Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

they all have one thing in common. You can draw a straight line across the horizon.

What.  It’s because of terrain. But, by all means show in the 1/2 mile to 1 mile width of the photos where there is a straight line in the tree lines outlining the uneven ground. Especially where a 4” drop to each side of the photo could be detected.

Your really are down to BS, lies, and delusions.

  You can draw a straight line across the horizon.

You really are delusional.

The clouds are illuminated bottom up no matter how much BS you spread.

And you really don’t understand scale.

Take this photo


The tree is what.  100 feet tall being generous.  Meaning the photo only shows about 300 feet wide of the landscape? 

How would the human eye detected the inch or two of curvature in 300 feet of a two dimensional photo where the tree line in the background and terrain changes by whole feet.

"What? It's because of terrain" he says.

No, when you look at a rocky horizon, you can editout the mountains mentality and still draw a straight line across to the horizon.



What's behind Everest? A perfectly straight line of horizon.


By contrast, fantasy world has a barrel distortion.

And by contrast CGI photos often have various types of fisheye warp. But in reality, distant objects don't curve unless a dishonest and/or stupid person is making them up.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 22, 2023, 05:59:51 AM

  You can draw a straight line across the horizon.

You really are delusional.

The clouds are illuminated bottom up no matter how much BS you spread.

And you really don’t understand scale.

Take this photo


The tree is what.  100 feet tall being generous.  Meaning the photo only shows about 300 feet wide of the landscape? 

How would the human eye detected the inch or two of curvature in 300 feet of a two dimensional photo where the tree line in the background and terrain changes by whole feet.

Uhhhh, and you haven't noticed that the shoreline is bot perfectly straight?

And you haven't noticed that this bottom up illumination is well AFTER the sun have risen and is high in the sky? What is your explanation for bottom up illumination when the sun is no longer positioned at the bottom?

A photo the shows the top mile of a mountain at the most. Therefore the photo is only about 1 mile width of landscape.  How is the human eye to determine 8” inches of curvature in a photo that terrain changes 1000’s of feet. In about a mile? 

You’re about ignorant. 

"What? It's because of terrain" he says.

You’re running away from the argument like a coward again.

What.  It’s because of terrain. But, by all means show in the 1/2 mile to 1 mile width of the photos where there is a straight line in the tree lines outlining the uneven ground. Especially where a 4” drop to each side of the photo could be detected.

Your really are down to BS, lies, and delusions.

There is nothing “straight” in the horizon of my photos.

No balls you to point to a section in my photos the terrain or tree lines aren’t changing whole feet where it makes it possible to detect a few inches of curvature. 

What's behind Everest? A perfectly straight line of horizon.

You proven you can draw on photos.  By all means, trace where the horizon is perfectly straight.  And not changing in terrain by whole feet….

"What? It's because of terrain" he says.

Which has what to do with the sun being relatively below the clouds shining up into them?



The shadows of the lower clouds show the sun is relatively below the horizon.

You only get the shadows casting upward if the sun is relatively below them because of a rotating earth. 

Sun rise under the clouds at FL280




Items impossible on a flat earth without delusions, lies, and or BS…

"What? It's because of terrain" he says.

So?  Your strategy is to completely ignore the topic of the thread.  And then post pictures too narrow in terms of landscape to have any hope of showing curvature detectable to the human eye (where the “scale” of earth and curvature has repeatedly  be explained and demonstrated to you in multiple threads) then proclaim in a ridiculous fashion flat?  Then when pictures with the right setup are presented that show curvature (as in it’s easier to show with depth and items to gauge) you cry fake with no credibility nor proof.

That is why you’re a troll.  Not because you question. 

Uhhhh, and you haven't noticed that the shoreline is bot perfectly straight?

Shoreline?  Or you mean the 300 foot of shown water level?

You still don’t understand the scale of slope, and the resolution of the human eye.

And you haven't noticed that this bottom up illumination is well AFTER the sun have risen and is high in the sky?

What time was the picture taken?  Can you quote and site the time it was taken.

