Strongest FE Evidence

  • 778 Replies
  • 68618 Views
*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #510 on: December 02, 2019, 11:15:34 AM »
So that's a no then?

4 months I've asked you to do the math, each time you refuse?

So if pictures of mirages at an unknown location, elevation and magnification is acceptable evidence. I can just copy pasta countless pictures showing curvature?

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #511 on: December 02, 2019, 11:29:33 AM »
This alone proves the Earth is flat:



altitude - 170 meters

location - Grimsby

I posted the original link. The RE called the photographer years ago, they obtained the 170 meter figure, which I had to accept. They verified the link during countless debates.

The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.


*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #512 on: December 02, 2019, 12:03:13 PM »
This alone proves the Earth is flat:



altitude - 170 meters

location - Grimsby

I posted the original link. The RE called the photographer years ago, they obtained the 170 meter figure, which I had to accept. They verified the link during countless debates.

The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.

The original link said the Toronto skyline and zoomed image were from the top of the Grimsby Escarpment,  194m elevation.

That picture cant be from Grimsby, the orientation of the buildings is completely different?

Ok let's say you are right...

Do the math?

Highlight where you think the island is?

Post the daylight image, which you have shown you have, so we can see if it is the island and airport, quay,marina etc etc?

Still waiting
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

Timeisup

  • 3283
  • You still think that?
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #513 on: December 02, 2019, 12:06:45 PM »
This alone proves the Earth is flat:



altitude - 170 meters

location - Grimsby

I posted the original link. The RE called the photographer years ago, they obtained the 170 meter figure, which I had to accept. They verified the link during countless debates.

The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.

If someone posted irrefutable evidence that contradicted your own beliefs how would you react? would you change your beliefs and accept you had been wong or would you just not accept it?
What a laugh!!!

*

Zaphod

  • 137
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #514 on: December 02, 2019, 12:07:29 PM »
Sandy

From an elevation of 170m, what do you think the distance to the horizon should be on a round Earth?

What do you think the distance from Grimsby ON to the base of the CN Tower is?

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #515 on: December 02, 2019, 12:27:47 PM »
This alone proves the Earth is flat:


Wrong!

Quote
altitude - 170 meters

location - Grimsby

I posted the original link. The RE called the photographer years ago, they obtained the 170 meter figure, which I had to accept. They verified the link during countless debates.

Alright, letís use that altitude.

Lake Ontario is 74m above see level.

Assuming 170m is the actual altitude, not the height above the lake, that gives us a height of 96m.  You claimed 55km distance earlier.

With no refraction at all thatís 31m hidden.

With just standard refraction thatís 18m hidden, which is not a lot.

It only takes a little more refraction to get that down to a couple of meters, or even zero meters. 

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

Frankly, the Rogers Center looks a bit short to me.

YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING.

Quote
The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.

We can see some lights.  Itís certainly not clear if they are on the island or not.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #516 on: December 02, 2019, 12:34:46 PM »
MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

Distance Muskegon - Milwaukee: 84.7 miles = 135.5 km

Curvature = 360 meters

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.31 KILOMETERS, from an altitude of 3 meters, right on the beach






Tallest building in Milwaukee: 183 meters

Tallest building in Racine: 40 meters

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 ó using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html


1310 METERS - 40 METERS = 1270 METERS (1.27 KM) TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR



The original link said the Toronto skyline and zoomed image were from the top of the Grimsby Escarpment,  194m elevation.

The original link to the 2014 photograph, NOT the 2007 pic. Remember, the RE called Ms. Lecky-Hepburn years ago to get the 170 m figure.

Post the daylight image, which you have shown you have, so we can see if it is the island and airport, quay,marina etc etc?

I have already posted that photograph at that time, if I can find it I will post again here.

Meantime, here is the link: http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto1.jpg


Lake Ontario is 74m above see level.

Assuming 170m is the actual altitude, not the height above the lake, that gives us a height of 96m.


Are you sure you are ok?

74M ABOVE SEA LEVEL IS THE ALTITUDE FROM WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE IS MEASURED.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT IS 170 M ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE LAKE ITSELF.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #517 on: December 02, 2019, 12:37:25 PM »
So that's a no on the maths then?

Again
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #518 on: December 02, 2019, 12:40:39 PM »
And still no answer this:

Please explain what changed the Sky Dome from a dome to a rectangular building and what hides a large portion of the lower part of the CN Tower.

