I just added to my complaint in second post about all resident globalists and lack of fe peeps that the believers section is full of good stuff - for some reason I have mostly overlooked it so far.
Except it isn't.
It contains preaching from FEers which goes entirely unchallenged there. It contains plenty of claims which have been refuted and often misrepresents what REers say to pretend FE is justified when it isn't.
It started when I was young - I used to watch "In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy - about the seven mysteries of the ancient world and other unexplainable phenomenon. Then when I saw John Hutchison on tv with his everlasting crystal batteries made out rocks he picked in his neighborhhood and baked in his oven, and levitation using salvaged military radar equipment - that was it!
And how does any of that mean Earth is flat?
It seems you have gone from "Not everything is fully explained by science yet" to "science is wrong and shouldn't be trusted".
That is a massive leap.
And what you have to go on is quite poor.
The mysteries of the ancient world are not inexplicable. We know a few ways they may have been done, we just don't know what way was actually used.
Just like if I knew details about someone, such as where they lived and where they worked, I could come up with a few ways of how they travelled to work on a particular day. Me not knowing exactly what way they went doesn't mean them going to work is inexplicable.
As far as I can tell, John Hutchison's "crystal batteries" are just simply dry cell batteries, and the levitation is faked.
But those things you said about zeteticism - I didn't actually say that. I don't even really know what that means.
The basic idea of zeteticism is that instead of trying to build a model which can explain observations, you just directly observe and measure things to determine what they are.
For example, zeteticism, with the observation of a sunset, would lead one to conclude that the sun sets because it goes below Earth.
But FEers don't like focusing on that observation with zeteticism.
I remember you saying look it isnt what she said, but then also noting that it wasn't quite like you said.
I provided a range of numbers based upon different measuring points.
Just what wasn't like what I said?
Sure, you can say that she was just a "bit" off, but that "bit" is the difference between Earth being flat and Earth being round.
She ignored that "bit" of difference so she could dishonestly pretend it was proof of a flat Earth. If she didn't ignore that "bit", and instead presented it honestly, she would have said Earth is round.
if someone took all the time to measure and claculate what was there the narrator might have been quite close to being correct, and that your dismissal was not supported..
Or, the narrator could have been intentionally lying to pretend Earth is flat, like so many do.
Just like clickjamas intentionally fabricated a picture by combining 2 photos to try to claim the resulting composite couldn't be real, to pretend the Moon landings were fake.
Just like someone on youtube decided to loop a video of someone on the ISS, using a fade effect, and then claimed the astronaut fading out at the end is evidence that the footage is fake.
Plenty of people blatantly lie or even fabricate evidence for nonsense like this.
So it isn't a leap to conclude the narrator is blatantly lying to pretend Earth is flat.
After all, what is the purpose of them making the video? To try to pretend Earth is flat.
Given that is the case, and that their numbers are quite clearly false, I think it is far more rational to conclude they are intentionally lying to pretend Earth is flat.
This comment sums it up quite nicely:
"This is not an analysis. It is a misrepresentation of a very basic phenomenon in order to perpetuate a lie about the earth being flat."
You can also look at other comments to see that it isn't just a case of they are mistaken. Instead it is quite clearly a case that they are blatantly lying, such as in one post where someone linked this video:
This video shows a much larger cruise ship, which can be seen for significantly further, quite clearly having the lower section of the ship obscured by the water.
And what was your sources response?
They started off claiming the person who linked to it is obsessed, and then focused on a tiny bit of distortion, which in no way accounts for the large amount of the ship that is hidden much later in the video.
So it is quite clear they have no interest in the truth and actually trying to determine if the ship is being obstructed by the horizon as it goes over the curve on a round Earth or if it is just a mirage hiding it.
The distortion layer CANNOT account for it. The whole point of the video was that the boat is just hidden in that layer, and I showed based upon that video that that claim is false. This distortion layer cannot account for it, and you have provided nothing to counter that. Instead you just claim my dismissal is not supported and bring up the same refuted video.
Can you show anything wrong with my analysis? Or can you only dismiss it and just repeat what the narrator said, and then link to the video again some time later to pretend FE is justified?
You want to debate, then why not debate this video?
I have provided my analysis of how the ratio changes. Do you need me to take screenshots of the video as well to provide them here, perhaps with them side by side and scaled to show the ratio doesn't remain constant?
Can you provide anything to counter that and try to justify Earth being flat in light of this evidence showing Earth is round?
When you check for curvature drop which is theorized - for distance in miles extending away, with formula "curvature in inches = 8(miles^squared)", you can see too far.
Are you just applying this formula once and ignoring the height of the observer (or just finding how much should be hidden and then subtracting the height of the observer)? If so, you are doing it wrong.
You need to use this formula once with the height of the observer to determine the distance to the horizon, you then need to apply it again using the distance from the horizon to the object to determine how much should be hidden.
The other big issue is accounting for refraction. The simple method of accounting for "average" refraction is to pretend Earth's radius is 7/6 of what it actually is. That means you would use ~6.8 inches for every mile squared instead of 8.
If you aren't going to account for refraction, you would need a considerable amount of "missing curvature".
But the most important part is if there is any curvature at all. If Earth was flat, you should be able to see ALL of the object, yet normally when people complain about missing curvature, it is just a portion that is missing, not all of it, and the bottom of the object can still be seen.