On a photo with good lighting because of the time of day/position of the sun?  Not really illuminated bottom up, but uniform lighting conditions for the position of the camera.  Whit the water acting like a reflector. 

Not the same as the clouds actually illuminated bottom up before sunrise.


 
A whole 12 minutes before sunrise.

And the clouds diminish in illumination in what should be the sun getting closer in the FE model. 








Which

Those are pretty pictures. However, they all have one thing in common. You can draw a straight line across the horizon.
That is possible when the Earth is flat.

Pure BS.

Firstly, the horizon is not a straight line in those photos.
The hills and trees make it not straight.

But more importantly, there is still no explanation for the horizon in a FE, so no, that is NOT possible if Earth is flat.
If Earth is flat there should be no horizon.

But with a round Earth, the horizon will be the same angle of dip all around, and when close enough to sea level (or ground level if the ground is level around you), that will appear in photos quite similar to a straight line.

As for your assertion that light can't bounce off and create light reflections, of course it can. It does so all the time!

Casting reflections isn't the issue, being bright enough to cast light and shadows upwards, while the sun is meant to be above casting light downwards is.

Light from a distant sun hits the clouds and brightens them, and the clouds are lit upward.

How?
The sun is above the clouds. How is it lighting them up from below?

Btw, this is impossible from a round Earth with a distant sun. The sun is too high, and could not possibly appear below the clouds.

Wrong again.
It is impossible on a FE with a sun that circles above the FE.
In that delusional garbage, the sun remains well above the clouds, and can't appear below the clouds, or cast light upwards on them.
But for a RE, the angle to the sun changes quite a lot.
e.g. On the equator, at midnight on the equinox, the sun is below you, literally above the opposite side of Earth.
So it most certainly can appear below clouds.
I'm pretty sure you have had this explained to you before.
But that doesn't stop you blatantly lying to everyone.
Every time you repeat lies like this it shows how truly pathetic your position is and how truly desperate you are to reject reality, and how little you care about the truth.

Here is an image, which I think I previously used to explain why that statement of yours is pure BS:

Notice how the sun, way off to the right, is able to cast light upwards relative to people at the top of the image?

No, when you look at a rocky horizon, you can editout the mountains mentality and still draw a straight line across to the horizon.

No, you can't.
You can mentally edit out the mountains and draw a line however you please.
You could make it straight.
You could also make it cursive, connected writing.

You are literally saying you will remove what is in the way and just imagine the horizon to be how you want it.
Truly delusional.

What's behind Everest?

The curved Earth.

And by contrast CGI photos often have various types of fisheye warp. But in reality, distant objects don't curve unless a dishonest and/or stupid person is making them up.

Earth curves.
As Earth curves, objects are hidden by the curvature, disappearing from the bottom up.

This is seen in so many things it isn't funny.

Uhhhh, and you haven't noticed that the shoreline is bot perfectly straight?

Why would you expect the shoreline to be perfectly straight?

And you haven't noticed that this bottom up illumination is well AFTER the sun have risen and is high in the sky? What is your explanation for bottom up illumination when the sun is no longer positioned at the bottom?

No, it isn't.
It is BEFORE the sun has risen.
(Or rarely very shortly after it has risen, while it is still "below" the clouds relative to you (not based upon angle to the sun vs angle to the clouds))

Do you have an example of the sun allegedly casting light upwards long after it has risen?
If your BS was true, there should be countless examples.

Depending on the distance from the viewer. The light can appear either under the cloud or above the cloud.

The sunray bends like the letter "U".

Flat earth + DUDe (Downwards Universal Declaration)

The sunray bends like the letter "U".

How?  What causes it.  And why dose it occur in the FE delusion only when convenient? 

What is the difference between this picture.



 



Or this, where you can see the sun vailed and relatively lower than the clouds?

Sun rise under the clouds at FL280

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics. 👍

"U" shape of sunlight path means, the more distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at its upper part, while the less distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at the under part.