WHAT?!

This "WHAT?!":




WHERE IS THE REST OF THE TOWER?

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #519 on: December 02, 2019, 12:41:15 PM »




The original link said the Toronto skyline and zoomed image were from the top of the Grimsby Escarpment,  194m elevation.

The original link to the 2014 photograph, NOT the 2007 pic. Remember, the RE called Ms. Lecky-Hepburn years ago to get the 170 m figure.

Post the daylight image, which you have shown you have, so we can see if it is the island and airport, quay,marina etc etc?

I have already posted that photograph at that time, if I can find it I will post again here.

Meantime, here is the link: http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto1.jpg


Lake Ontario is 74m above see level.

Assuming 170m is the actual altitude, not the height above the lake, that gives us a height of 96m.


Are you sure you are ok?

74M ABOVE SEA LEVEL IS THE ALTITUDE FROM WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE IS MEASURED.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT IS 170 M ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE LAKE ITSELF.

Oh

http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/sgc-cms/histoires_de_chez_nous-community_stories/pm_v2.php?id=story_line&lg=English&fl=0&ex=00000438&sl=4785&pos=1
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #520 on: December 02, 2019, 12:45:56 PM »

Lake Ontario is 74m above see level.

Assuming 170m is the actual altitude, not the height above the lake, that gives us a height of 96m.


Are you sure you are ok?

74M ABOVE SEA LEVEL IS THE ALTITUDE FROM WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE IS MEASURED.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT IS 170 M ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE LAKE ITSELF.

Well then, that totally shafts your argument then.

Even with only standard refraction, there should only be 1m behind the horizon.

1 METER!!!!!

So what do you think youíve proved?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #521 on: December 02, 2019, 12:51:34 PM »
WHERE IS THE REST OF THE TOWER?

You are trolling this thread.

Just a few minutes ago you tried to imply that the Niagara Escarpment is 120 meter above sea level.

Now this.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS.

Even with only standard refraction, there should only be 1m behind the horizon.

1 METER!!!!!


What?

The visual obstacle is 5 meters.

Now, even if we ascend to 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge) and you get 1 centimeter for the visual obstalce, it still won't help you.

The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.




MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

Distance Muskegon - Milwaukee: 84.7 miles = 135.5 km

Curvature = 360 meters

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.31 KILOMETERS, from an altitude of 3 meters, right on the beach






Tallest building in Milwaukee: 183 meters

Tallest building in Racine: 40 meters

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 ó using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html


1310 METERS - 40 METERS = 1270 METERS (1.27 KM) TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR

*

sokarul

  • 19277
  • Extra Racist
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #522 on: December 02, 2019, 12:54:49 PM »
MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

Distance Muskegon - Milwaukee: 84.7 miles = 135.5 km

Curvature = 360 meters

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.31 KILOMETERS, from an altitude of 3 meters, right on the beach






Tallest building in Milwaukee: 183 meters

Tallest building in Racine: 40 meters

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 ó using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html


1310 METERS - 40 METERS = 1270 METERS (1.27 KM) TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR
Itís mirage. Itís why itís in the news. You know this already. Explain why you canít see that every night.


ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #523 on: December 02, 2019, 12:58:55 PM »
These are the upper forums.

Not CN.

What?

No reflection formula is going to solve this one for you.

THE VISUAL OBSTACLE MEASURES 1270 METERS (1.27 KM).

*

sokarul

  • 19277
  • Extra Racist
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #524 on: December 02, 2019, 01:04:07 PM »
These are the upper forums.

Not CN.

What?

No reflection formula is going to solve this one for you.

THE VISUAL OBSTACLE MEASURES 1270 METERS (1.27 KM).
We can tell itís the upper forums because you run away from simple questions.

Why is it in the news?

Why canít it be seen every night?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #525 on: December 02, 2019, 01:06:24 PM »
WHERE IS THE REST OF THE TOWER?

You are trolling this thread.

Asking a question directly relevant to your claims, is not trolling.  It just pisses you off because you have no answer.  Not the same thing.

Quote
Just a few minutes ago you tried to imply that the Niagara Escarpment is 120 meter above sea level.

170m.  You said that was the altitude.  Itís not trolling to use your numbers.

Quote
Now this.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS.

What missing 80m?

Quote
Even with only standard refraction, there should only be 1m behind the horizon.

1 METER!!!!!


What?

