WHY would the government trick us?

 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 19, 2025, 05:12:18 PM

But some Flat Earthers HAVE done high altitude stuff.

Searching YouTube for other people's high altitude videos is not "doing high altitude stuff".  It's cherry picking.

Oops.  You beat me to it..

 NASA

Still has nothing to do with flat earthers could charter flights, ships, and use high altitude balloons flights to create an accurate and official flat earth map.  They don’t because the earth is a globe.  Where the globe most accurately represents relative direction and distances.  Especially in the southern hemisphere.  Where in the context of celestial navigation, south actually has meaning on a globe. 

Quote from: wise on August 19, 2024, 07:34:40 AM

 I told him the map was wrong.

Funny.  A simple equatorial telescope mount and the North Star kills flat earth.






How does “south” work on a FE?

Quote

How to find the celestial South Pole makes sense on a globe / sphere.

The celestial South Pole is meaningless on a flat earth like your story wise lacking on detail and why.

And still.  The flat earth inaccurately predicts the directions of sunrise and sunsets for major portions of the earth.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 16, 2024, 10:13:31 AM

Again, you have yet to prove why it should turn north.

This is so stupid.

The partial red circle represents the “orbit” of the sun on a FE.



For a person looking “relative” west from their position on the USA, the sun has to turn right.

For a person looking relative west in California out to sea, the sun has to literally turn right or north for it to orbit above a FE.  The sun on a flat Earth has to literally continuously turn. 

Flat earth is soundly debunked.  Your to entrenched in dogma to even comprehend.  You’re blind to the obvious.

  FE even butchers what direction the sun sets and rises for much of the earth.  It’s a useless model. 

 NASA

Which has nothing to do with the curvature can be measured..

Or how about a laser test?

From this video…


Learned about this experiment using a laser tangent to the curved earth with a boat as a target on a lake 3 miles out.

Where Are We? Ch. 1 The Circumference of the Earth | Genius by Stephen Hawking

https://indiana.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/hawking_genius_ep06_clip01/where-are-we-ch-1-the-circumference-of-the-earth-genius-by-stephen-hawking/



In this clip from Genius by Stephen Hawking, learn how to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Three volunteers learn by measuring the flatness of the lake that they will be able to calculate the size and shape of the Earth. Using a powerful laser that projects a straight beam of light and a boat, the volunteers shoot the beam across the lake. This experiment shows the curvature of the lake. This was first discovered by the ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician and geometer Eratosthenes. He proved the Earth wasn't flat through observing the sun and the direction it cast shadows. If the Earth was flat, the sun would always shine at the same angle no matter what time of day it was. Using all the data collected from the curvature of the lake the volunteers are able to calculate the circumference of the Earth.

Or just a Flat Earther Very Noticeably Debunking Flat Eart.

'Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary


https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera.   "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

If the earth was flat.  Flat earthers would be meticulously documenting the below experiment in droves.  Flooding YouTube.



But it proving it shows the earth is curved in one documentary, and flat earthers avoid it like the plague. 

You sure? NASA makes billions.

No, they spend billions.

And that isn't money they can funnel off to elsewhere, that has to be spent to do what they are doing.

You mentioned earlier that I was part of a clique, and now you think we have loads of money.

One apparently had $20k to waste on a gyroscope only to ignore what it showed them.

But some Flat Earthers HAVE done high altitude stuff.

A lying conman making a compilation video, which appears to be edited footage, without even citing sources, is not doing "high altitude stuff".
It is being a lying POS.

In some parts of the footage, the horizon is curving upwards.
In another part, they take a presumable straight antenna, and it curves as well.

This is what happens when you falsely correct for fish eye lenses.

So like usual, FEers lied.

Camera tricks and editing and other lies.
That's all you liars have got.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of photos of Earth showing you are liars.
And plenty more showing it.

Funny how after your BS gets refuted you just flee as if you never said it.

Meanwhile, I've legit been on mountains, and the horizon is consistently flat.

Yes, a flat horizon, just like would be expected for a RE.
And with a horizon that is further away with increasing altitude, just like would be expected for a RE.
And something the FE can't explain at all.

If Earth was flat there would be no horizon except the edge.

Cherry picking data would be only accepting stuff you like.

It has nothing to do with personal effort vs external effort.

I already told you that I've climbed several mountains and seen a flat horizon. I've already told you that I don't have money to do that and won't pay any shills to do it.

But you cherry pick only high altitude stuff that comes from sources you like.

Here, you'll say this is not cherry picked.