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics. 👍

"U" shape of sunlight path means, the more distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at its upper part, while the less distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at the under part.

That’s how you want it to work.  It’s not an explanation what makes it work.  And why such action isn’t seen in flashlights, stadium lighting, the running lights on aircraft at altitude,  shade and daylight, or lasers. 

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics. 👍

"U" shape of sunlight path means, the more distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at its upper part, while the less distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at the under part.

How can I use a flashlight to see around a corner with no reflectors/mirrors and make light act differently than just line of sight transmission. 

Quick cartoon sketch of spherical earth clouds illuminated bottom up




You…

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics. 👍

"U" shape of sunlight path means, the more distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at its upper part, while the less distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at the under part.

Now…

When a person is under a cloud say at noon, the bottom of the cloud is shaded from the top so the bottom is darker.  Or you can actually watch cloud shadows move across fields or mountains. 

Something like this for FE,


Now.  Flat earth.  How is the person farthest from the cloud and sun at sunset/sunrise seeing the cloud illuminated bottom up?  While the person closest to the sun/cloud is seeing the cloud illuminated top down with the cloud casting shadows on the earth? 

"U" shape of sunlight path means, the more distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at its upper part, while the less distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at the under part.

That is just restating your claim.
What magic causes the light to bend light that?

Quick cartoon sketch of spherical earth clouds illuminated bottom up




You…

Quote from: Danang on March 23, 2023, 08:46:09 AM

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics. 👍

"U" shape of sunlight path means, the more distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at its upper part, while the less distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at the under part.

Now…

When a person is under a cloud say at noon, the bottom of the cloud is shaded from the top so the bottom is darker.  Or you can actually watch cloud shadows move across fields or mountains. 

Something like this for FE,


Now.  Flat earth.  How is the person farthest from the cloud and sun at sunset/sunrise seeing the cloud illuminated bottom up?  While the person closest to the sun/cloud is seeing the cloud illuminated top down with the cloud casting shadows on the earth?

Your understanding of your opponent's viewpoint is so limited, you can only make retarded drawings.

In the model, the sun isn't there. It's off panel and hitting light against an angled image. We saw exactly how the worked in a flat sky in the video. You think Someone couldn't make it work on a sloped or domed sky? They definitely could.



Meanwhile, this picture shows that you don't understand your own theory. In the following drawing, light hits  the back of the cloud... but none reaches the viewer! 


You the viewer can't see a damned thing. Oops?

In my model, the ground is (overall) flat. The sky is sloped or domed (but even if it were also flat, it would make a difference). Sunlight either refracts, or hits the back of the object, viewing it from a level sky. "Bottom" back is lit first, as sun simply comes into view. There is no upward angle that nobody sees.

If anything, you've proven not only that such a sunlight needs a flat Earth or we would have bonkers light angles, but that you have a completely miserable understanding of your rival theory. I understand you, not the other way around.

In the following drawing, light hits  the back of the cloud... but none reaches the viewer! 

What are you on?

Drugs?

The cloud being illuminate by the sun is in the line of sight of the viewer.



Is about the same as the lights of an on coming car being blocked by a hill.  But you can see the car lights illuminating the trees or the fog on the hill.

Or even having a lamp on behind you in a room that otherwise would be pitch black. But you can see the wall in front of you because of the lamp behind you illuminating the wall.

You really have some serious delusions.

Note. Example.

Your delusional parabola with zero proof of existing has nothing to do with why we see water vapor (clouds to fog) when it’s illuminated by light.

Your understanding of your opponent's viewpoint is so limited, you can only make retarded drawings.

Starting straight off with projection I see.
Or are you going to claim that your understanding isn't limited, you are just intentionally lying to everyone?

Also notice how you don't provide anything better?
You say the picture doesn't represent your delusional BS, but you know you cannot provide any image which actually explains what is observed.
This is because you simply can't explain why the sun is illuminating the clouds from below.

If you think your delusional garbage works to explain what is observed in reality, then provide a side on view showing the path of the light from the sun, showing how it magically illuminates the cloud from below.
If you can't do that, then just stop providing vague BS which explains nothing.