Thatís what I got from the above calculator using the numbers you gave me.

Quote
The visual obstacle is 5 meters.

OK, if this is correct, itís absolutely fuck all.   Even if you could clearly make it out in this photo, only a slight change in refraction reduces it to zero.

Quote
Now, even if we ascend to 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge) and you get 1 centimeter for the visual obstalce, it still won't help you.

And how exactly are you supposed to see 1 cm?

Quote
The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.


Whatever.  See above.

Quote
MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

No.  No more examples until you explain the missing third of the tower in the the video YOU posted earlier.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 01:08:19 PM by Unconvinced »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #526 on: December 02, 2019, 01:10:51 PM »
No, you are trolling.

Here is what you wrote:

Alright, letís use that altitude.

Lake Ontario is 74m above see level.

Assuming 170m is the actual altitude, not the height above the lake, that gives us a height of 96m.  You claimed 55km distance earlier.


ONLY A TROLL COULD SUBSTRACT 74 FROM 170, SINCE THE NIAGARA ESCARPMENT IS LOCATED ITSELF 170 METERS ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE LAKE.

Pure trolling on your part.

No more examples until you explain the missing third of the tower in the the video YOU posted earlier.

You don't tell me what to do.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 1270 METERS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN MUSKEGON.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #527 on: December 02, 2019, 01:22:48 PM »
No, you are trolling.

Here is what you wrote:

Alright, letís use that altitude.

Lake Ontario is 74m above see level.

Assuming 170m is the actual altitude, not the height above the lake, that gives us a height of 96m.  You claimed 55km distance earlier.


ONLY A TROLL COULD SUBSTRACT 74 FROM 170, SINCE THE NIAGARA ESCARPMENT IS LOCATED ITSELF 170 METERS ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE LAKE.

Pure trolling on your part.

Or someone using the common definition of altitude as height above see level.  Donít be such a child.

Quote
No more examples until you explain the missing third of the tower in the the video YOU posted earlier.

You don't tell me what to do.

Your choice, but I and probably everyone else will conclude you have no answer.

Quote
YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS.

Erm, you donít tell me what to do.  But I might still answer if you explain what 80m you are talking about, when you just said that 5m was the amount that should be hidden?

BTW, this is the no refraction value, so almost certainly not the real conditions.

Quote
YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 1270 METERS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN MUSKEGON.

Not until you tell me what happened to the bottom of the CN tower in your video.

Although several people have already answered you.

Funny how you refuse to answer questions about your own claims, yet still demand I respond to whatever you want me to.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #528 on: December 02, 2019, 01:25:29 PM »
You are trolling again.

Not until you tell me what happened to the bottom of the CN tower in your video.

This is where you HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS.

Erm, you donít tell me what to do.

Sure, but if you cannot explain the missing 80 meters, nor can you explain the missing 1270 meters, the surface of lakes Ontario and Michigan is flat.

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #529 on: December 02, 2019, 01:26:03 PM »
That is a question which should best be asked of someone who is specialized in the field of photographic equipment.
No, it isn't.
It is a question for someone like you who is outright rejecting reality.
If you want to claim the camera is magically lowering Toronto or raises up the water, the burden is on you to show that.
Your baseless assertions are worthless.

Until you justify this insane claim of yours this will remain solid evidence of a RE.
Again, the best you are able to do is claim these photos are worthless and cannot be used as evidence of the shape of Earth.
The second best is saying that they are proof of a RE, but the size of Earth is much larger than claimed.
Or you can take the more rational option of the multitude of unknown variables meaning it is just evidence of a RE and cannot be used to determine the size.

I am asking for the mechanism. What causes their emission?
The subquarks are being assembled by the Black Sun, using the streams of bosons coming from Jupiter.
How, you will ask.
Here is the proof:
You are aware those 2 are completely unconnected?
If I am asking how, why try and provide proof?

But now you are talking about loads of whorls. I might come back to them later.
Instead, I will ask how are these bosons coming from Jupiter?


So, you are not up to the job of explaining the MISSING 80 METERS.
Again, that is entirely your job. You need to justify these missing 80 m. You are yet to do so.

