of my explanation so far (that the quality of the camera is involved):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

Get real! It has nothing to do with "the quality of the camera is involved"!
Even the photographer, Jackson Myers, titles the photo "Toronto through the Clouds" and adds "Toronto across Lake Ontario on a cloudy day".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

Rubbish!
That photo, again by Jackson Myers, titled "Toronto Skyline - with sailboat" and "Taken from St. Catharines, Ontario" was taken under clearer conditions.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

No! It shows plenty hidden just not as much as you think there should be, again would seem to be a fact impossible on a flat earth!

If want to know WHY the focal length of a camera is unable to capture the entire image of the visual obstacle, that is your business.

In other words you haven't a clue and are trying to hide your ignorance!
Luckily I've been taking photos for longer than you've lived so I know you've no idea what you are talking about.

Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

What would pull those "trillions of billions of water" anywhere else against the Earth's gravity?
Where to?

I always like to play with the RE.

Those who have been here for many years must have been intrigued by the following figures:

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5


Because this is the data for a 50 KM DISTANCE.


I used 60 km as a distance to keep the RE busy revealing their arguments and thoughts on the subject.


But the figures are correct for 50 km.



BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h²]^1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer


Plug in 0.002 and 0.003 for h and 50 km for s, and you will get the final results as:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5


I was playing nice to the RE.

Until now.

Since they are fighting for each meter, from now on the altitude of the photographer, right there on the beach, will be at most 3 meters. Nothing else.

An altitude of 10 meters corresponds to the height of a three story building.


These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.

Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.

86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome

150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.

Good luck.

Here is the proof:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466

DATED: JUNE 09, 2009

The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.

50 KM DISTANCE.

That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.

Here is the proof:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466

DATED: JUNE 09, 2009

The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.

50 KM DISTANCE.

That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.

They might not show as much hidden as you think there should be but there should be but they show more than should be hidden on a flat earth - which is NONE!

So you have proven nothing! Get used to it!

Here is the one I showed with about the right amount hidden and a higher level photo showing what was there to be seen.

Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft above sea-level

Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft above sea-level

I'm not claiming that these's prove the earth a Globe but they show there can be other explanations for your photos.

So your photos do not prove the earth flat! They might make question the size of the earth of look into the possibly of some other explanation, but prove, NO!

Quote from: sandokhan on September 07, 2019, 09:51:49 PM

Here is the proof:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466

DATED: JUNE 09, 2009

The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.

50 KM DISTANCE.

That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.

They might not show as much hidden as you think there should be but there should be but they show more than should be hidden on a flat earth - which is NONE!

So you have proven nothing! Get used to it!

Here is the one I showed with about the right amount hidden and a higher level photo showing what was there to be seen.

Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft above sea-level

Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft above sea-level

I'm not claiming that these's prove the earth a Globe but they show there can be other explanations for your photos.

So your photos do not prove the earth flat! They might make question the size of the earth of look into the possibly of some other explanation, but prove, NO!

Hey, Rab, you need to get some new material. That's already been proven to be a mirage. Try to use something real.

Sorry, you can't use the Bathurst lighthouse story anymore.

It has been debunked.

Wolfie6020 who knows when this vid was taken? Are you seriously asking us to take your word for it? Because you offer zero proof of the date.

What you have admitted in passing is that the swell does indeed invalidate your vid. Unlike your halfwit followers who don’t understand the importance of the swell off Rottnest, you do know. My point is that the swell can be up to 4.5m at various times of the year. Which you completely fail to mention in any of your Bathurst Lighthouse vids. Very deceptive and it has tricked your zombie minded followers

Btw why spell metres, meters? Team Wolfie is a NASA shill account. Uses American spelling.

Better lift your game, this vid is an epic fail.


Here is the REAL SUPERZOOM THREAD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64002.0


They might not show as much hidden as you think there should be but there should be but they show more than should be hidden on a flat earth - which is NONE!

Let's put your word to the test.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5



BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h²]^1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer


Plug in 0.002 and 0.003 for h and 50 km for s, and you will get the final results as:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5


These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.

Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.

86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome

150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.

Good luck.

Here is the proof:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466

DATED: JUNE 09, 2009

The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.

50 KM DISTANCE.

That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.

You got it wrong. Instead of overcomplicating this, use MAMSL (St. Catherines beach is more than 100m above the sea level) values and simulate the view in google earth by adding a small layer with a center of an observed object and at attitude from curve calculator (i'd suggest metabunk as it can use refraction). You will get exactly what the photographer got!