Now note something for me. The "students" are wearing NASA caps, are they not? This is because they are not actually students but employees of NASA.

Or this?

Notice how the "curved horizon" is a product of camera pivot, or whatever the hell they are doing.  Without that, the horizon is very very flat.

Or this?

Clearly this GoPro guy totally isn't a shill.

Meanwhile, not only have I seen for myself that horizon is flat and level at mountain levels, but riding on a plane, I saw a flat horizon all the way across.


These videos are consistent with what I saw, from what I watched of them.

From what I have experienced, what I actually have been able to see with the money and opportunities I've had, a flat horizon is consistent with any elevation I've ever viewed. And someone showing the horizon being round is pivoting the camera to create fisheye perspective tricks.

Stop cherry picking. I showed you videos, some of which I don't even agree with. Yet you never accept any of the videos I've shared.

Fine! We're watching this video. Will you accept that?

Cherry picking data would be only accepting stuff you like.

Which is what FE’ers do with their data, otherwise you wouldn’t reject NASA just because they are NASA.

Cherry picking data would be only accepting stuff you like.

Which has been explained to you.

Photo from 1976 taken by Adrian Meredith

Concorde: A Photographic Tribute: A Photographic...
by Adrian Meredith

[/quote]


Notice in the picture of the Concorde where the earth is below the jet.  That is significant in terms of a fish eye lens.  The video explains this.

For the Concorde not to be distorted by a fish eye lens, the jet would have to be perfectly in the middle horizontal.  It’s not.  And the horizon under the jet at bottom of the frame would have the horizon distorted up.




Which is why the fisheye lens in you presented videos are BS.



So.  Yes.  There is curvature of the earth.

Yes.  High altitude when properly documented does confirm earth’s curvature.  If it proved otherwise, you would have flat earthers doing high altitude balloon flights meticulously documented in mass. 

So.  Why doesn’t the FE society charter flights, charter ships, and conduct high altitude balloon flights to create their own world map. That’s the real question.

Because the earth is a globe.

I already told you that I've climbed several mountains and seen a flat horizon.

Ok?

Lots of things can look flat, and actually not be flat.  Why you need to be like 60,000 ft above sea level to see the curvature.  Not 4,000 or 6,000 feet above sea level.

The earth really is that big to us short humans. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 22, 2023, 10:51:35 AM

And yet you have to ignore the dip of the horizon.

Cherry picking data would be only accepting stuff you like.

Like you ignoring a flat earther goes to prove the earth flat and proves the earth is curved?

'Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary


https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera.   "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

If the earth was flat.  Flat earthers would be meticulously documenting the below experiment in droves.  Flooding YouTube.



But it proving it shows the earth is curved in one documentary, and flat earthers avoid it like the plague. 


  Like you Bulma ignoring why FE doesn’t produce a reliable map of the world.  Where the FE map cannot even accurately predict the direction of sunrise and sunset for large portions of the world.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 16, 2024, 10:13:31 AM

Again, you have yet to prove why it should turn north.

This is so stupid.

The partial red circle represents the “orbit” of the sun on a FE.



For a person looking “relative” west from their position on the USA, the sun has to turn right.

For a person looking relative west in California out to sea, the sun has to literally turn right or north for it to orbit above a FE.  The sun on a flat Earth has to literally continuously turn. 

Flat earth is soundly debunked.  Your to entrenched in dogma to even comprehend.  You’re blind to the obvious.

  FE even butchers what direction the sun sets and rises for much of the earth.  It’s a useless model. 

Like you ignoring a flat earther goes to prove the earth flat and proves the earth is curved?

Wearing a flat Earth tee shirt does not make you a flat Earther.



False Flag: Wearing the clothing of an opponent (usually to do something evil or stupid) to discredit them.

This guy is supposedly a flat Earther. Why, he even paid $20,000 for a gyroscope! And look he's wearing a Flat Earth tee shirt! He must be a flat Earther! No, a $20,000 gyroscope is more than likely automated to spin at certain times. You're paying for an "accelerometer" that turns at timed intervals. Or, you pay less that $50 to find out that...