The standard formula based upon your alleged 50 km distance and your alleged 1.5 m height gives 163 m hidden based purely upon geometry and 138 m hidden based upon standard refraction.
No. Not necessarily the magical removal of 25 meters by refraction, but this, the facts mentioned by your tag team partner:
Metabunk curve calculator estimates that 138 meters should be hidden.
"At its highest point, the CN Tower is 553.33 metres tall" and, by scaling that photo, about 26% is hidden so that would make about 147 metres hidden.
Notice how he is saying 147 m is hidden in the photo? Notice how he isn't saying that refraction makes 147 m hidden?

Notice how this shows your claim was an outright lie?
Notice how you are completely unable to back up your claims?

You have a track record, well established here, of lying with each and every message.
You can do nothing else but lie.
I see you are projecting again.

Go ahead and invent the photographic equipment which would permit the viewing of all of the details.
Again, better photographic equipment wont help.
If you wish to claim such garbage, PROVE IT!
Go get the better equipment that will permit taking a photo of the shore of Toronto, with nothing hidden from the beach 1.5 m above the water level, 50 km above the ground.

You are yet to prove any is missing.

[SAME PATHETIC BS SPAM]
Again repeating the same spam wont help you.
You need to actually justify it.
This means you need to show the height of the observer is the height you claim.
You need to show the distance is what you claim.
You need to show just how much is actually hidden, including justifying the height of the dome (again, I have provided a source which shows that it is higher than you claim).
And most importantly, YOU NEED TO FACTOR IN REFRACTION SHOWING THE LIMITS!

So far all you have done is repeat the same set of assertions and repeatedly ignore refraction to pretend there is some missing curvature.

You have the video, a continuous filming from the Toronto skyline to the boots on the ground.
Which provides no clear indication of just what the height is.
Why assume it is 1.5 m?

Low quality cameras will not magically cut out the middle.
For long distances, THEY ALWAYS DO.
Pure garbage.
For long distances, the curvature of Earth gets in the way.

If it was a low quality camera you should be able to do it without using long distances, or have the missing chunk not be on the horizon.

The fact that it is always were the horizon is, where objects beyond the horizon have the lower section removed clearly indicates it is the curvature of Earth getting in the way, not a low quality camera magically cutting out a section.

Learn some physics.
Good advice.
Go learn some physics, such as the physics of how cameras work.
If you do, you realise your claim that they magically cut out the middle of a photo is pure nonsense.
All they do is lower the resolution.

I was able to retrieve the original page, even though it was discontinued.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080117192830/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html
With none of the images you claim.

But fortunately, the width of the images is preserved.

Lets see what it has vs what you has.
First what it has:


Now what you have:
Now, a huge surprise for the RE.
Here is the original caption for the zoom + image:



Notice how they are nothing alike?
So thanks for providing proof that you are lying yet again.


Original threads:
The second one even contains the original photograph.
The RE called Ms. Lecky-Hepburn and found that the altitude was 170 meters. I had to accept that figure.
Even in that thread you still just appeal to REers calling her years ago.

So still no justification at all.

VERTICAL temperature gradient, not horizontal.
Yes, that is what I said.
Don't you understand? The temperature over a small portion of a distance at the same latitude/longitude will be similar, especially over a lake, at the observer and on the other shoreline.
So you don't understand what vertical means?
You are discussing a horizontal gradient.

This alone proves the Earth is flat:
You left out the "n't" part.
That photo alone proves the Earth isn't flat.

That is because it is missing the lower portion of Toronto and the island in front of it is completely missing.

The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.
Repeating the same lie wont help you.
The island is clearly not visible.
We can see the lights of the buildings in front of the tower.
We can't see the island with its shore and trees.

The visual obstacle is 5 meters.
Now, even if we ascend to 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge) and you get 1 centimeter for the visual obstalce, it still won't help you.
Are you completely insane?
You are trying to claim that you can tell that not a single cm is hidden from the photo?


Now cut out all the BS and tell us why the lower portion of Toronto is hidden in so many of these photos, where clearly resolution is not the issue.

A 'black hole' is not 'black' either but that's what we call them. They aren't even 'holes'
No, a black hole is most certainly black. It is the blackest thing we have. It is even blacker than a perfect black body.
The accretion disk around it isn't black, but the hole is.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #530 on: December 02, 2019, 01:29:14 PM »
It's your evidence, just posting it and shrugging is not acceptable.

So your best evidence is a photo you cant link


It was always linked to the source, right from the start.

It is the best evidence from Grimsby, Ms. Lecky-Hepburn is one of the best known photographers in the lake Ontario area.
I won't question Ms. Lecky-Hepburn's qualification, just your inappropriate use of them.