Meanwhile, this picture shows that you don't understand your own theory. In the following drawing, light hits  the back of the cloud... but none reaches the viewer!

Light from the sun doesn't directly reach the viewer, just like observed.
But light from the sun does hit the bottom of the clouds.
This means an observer wont be able to see the sun, but will see the clouds illuminated from the bottom.
This matches what is observed.
It shows how the RE model can explain reality, while your delusional BS can't.

In my model, the ground is (overall) flat. The sky is sloped or domed (but even if it were also flat, it would make a difference). Sunlight either refracts, or hits the back of the object, viewing it from a level sky. "Bottom" back is lit first, as sun simply comes into view. There is no upward angle that nobody sees.

Stop just spouting delusional BS.
Show how this magic works.
Show how the sun, being above the clouds, will magically illuminate the bottom as if it is below the clouds.
Otherwise, you are just making baseless assertions to pretend your delusional BS works.

I understand you, not the other way around.

So you will pick the blatant lying option?
You have repeatedly lied about the RE model to pretend it doesn't work.
As repeatedly explained, every post you make with that BS signature of yours is you blatantly lying about the RE model.

So are you sure you want to so openly admit to blatantly lying to everyone?
If so, just come out and say it.
Say that you understand the RE model, you understand that predictions of the model match reality; but because you hate the model so much you repeatedly lie about it to pretend it doesn't match reality, just like you have done in this thread.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 24, 2023, 06:05:37 AM

In the following drawing, light hits  the back of the cloud... but none reaches the viewer! 

What are you on?

Drugs?

The cloud being illuminate by the sun is in the line of sight of the viewer.



Is about the same as the lights of an on coming car being blocked by a hill.  But you can see the car lights illuminating the trees or the fog on the hill.

Or even having a lamp on behind you in a room that otherwise would be pitch black. But you can see the wall in front of you because of the lamp behind you illuminating the wall.

You really have some serious delusions.

Note. Example.

Your delusional parabola with zero proof of existing has nothing to do with why we see water vapor (clouds to fog) when it’s illuminated by light.

You have to actually be able to see the light of the sun. Not just cloud that are lit up, sorta.

You have told be that when the sun is around the corner, we can't see it, and can't see sunlight either.

Now you're contradictory. Deluded people make big pronouncements and then say stuff like "Oops sorry, we have new data." You do know that your own model estimates the sun's distance at millions of miles away.

 Either the sun is in line of sight or it can't be seen, based on your own model. If indirect sun can be see, then the sun which is supposed to be several times bigger than the Earth in your model should be visible all day long.

Your delusional model doesn't work.

You have to actually be able to see the light of the sun. Not just cloud that are lit up, sorta.

What in the...?

Even better.  Clouds illuminated from the top and the bottom.

The subject matter of this thread has been debunked a long time ago.

Fake Lake Pontchartrain video/photograph:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2017477#msg2017477

No RE can explain the green flash phenomenon (quintessential for any debate on the sun rising/setting):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2252015#msg2252015 (two consecutive messages)

How do four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere? Neither GR nor quantum gravity can explain the hypothetical concept of attractive gravity.

Only by using FET can one calculate the end date of the present geological/astronomical age/epoch to the very meter, an endeavour sought after by all of the researchers in the field (who are mostly RE, and are at a loss to understand the westward precessional shift of the Sun, 1.5 km/yr or 4.2m/day).

The subject matter of this thread has been debunked a long time ago.

What’s been debunked?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 17, 2023, 06:00:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on March 16, 2023, 11:38:41 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 16, 2023, 06:42:34 PM

You just don't get it, so it must be about the inability of the theory, and not your own ignorance.

Hahahahaha!!!

Okay teacher, I'll be sure to control my scribbling next time.

Just here to help...

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 17, 2023, 06:00:53 AM

The sun is overhead. But your eyes think it's below you.

I'm afraid you've been duped again by your desire to knee-jerk find something that fits your incorrect narrative...