This may have been a reward for his pendulum hoax. He was also
responsible for another, less well known, hoax. It too was intended to prove that the
earth is a rotating sphere. While conducting experiments with a gyroscope – see
graphic below – he found a way to keep the rotor spinning for several hours without
interfering with its operation. This unusual device displays what scientists call
'rigidity of space'. This means that, once it is set in motion, with the central wheel or
rotor spinning at high speed, it will continue to maintain exactly same attitude or
orientation in absolute space even when the device as a whole is carried about the
room.
Foucault claimed that, if the frame of the gyroscope was fixed in the same location,
the spinning rotor would turn very slowly over a period of several hours in response
to the rotation of the earth, thereby maintaining the same attitude in relation to
absolute space. He even claimed to have proven this experimentally. This would
certainly be a strong proof that the earth was rotating – were the gyroscope actually
doing what Foucault had claimed. But it wasn't. A few sceptical scientists tried to
duplicate his results and found that the gyroscope did not turn in response to the
supposed rotation of the earth. Foucault had been lying.

These flat Earthers went to Antarctica and proved the Earth is round! How dare you question them!
(Maybe because they went out of their way to say "no green screen here!" like a magician says when there is nothing up their sleeves? Or maybe because the snow looks like a mat and not like the snow we have outside our door? Or maybe because while shoveling snow yesterday, I was wearing a sweatshirt and jacket and gloves and boots, and this guy is supposed to be dressed for Antarctica not Virginia, and I wore more to be out 20 minutes than he did in his "final experiment"? Or could it be because the explanation Eric Dubay mentioned about the Mandalorian having a screen that was different from the older green screens makes sense and can be looked up? Naaaaaaaah)
And here you're like "Look, I have some pictures here, here, and here that show how dumb you are."  Mmmm, that's nice.

So, Bedford's experiment seems to be objects of the same height, but what, different distances? I believe that this is known as vanishing point perspective. If I made sure ground was perfectly level, and placed lightposts in exactly the same elevation, and all were the same height, then looked at them with a telescope, I too would notice they are different heights.

But let's say he wanted to prove the sphere by putting one object closer but way off to the left. Hey ummm, there is horizontal length vanishing point.  Then there is vertical height vanishing point. But did you remember objects have three dimensions? There is also horizontal width vanishing point. Objects off to the side of you can appear different sizes.

I wish you'd come up with your own stuff, and stop reposting FlatEarth.ws memes.

"Herp derp, the sun turns to the north to get sunlight to US/Russia/etc."



"Herp derp, look, a basketball is flat when we do micromeasurements!"
No matter how flat your your basketball is, try this.

The narrative that we're just not seeing the whole picture falls apart when the bead either slides off the basketball, or if not, outright flies off when it moves at all.  Meanwhile, you could technically rotate a compass while something is sitting on it, and it would be much harder to dislodge it.

Then you talk about a bunch of tubes, and how the horizon is below eye level. But having been on mountains, this sounds like a whole lot of fraud.  I never remember looking down at the horizon. Ever. What I do remember is a wider horizon line, and thus a longer field of vision.

So.  Why doesn’t the FE society charter flights, charter ships, and conduct high altitude balloon flights to create their own world map. That’s the real question.

Because they don't have loads of money like NASA? Because understanding common sense doesn't equal a degree in aeronautics? Because they don't feel like gasping for air in the stratosphere, or having a balloon lethally fail on them? Or how about this one? Because they already know you can't reach a height sufficient to see the whole Earth, and it has more to do with your eyes than the Earth being curved?

No, the real question is still, "WHY would the government trick us?"



Because they gain money, control, and human sacrifices from deceiving you. After all, if you believe the JFK assassination is just some lone nut, you won't accept that when someone really pushed for a just society, the government put an end to him. Or that when the US was at war with Russia, both US and Russia cynically deceived its citizens with propaganda stunts, instead of telling the public "Look, the US is not really at war with communism. They want to rule the public, and if you'll believe we went to space, you'll think we defeated Russia and not question why we now have socialist policies." Now shut up, accept that Earth is a sphere, and drink your fluoride-tainted water because we tell you it strengthens teeth. Oh, and we're gonna want you to fight in our war against Iraq or wherever, so we've made some incident where the FBI are dressed as Arabs. It's called a... false flag.

Hey look, we're back to our starting topic!

Wearing a flat Earth tee shirt does not make you a flat Earther.

Look.  You’re missing the point.  Or just trying to flack the thread again.

The listed experiment below documented while it occurred proved curved earth.  And a curved water surface.

'Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary


https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera.   "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

The above in the context of the documented Campanella experiment doesn’t explain why the light at night became visible only after lifting the light high enough above the earth’s curvature.  Take your BS out of here.  

This experiment listed below also demonstrates the earth is curved.  And where the earth’s curvature physical blocks distance objects from view that has nothing to do with your BS perspective argument.




If the earth was flat.  Flat earthers would be meticulously documenting these types of experiments in droves.  But the earth is a globe.  As demonstrated why a ship going out to sea becomes blocked from view by the earth’s curvature bottom up.  Where zooming in cannot bring the blocked portion back into view.