Read this again!
No refraction formula is going to come to the rescue for the RE.
Really? Then why did Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn have this to say about Oshawa from Grimsby:
Quote
Mirages over Lake Ontario as seen from Grimsby, Ontario by Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn ©2007
June 10, 2004
The lights of Oshawa (97km across the lake) seen with false horizon. On a normal day Oshawa can't be seen.

And why were those photos on a page labeled "Mirages over Lake Ontario as seen from Grimsby, Ontario"? In other words, they were, apart from the first under quite abnormal conditions.

While those photos you are using are probably not strictly mirages they are cases of extreme refraction commonly called looming!


Quote from: sandokhan
While we are on where do you get your 59m bulge from

Are you scientifically illiterate?
No, but you appear to be totally ignorant on the optical properties of the atmosphere!

Please go and learn something before making a total fool of yourself.
Here are a few links that might help:
    Optics for Beginners
    Atmospheric Refraction Phenomena
    Standard-Atmosphere Simulations
    Looming, Towering, Stooping, and Sinking
None of the photos you have used on Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn's "Mirages over Lake Ontario" page qualify as "mirages" but links to those pages are there but all demonstrate extreme looming and that is why she posts them on that page!

Hence all none of the photos you have used from Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn's "Mirages over Lake Ontario" page are admissable is determining any curvature of Lake Ontario!

Quote from: sandokhan
Don't you know the curvature formula?

Do I have to spell it out for you?

C = R(1 - cos(s/2R))

s - distance
R - 6378.164 km
Sure, I know the curvature formula but you might explain just what that C is in formula because the term "curvature" is open to so many interpretations.

The strict geometric definition of curvature is as in here:
Quote
SEG Wiki: Curvature
What is curvature?

An illustrated definition of 2D curvature.
Mathematically it can be represented as k = 1/r, where k is the curvature, and r is the radius of the circle that is tangent to a curve. The smaller the radius of curvature is, the more bent the curve is. And, if the radius of curvature is infinite, then the curvature (k) would be very small having essentially zero curvature and approximating a straight line.
And since the Globe is almost spherical its curvature is simply 1/R

So, exactly what is the C in your formula?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 02:28:56 PM by rabinoz »

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #531 on: December 02, 2019, 01:33:56 PM »
You are trolling again.

Not until you tell me what happened to the bottom of the CN tower in your video.

This is where you HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS.

Erm, you donít tell me what to do.

Sure, but if you cannot explain the missing 80 meters, nor can you explain the missing 1270 meters, the surface of lakes Ontario and Michigan is flat.

WHAT 80M?  WHERE DID THIS NUMBER COME FROM?


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #532 on: December 02, 2019, 01:37:27 PM »
You need to justify these missing 80 m.

NOT ME, BUT YOU!

80 METERS ARE MISSING FROM YOUR HYPOTHESIS.

I DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

USING YOUR OWN RE VISUAL OBSTACLE FORMULA, YOU ARE MISSING 80 METERS.

If you want to claim the camera is magically lowering Toronto or raises up the water, the burden is on you to show that.

Sure, you HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS, otherwise the surface of the lake is flat and my explanation stands correct.

Again, better photographic equipment wont help.

BUT IT WILL, SINCE YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THE MISSING 80 METERS!

The island is clearly not visible.

Sure it is, the lights from the island are right in front of the shoreline; at night you can't see the trees.




YOU HAVE JUST WASTED EVERYONE'S TIME HERE!


EXPLAIN THIS.



Tallest building in Oshawa: Summit Place, 64.5 meters


CURVATURE: 184 METERS

Distance Grimsby - Oshawa: 97 kilometers

No refraction formula is going to come to the rescue for the RE.


EXPLAIN THIS.

MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

Distance Muskegon - Milwaukee: 84.7 miles = 135.5 km

Curvature = 360 meters

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.31 KILOMETERS, from an altitude of 3 meters, right on the beach






Tallest building in Milwaukee: 183 meters

Tallest building in Racine: 40 meters

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 ó using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html


1310 METERS - 40 METERS = 1270 METERS (1.27 KM) TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR


but links to those pages are there but all demonstrate extreme looming

NO LOOMING WHATSOEVER IN MS. LECKY-HEPBURN'S PHOTOGRAPHS.

No refraction formula is going to save the day for you.

NOT FOR OSHAWA.