Notice #4. FEr's will apparently do anything to ram their narrative into reality. Even if it requires dishonesty. And you are a sheeple to it. Sad.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 17, 2023, 06:00:53 AM

[

Gee whiz, you say you've debunked it, so you must have debunked it.

.

As in there is no evidence of your delusion.

Anyway..

This picture?



Where at the circle the items are placed to the left of each other.  They are not in a straight line.

With not even the same effect as this.





https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1321414042599202816


https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain



Where there is no increasing blocking of the bases of the Lego towers as seen in the lake Pontchartrain towers.

Where if there was a parabola power enough to make an effect by  lensing.

These towers





Should show distortion as the building in this photo.



While you can’t answer if the earth isn’t spherical, how the clouds are physically illuminated bottom up.  And how the shadow of this cloud is being cast upwards.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 09, 2023, 10:23:34 PM

No. It's a tiny portion of a seam,

And this is a tiny bit of power line..

Like in the example below

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 09, 2023, 10:23:34 PM

Which has been explained to you.

The misrepresentation of the well known atmospheric refraction.

Quote

“There is a video showing the same scene, but the curvature is not there!”



Atmospheric refraction can cause a distant object that is physically already behind the curvature to be still visible. Such phenomenon happens because the air closer to the surface has higher pressure than above it, causing the path of light to curve along Earth’s curvature, up to a point.

The amount of refraction depends on the weather. In an extreme case, refraction can be severe, and it certainly can make it look as if the transmission pylons is straight.

Example. Refraction that changes how much of Chicago is seen..

Quote

Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

Or like you ignoring how the Chicago Skyline view is affected by a mirage.


https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
Is this what the Chicago skyline looks like?

While ignore actual proof the earth is spherical.

Quote

https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain



https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1321414042599202816

Where zooming in shows the bases of the towers become physically blocked by the earth’s curvature at an increasing rate.  The power lines curve down with the earth’s curvature. Not up to vanishing point. 




As supported by the ship disappearing over the horizon bottom up

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 01, 2022, 03:02:55 AM

 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 01, 2022, 12:39:27 AM

Boats don't vanish at the bottom (sorry ppl who made that thread), the shrink through compression.

And you would be proven wrong.

By simply watching a sunset where the sun does not change size, and disappears bottom first. 


Or this video..

Huge container ship eclipsing the horizon. Nikon Coolpix P900.








Your “compression”, or just another name for magic perspective, was tested and found wrong in these two threads…

Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

As in.  Why would the bases of Chicago’s tall buildings, and the smaller buildings and city shoreline completely, ever be blocked from view when overlooking Lake Michigan from a hill?


https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

I think what has been proven is the willingness of FE’s to lie, and that FE’s do lie.

Sorry.  Flat earther’s kill their own credibility.

You have to actually be able to see the light of the sun. Not just cloud that are lit up, sorta.

No, you don't.
Not for these images.
You only need to be able to see the light directly from the sun, when you can see the sun, i.e. during the period of time between sunrise and sunset.
Before sunrise, with the sun shining up onto the clouds, you do NOT need a direct line of sight to the sun.

You have told be that when the sun is around the corner, we can't see it, and can't see sunlight either.

Have we?
Or is that just yet another dishonest misrepresentation of the RE model from you?

Either the sun is in line of sight or it can't be seen, based on your own model. If indirect sun can be see, then the sun which is supposed to be several times bigger than the Earth in your model should be visible all day long.
Your delusional model doesn't work.

No, your delusional misrepresentation of the model doesn't work.
Yet again you just baselessly assert delusional BS, with no justification at all.

If indirect sun can be seen it doesn't magically mean it should be visible all day long.

The sun is so far away, that the light from the sun is pretty much coming in parallel.
There is just a 0.5 degree variation in the path of the light (and the parallax from being on opposite sides of Earth is a mere 0.005 degrees.

So with a simple model of the RE, we can place an observer at the top of the image, and then consider the different regions of the sky:

If the sun is in region A, defined by a line from the observer to the horizon, then the observer can directly see the sun in the sky.