Quote from: sandokhan on September 07, 2019, 09:51:49 PM

Here is the proof:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466

DATED: JUNE 09, 2009

The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.

50 KM DISTANCE.

That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.

You got it wrong. Instead of overcomplicating this, use MAMSL (St. Catherines beach is more than 100m above the sea level) values and simulate the view in google earth by adding a small layer with a center of an observed object and at attitude from curve calculator (i'd suggest metabunk as it can use refraction). You will get exactly what the photographer got!

Here's a simulated close-up view. The question is, why on a flat earth is Toronto submerged under dozens of meters of water?

You are trolling the upper forums.

Am I supposed to let you know, here in the upper forums, that the ENTIRE geological structure is way above sea level?

We are measuring everything with respect to LAKE ONTARIO LEVEL, not sea level.

Sure, the Niagara Escarpment is located at a higher elevation than Lake Ontario:



However, then I will bring here all over again the multitude of photographs taken in Grimsby (45 to 170 meters altitude) which exhibit no 59 meter curvature of water.


The question is, why on a flat earth is Toronto submerged under dozens of meters of water?

You are dreaming.

On a FE Toronto CANNOT be under any water, on the contrary.


The following photograph demolishes RE.

It can only have been taken on a flat earth.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5



These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.

Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.

86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome

150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.

Good luck.


Now, please explain to your readers, and for that matter to yourself, HOW THE WATER LEVEL OF LAKE ONTARIO STAYS CURVED ON A ROUND EARTH.

You can't use either attractive gravity or general relativity.

By pure magic, isn't it?

This is exactly what you are telling everyone here is happening: on a spherical Earth the water level stays curved by pure magic, nothing else.

The question is, why on a flat earth is Toronto submerged under dozens of meters of water?

You are dreaming.

On a FE Toronto CANNOT be under any water, on the contrary.

I too believe that Toronto CANNOT be under dozens of meters of water. But according to flat earth, it is:

Here is a single photograph which renders everything your posted as superfluous, unnecessary and ineffective.



Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.

Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.

86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome

150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.

Good luck.


Now, please explain to your readers, and for that matter to yourself, HOW THE WATER LEVEL OF LAKE ONTARIO STAYS CURVED ON A ROUND EARTH.

You can't use either attractive gravity or general relativity.

By pure magic, isn't it?

This is exactly what you are telling everyone here is happening: on a spherical Earth the water level stays curved by pure magic, nothing else.

Here is a single photograph which renders everything your posted as superfluous, unnecessary and ineffective.



Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.

Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.

86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome

150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.

Good luck.


Now, please explain to your readers, and for that matter to yourself, HOW THE WATER LEVEL OF LAKE ONTARIO STAYS CURVED ON A ROUND EARTH.

You can't use either attractive gravity or general relativity.

By pure magic, isn't it?

This is exactly what you are telling everyone here is happening: on a spherical Earth the water level stays curved by pure magic, nothing else.

Here's a single image that renders everything you posted as superfluous, unnecessary and ineffective. Headline; "Flat earth drowns Toronto under dozens of meters of Lake Ontario":

You are trolling the upper forums.

If you want to post images with Toronto under water please use the CN section.

Here you are going to have to deal with this:



Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.

Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.

86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome

150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.

Good luck.

Your lack of understanding isn't a generally acceptable method for refuting the laws of physics.

We can observe that the earth is a globe, it rotates and the oceans stay on the surface.

Saying it must be magic isn't an argument, what is your alternative?

Still quoting your trig I see, you have Your supposed BD in the wrong location

When did thid thread turned into another make a picture if Totonto contest?
Rockets were more interesting.

When did thid thread turned into another make a picture if Totonto contest?
Rockets were more interesting.

Fair question. Toronto is under water, on a flat earth. And rockets work in a vacuum. Pretty much sums up 37 pages.

We can observe that the earth is a globe, it rotates and the oceans stay on the surface.

Let's put your words to the test.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip

38:28 to 38:35



From the same spot, a splendid photograph:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#



If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Make no mistake about it: there is no curvature on the surface of the Earth.


If you want oceans to stay on the outer surface of a sphere, you must explain HOW this happens.

Feel free to make use of gravitons and spacetime.

In less than 30 seconds I will demolish your nonsense.

Then, we are left with the real and only explanation offered by the RE: PURE MAGIC.


If you want the Earth to rotate around its own axis, you must PROVE IT.

Go ahead and make everyone's day here by entertaining us with your PROOFS of the Earth's axial rotation.