NOT FOR MUSKEGON.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #533 on: December 02, 2019, 01:43:42 PM »
Do the math, roll out one or other of your BD formula and crunch the numbers for 59m at Grimsby.

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #534 on: December 02, 2019, 01:50:29 PM »
You need to justify these missing 80 m.
NOT ME, BUT YOU!
80 METERS ARE MISSING FROM YOUR HYPOTHESIS.
Again, that is your claim that you are yet to justify.
You need to justify that these 80 m are missing.
That means justifying the height of the observer, the distance of the observer, the height that is actually hidden and the height that should be hidden including factoring in refraction.

You are yet to do so.
Instead all you have done is repeatedly the same baseless garbage.
At other times you have even admitted it is less than 80 m.

Until you have done that to show that it is actually 80 m which is missing, I don't have to do anything to defend a RE, as that photo is defence enough due to the lower section of Toronto being hidden by the water, clearly showing that the surface of the water is curved.

Until you can provide a viable alternative for why the lower section of Toronto is hidden by the water, this photo will remain conclusive evidence that the Earth is curved and cannot possible be flat.

Repeating the same lies about cameras magically cutting out a section wont help you. If you want to go down that path you will need to prove it as it completely defies how cameras actually work.
You can try providing it by using a better camera in the same location, with nothing hidden at all. Or by taking a photo of an object such as a dartboard with a low quality camera where the middle of the dartboard is missing, while the top and bottom is clearly visible, with nothing in the way.

Again, the best you can try to do to save yourself is claim that photos such as these are useless and cannot be used either way.

Stop trying to spam other crap and deal with the photos across Lake Ontario, clearly showing the surface is curved as the lower section of Toronto is hidden.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #535 on: December 02, 2019, 01:57:10 PM »
You need to justify that these 80 m are missing.

What?

It is the RE VISUAL OBSTACLE FORMULA.

160 METERS.

At least ten meters of the SKY DOME can be seen.

160 - 80 = 80 meters.

YOU ARE MISSING 80 METERS!

clearly showing the surface is curved as the lower section of Toronto is hidden.

Let's put your word to the test.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_baird/14067034302

Taken from a viewing stand at Beamer Memorial Conservation Area, Grimsby

DISTANCE 55 KM ; CURVATURE OF 59 METERS


Beamer's Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

http://www.gowaterfalling.com/waterfalls/beamer.shtml


Maximum altitude of Beamer Falls = 110 meters.


Here is the other photograph from Beamer Falls:




http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/#

Again, no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km, no 59 m midpoint visual obstacle.


Ms. Kerry Ann Lecky-Hepburn took these photographs some years ago: the RE called her, and were told they were taken at an altitude of 170 m in Grimsby.



No ascending slope, no midpoint visual obstacle of 59 meters, no curvature whatsoever.

From the very same spot, Ms. Lecky-Hepburn used a reflector telescope for this zoom:



No curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km.


Another photograph signed Mrs. Lecky-Hepburn:



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: no visual obstacle, just a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to the other shoreline.




http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/#

No 59 meter curvature whatsoever, a perfectly flat surface of the water.

Another photograph signed Ms. Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn, no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km (Grimsby-Toronto), the boat is not part of either an ascending slope or a descending slope:



Two photographs taken from the Niagara escarpment: the boats are not part of either an ascending slope or a descending slope, no curvature of 59 meters whatsoever all the way to the other shoreline:




Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meters curvature, absolutely nonexistent, there isn't one centimeter/one inch of curvature over this distance:










Let us increase the distance to 33.6 km, zero curvature (supposed to be 22 meters), Oakville - Toronto:



We now go to Etobicoke, some 6 miles from Toronto, no 1,8 meter curvature, no ascending slope:





There is no curvature whatsoever across lake Ontario.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2019, 01:59:32 PM by sandokhan »

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #536 on: December 02, 2019, 02:00:57 PM »
Except for the bits of Toronto,  the Airport,  marina, islands, quays etc etc.

What could be hiding them? Why are they missing?

Still a no on the maths then?
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #537 on: December 02, 2019, 02:11:26 PM »
You need to justify that these 80 m are missing.
What?
It is quite simple. Until you justify your claim, YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR YOUR CLAIM THAT 80 m IS MISSING!

Repeating the same nonsense wont help you.

It is the RE VISUAL OBSTACLE FORMULA.
Which completley ignores refraction and thus is useless to claim 80 m is missing.
And it is still based upon completely unsubstantiated numbers and thus is useless to be used.