If instead it is in region B, then the direct line of sight to the sun is blocked, so they are unable to see the sun.
However, the sun can still illuminate the sky (or more technically a portion of it.
This means if there is a cloud in the sky, it can be illuminated from below and the observer can see it.

But if it is in region C, then you can't even see the region of sky the sun would be illuminating.

The subject matter of this thread has been debunked a long time ago.

Generally if you want to claim something has been debunked, you would link to that debunking, rather than jumping off to an entirely irrelevant claim.

The subject matter of this thread is that clouds are illuminated from below; which is a massive problem for the FE model.
Unless you want to claim that all these pictures are fake and that clouds never appear to be illuminated from below, then there is nothing to debunk.

Instead what you need to do is provide an explanation.
What magic in your fantasy world causes the light from the sun above the clouds to magically bend and illuminate the clouds from below?

Even looking at your links, the first is just you asserting that pictures don't show a curve, followed by a video clearly showing the curve, and you then dismissing that video as fake.
It debunks nothing, especially nothing with regards to the subject of this thread.
The second link is a link to your BS compendium which I don't give a damn about. If you wish to link to something here, link to a debate thread, not a thread where you can post whatever BS you want without it being challenged.
And then you follow it up with your delusional, irrational hatred of gravity.

So you have entirely failed to address the thread at all.
Instead you do your typically BS approach of deflecting to a bunch of other BS.

So nice and simple, how do you explain the light from the sun appearing to shine upwards onto clouds?

Here you are seven years later with over 110 full days online, and you have accomplished nothing at all. Most definitely you are either a paid shill (with the full cooperation of the owners of this site who are not FE), or you have lost you mind. You have developed a terrible obsession for an obscure forum, where nobody cares for your messages anymore. Is fisking allowed in the rules section? Of course not. If someone seems so unhappy with FET, and has manifested this sort of sickness for a full seven years, no other forum would have allowed such a bizarre situation to occur in the first place: you'd have been banned after only several months.

You have become the most faithful and committed FE believer, exactly what I had told you would happen to you. Again, seven years of your life having been wasted on an unnoticeable forum: you are either a paid shill (a fact which breaks the rules) or you have lost your mind. Certainly someone has to put you out of your misery.

Here you are seven years later

And you still fail to support your delusional BS.
Here you are yet again, deflecting from the issue, because you cannot explain how this works on a flat Earth.

Do I need to start treating you like a baby again and repeatedly ask the same question until you either answer it, or recognise that you can't and flee from embarrassment and failure?

Again, what magic causes the clouds to be illuminated from below?
Can you explain from your delusional fantasy?

no other forum would have allowed such a bizarre situation to occur in the first place: you'd have been banned after only several months.

You mean like all the fora you have been banned from for spouting your delusional BS and refusing to justify it?

Here you are seven years later with over 110 full days online,

Whatever..

I made this picture..



Because this was posted by a FE’r

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics. 👍

"U" shape of sunlight path means, the more distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at its upper part, while the less distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at the under part.

So I posted this.


When a person is under a cloud say at noon, the bottom of the cloud is shaded from the top so the bottom is darker.  Or you can actually watch cloud shadows move across fields or mountains. 

Something like this for FE,


Now.  Flat earth.  How is the person farthest from the cloud and sun at sunset/sunrise seeing the cloud illuminated bottom up?  While the person closest to the sun/cloud is seeing the cloud illuminated top down with the cloud casting shadows on the earth? 

Now sandokhan.  Can you draw or sketch out how in the flat earth model with the sun always miles and miles above the clouds?  How the sun can full on illuminate clouds on the horizon bottom up.

You sandokhan don’t even have the skills to draw something on paper with crayons or finger paints, take a picture, and post it?

More like  sandok-can’t-draw-for-myself. 

By the way.   What is the distance of the sun from the earth.  And what’s the most accurate FE map if I want to get from Maine in the USA to Perth Australia?