You won't last more than 60 seconds in a direct debate with me on the supposed rotation of the Earth.


Please post your fantasies about the universe in the CN section.

You won't last more than 60 seconds in a direct debate with me on the supposed rotation of the Earth.

Ok, I'm game. Earth rotates! 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54...

It doesn't work like that.

You have to PROVE your statement.

Newton never did, yet had the audacity to apply his equations to outer space.

First, you must PROVE that the Earth rotates about its own axis.

Please entertain us.

We can observe that the earth is a globe, it rotates and the oceans stay on the surface.

Let's put your words to the test.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip

38:28 to 38:35



From the same spot, a splendid photograph:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#



If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Make no mistake about it: there is no curvature on the surface of the Earth.


If you want oceans to stay on the outer surface of a sphere, you must explain HOW this happens.

Feel free to make use of gravitons and spacetime.

In less than 30 seconds I will demolish your nonsense.

Then, we are left with the real and only explanation offered by the RE: PURE MAGIC.


If you want the Earth to rotate around its own axis, you must PROVE IT.

Go ahead and make everyone's day here by entertaining us with your PROOFS of the Earth's axial rotation.

You won't last more than 60 seconds in a direct debate with me on the supposed rotation of the Earth.


Please post your fantasies about the universe in the CN section.

I mean I hate to brag but we seem to be doing an ok job lasting more than 60 seconds so far.

Why do you respond to a math problem with a photograph.

You fail to appreciate scale

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

There is usually some refraction.
For the standard lapse rate that is allowed for by using an equivalent earth's radius of ⁷/₆ x actual radius.
Allowing for that the "expected" hidden height would be a bit under 134 m.
All it needs, however, is a small difference in water and air temperature to change this either way.

3 - 150.5

And from 3 m for the camera height, the "expected" hidden height would be 126 m but again local conditions can change that either way.

These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.

The camera's heights and distance might be but the "hidden height" can vary considerably depending on the relative water and low level air temperatures.

Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.

86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome

150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.

Good luck.

No need for luck!

Make that 126 - 95 = 31 m "to be accounted for" but even that only needs a little extra refraction to change it up or down.
So it be considered weak evidence for a flat earth but certainly not proof!

But you have the biggest problem!
You claim that the earth is flat and on a flat earth none should be hidden but even you admit that 86 m is hidden!

So, if we use your photo and your calculations it would appear that the earth can't be flat!

But all along I've taken the position that observing "curvature" through the atmosphere is poor evidence either way.

You are hereby summoned to post your private fantasies abour refraction in the CN section.

Refraction won't help you.

Refraction won't save you.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is no visible refraction in the photograph, it would amount at most to some 10 meters (I am very generous here).

You can't delete 24 meters even though you would like to.

It doesn't work like that.

It doesn't work like that.

You have to PROVE your statement.

You never have, so I think the bar is pretty low. Made up formulas, feet of copy/pasta, over and over again. Sagnac formula for this and that, it even seemingly applies to making toast. On and on, nowhere and further nowhere.

Newton never did, yet had the audacity to apply his equations to outer space.

Newton did, yet had the audacity to apply his equations to outer space. A crazy mofo like that. Principia. Look it up.

First, you must PROVE that the Earth rotates about its own axis.

Please entertain us.

Done

You seem to be at a loss as to the meaning of PROOF.

Once you post what you gather to be a constructive PROOF, we can start the clock.

You posted a gif.

A personal opinion.

Please provide PROOFS of the Earth's rotation.

Alleged photographs/gifs from outer space don't count: the missions can easily be faked.

What you want is to provide some kind of an experiment.

You are hereby summoned to post your private fantasies abour refraction in the CN section.

Refraction won't help you.

Refraction won't save you.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is no visible refraction in the photograph, it would amount at most to some 10 meters (I am very generous here).

You can't delete 24 meters even though you would like to.

It doesn't work like that.

Actually it does work like that because where refraction can account for a few meters here and there and an unknown observer level, etc., flat earth can't account for the dozens of meters of Lake Ontario that have flooded Toronto based upon all of the images compiled.

It doesn't work like that.

You have to PROVE your statement.

Newton never did, yet had the audacity to apply his equations to outer space.

First, you must PROVE that the Earth rotates about its own axis.

Please entertain us.

Well we could but you already proved it earlier in the thread via your Alias Effect ramblings, although I disagree with your ultimate conclusions,  the experiments and their methodology certainly persuaded me the earth rotates.

Thanks for clearing it up