The bottom of the ship isn’t magically some distance where it can’t be discerned while the top of the ship at the same distance can still be discerned.    The bottom of the ship is physically blocked from view by the earh’s curvature. 

 

look, a basketball is flat when we do micromeasurements!"

No.  I showed two different objects when close enough where they look flat doesn’t mean they are flat.

The entirety and context of my post.

 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 22, 2023, 10:51:35 AM

And yet you have to ignore the dip of the horizon.

Wearing a flat Earth tee shirt does not make you a flat Earther.

I guess the below is the argument you are trying to right out ignore.

And still.  The flat earth inaccurately predicts the directions of sunrise and sunsets for major portions of the earth. Where mapping the earth proves it’s a globe, and why the Flat Earth Society refuses to come out with an official FE map.  If they produce a official map based on a flat earth, it will immediately be proven to misrepresent relative directions and distances. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 16, 2024, 10:13:31 AM

Again, you have yet to prove why it should turn north.

This is so stupid.

The partial red circle represents the “orbit” of the sun on a FE.



For a person looking “relative” west from their position on the USA, the sun has to turn right.

For a person looking relative west in California out to sea, the sun has to literally turn right or north for it to orbit above a FE.  The sun on a flat Earth has to literally continuously turn. 

Flat earth is soundly debunked.  Your to entrenched in dogma to even comprehend.  You’re blind to the obvious.

  FE even butchers what direction the sun sets and rises for much of the earth.  It’s a useless model. 

My religion?

I am literally rewriting the Bible. Do you think I care what other people think my religion ought to be?

My religion is not the business of whatever priest I go to church at. If I like his sermon, I listen to it. If not, I shop around. Time since the Protestant Reformation when a priest could tell a member of the congregation that unless he obeyed, he was bound for Hell.

Secular idiots are as bad as those who think God will give them Hell. For they can be persuaded to stay in line by something as simple as fear of death.

In order to be set free, you have to understand that both of these are liars. Jesus questioned the priests of his day.

And so should his followers. Whether those are priests of religion, or of atheism.

You tell me that I am so close, but unless you also question what you have taught, I am afraid that applies more to you. You just need to take that first step of questioning your programming. Are you prepared to do that?


In the original text, Jesus only mentions the rich, so when they ask "Who then can be saved?" you could conceivably say, "Well, the poor, of course!" But no, wealth is a concern no matter who you are. The poor are envious, the children of the rich are grasping, the rich are attached.

I have only to look at my older brother, working at the office (unlike me, who gave that up) who works so that his wife can buy more than she needs and his kids can pick and food or toys, and smash stuff. I know first hand what being sort of rich looks like, and I know what having almost no income looks like. I'm defending everyone. Need and greed are the same thing.

Or consider this.

Quote from: MyBible

"...Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees. For you devour the houses of widows, and for show make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation."
Jesus at that moment saw many wealthy give large offerings to the temple, but a widow was convinced to give up all that she had, only two small coins.  It was as though they stole it from her themselves.  And Jesus pointed to this,

I think very poorly on the practice of church tithing. Because the state is not really in favor of the church, they don't do away with property tax. So churches are "tax free" with heavy strings attached. We have a stat-controlled church far more than we should. You begrudge the church not paying taxes, but the richest institution, the Catholic church (far worse about being rich than Protestant) was founded when Constantine falsely converted to try a ploy to subvert the church. Not only churches but all buildings should be tax free. You oppose this, because you are pro-state, even though it abuses you on a daily basis. By contrast, you probably can't name the last time someone like me actually knocked on your door.

When people no longer have to worry about wealth, it ought to be easy for them to help others, out of boredom if nothing else. When businesses are not taxed, they ought to be able to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, and visit the stranger. They have disposable income that is spare to help others. But when they are taxed, all that good will is taken to fund people who would rather control than help.

When I die, I want people to say I tried to convince petty bastards that it was a good idea to keep the wealthy able to help the poor, instead of trying to tax them to impotence.
Will they always help? No, I can't guarantee that. But they sure as hell might not when 30% of their income is taken, and they also are taxed as an employer and employee.