At least ten meters of the SKY DOME can be seen.
Prove it.
And again, why does that magically mean 80?
The height of the dome alone is more than 90 m, and that is ignoring the elevation of the ground. That means even if we accept that 10 m is visible, that means more than 80 m is hidden.

clearly showing the surface is curved as the lower section of Toronto is hidden.
Let's put your word to the test.
Yes, lets put my word to the test, on the photo in question.
We see only the top of the dome, extremely distorted, and a large portion of the tower is below the horizon.
This clearly shows that the lower section of Toronto is hidden.

Don't both changing photos and spamming loads of photos from different locations.
You have a photo clearly showing the lower section of Toronto hidden by the water.
This is clear evidence of curvature.
For a FE, NONE should be hidden.
This shows Earth is not flat.

Now you have 3 options (if you want to be even remotely honest and rational):
1 - accept Earth isn't flat.
2 - Say these photos are useless for determining the shape of Earth and thus do not show that Earth is flat or round. (and thus you have no basis for your claim that there is no curvature).
3 - Provide a viable explanation for why the lower section of Toronto is hidden.
And no, saying low quality cameras magically cuts out the middle is not a viable explanation as low quality cameras just reduce the resolution, rather than chopping out a portion of the photo. If you wish to claims cameras are magic you need to prove it, such as by doing one of the 2 options I have suggested.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #538 on: December 02, 2019, 02:17:09 PM »
You need to justify that these 80 m are missing.

What?

It is the RE VISUAL OBSTACLE FORMULA.

160 METERS.

At least ten meters of the SKY DOME can be seen.

160 - 80 = 80 meters.

YOU ARE MISSING 80 METERS!

Well, it’s 95m tall and probably a few more meters above see level, but whatever.

A refraction coefficient of about 0.5 looks about right.  And there’s clearly massive distortion of the image due to refraction.

All completely reasonable.

What’s your explanation?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #539 on: December 02, 2019, 02:20:56 PM »
Cut the crap.

Until you justify your claim,

I just did.

Which completley ignores refraction and thus is useless to claim 80 m is missing.

Your tag team partner used refraction: 147 meters still to be accounted for.

The height of the dome alone is more than 90 m, and that is ignoring the elevation of the ground. That means even if we accept that 10 m is visible, that means more than 80 m is hidden.

No. 93 meters with the elevation.

Fine, then we can remove 13 meters off the top of the Sky Dome.

147 - 80 = 67 meters you have to account for.

Since you are fighting for each meter, so am I.

This is clear evidence of curvature.
For a FE, NONE should be hidden.


You cannot claim curvature since you are missing 80 meters to start with.

For FE, the quality of the camera becomes crucial: with a better quality camera we can obtain better results.

There is a limit to what a camera can capture on film.

Since you are missing 80 meters, my explanation stands correct.


YOU HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.

SAME THING GOING ON HERE BUT ON A MUCH GRANDER SCALE.

EXPLAIN THIS.



Tallest building in Oshawa: Summit Place, 64.5 meters


CURVATURE: 184 METERS

Distance Grimsby - Oshawa: 97 kilometers

No refraction formula is going to come to the rescue for the RE.


EXPLAIN THIS.

MUSKEGON - RACINE/MILWAUKEE

Distance Muskegon - Milwaukee: 84.7 miles = 135.5 km

Curvature = 360 meters

VISUAL OBSTACLE: 1.31 KILOMETERS, from an altitude of 3 meters, right on the beach






Tallest building in Milwaukee: 183 meters

Tallest building in Racine: 40 meters

"Mosier told FOX6 News he took the photo with his Samsung Galaxy S7 ó using a ten-second exposure and ISO of 400. He indicated he could see lights flashing on the tops of buildings with his naked eye."

"The lights appeared to stretch from Kenosha, Wis. on the south to south Milwaukee on the north. At times, Racine, Wis. was so brilliant that a lighthouse or a navigational aid flashed on the horizon as it if was 10 miles off shore."

https://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/2012/05/the_lights_of_milwaukee_seen_t.html


1310 METERS - 40 METERS = 1270 METERS (1.27 KM) TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR


EXPLAIN THE MISSING 1270 METERS.

UNLESS YOU CAN DO SO, THE SURFACE OF LAKE MICHIGAN IS FLAT.

SAME SITUATION, THE BOTTOM IS MISSING.