COVID precautions hurt charity work. I saw it myself.
https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/nonprofits-hurt-by-covid-19-must-hoard-cash-to-hold-on
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/commission-research-finds-vast-majority-of-charities-were-negatively-affected-by-covid-19.html
So insistence on "following the science" means the hungry were not fed, the thirsty were not quenched, the naked were not clothed, the sick were not treated, and people were not visited.

spectacular


no i'm not trying to define your religion.
i want YOU to define what it means to you.
i'm trying to understand your stance.
your position.
what you believe and hold true and value.
because i keep asking and you keep avoiding.

waht did GOP magaland do for you?
"cancel woke, protect the wealthy, protect oil" was the only thing you've managed to give us.
spectacular goals.
straight out of the fox news playbook to brainwash the braindead.

1.  how does the upper class prevent an uprising from the lower classes? - invent infighting at the bottom through well tailored monopoly of media and messagin:  the browns are stealing our minwage jobs, the Trans are stealing out participation trophies, the infedels are stopping us from worshiping God.

2.  how does the upper class protect themselves - instilling govt puppets, legalize bribery and pay-to-play access into politics, monopolize everything required for living, own the media.

3.  how to protect oil - monopoly on energy and well tailored redherring talking points.... oh, and own the media.





but note you're only trying to describe the logistical and monetary function as part of your religion, not the belief of what God is or God's values.
ok fine, don't tell us your religion/ God's Will that YOU keep bringing up every 10th post?


maybe can you define what media that you seem to keep parroting?
we know you get your flat earth knowledge from that jeran guy.
where you get your political talking points from?

You sure do love changing topic as much as possible, yet you keep bringing up things which show you are wrong and lying to everyone.

I assume this means you fully accept your buoyancy BS is pure BS entirely incapable of explaining reality and you know it is wrong.

Cherry picking data would be only accepting stuff you like.

i.e. what you and Eric do.
Where you happily accept anything you think supports your delusional BS, and reject anything that shows it is wrong.

But there you go ignoring the point again.
The point is that FEers haven't done high altitude stuff.

And no, going up a mountain and seeing the horizon just like you would expect on a round Earth, is not high altitude stuff.

The tallest mountain, MT Everest, Is only roughly 8 km high.
In terms of Earrth's radius, that is a mere 0.1%.

I already told you that I've climbed several mountains and seen a flat horizon.

Yes, exactly as we expect for a RE.
Something you refuse to explain, because you can't explain how the horizon forms in your FE fantasy.

Now note something for me. The "students" are wearing NASA caps, are they not? This is because they are not actually students but employees of NASA.

And more elaborate delusions.

What is more likely, that these students interested in learning about space went to some NASA event and got a free hat, or NASA is secretly employing a bunch of children as shills?

Because of just how desperately you cling to your BS and your desperate need to reject anything that goes against it, you need to invent this even more ridiculous BS.

Notice how the "curved horizon" is a product of camera pivot, or whatever the hell they are doing.

No.
Instead, I notice that they are using a fish eye/wide angle lens, with known distortion.
Importantly, at altitude, the horizon only ever appears flat when it is BELOW the centre of the camera.
This is quite important.
If you take a straight line through the centre of such a lens, it remains straight.
But if you were to place it below the centre it would curve such that it appears to bulge away from the centre.
Conversely, if you take a curve, the lens can either enhance that curve, or diminish it or make it go backwards.

So what this actually shows, is that the horizon is curved and you need lens distortion to straighten it out.

But of course, a lying coward lie you will ignore all that and just pretend that because it can appear straight in a single frame, all that lens distortion doesn't matter anymore.

These videos are consistent with what I saw, from what I watched of them.

And consistent with a RE, not a FE.

Wearing a flat Earth tee shirt does not make you a flat Earther.

i.e. FEers who show you are wrong or who eventually realise their mistake and admit Earth isn't flat, will be dismissed as shills, because that is how your cult operates.

Meanwhile, you happily brag about how you allegedly believed Earth was round and decided it was wrong to capacity for change. Why shouldn't we dismiss you as never being a round Earther?

This guy is supposedly a flat Earther. Why, he even paid $20,000 for a gyroscope!

And unlike most, he actually did it.
i.e. unlike the lying POS cult leader you follow, he put his money where his mouth was.

This means I am far more likely to believe that he actually believes Earth is flat, than I am to believe your cult leader believes Earth is flat.

Your cult leader refuses to do any experiment, likely because they know it will show they are wrong.

But this guy actually believed enough to buy a very sensitive gyroscope, and when it recorded the rotation of Earth he just couldn't accept it.

Or, you pay less that $50 to find out that

You have purchased cheap crap that is incapable of measuring the rotation of Earth.
If you want to do that, you need several steps.
Firstly you need to try measuring it, including making sure you spin it in both directions.
You might wonder why you need both?
Well, a gyroscope, with a weight to one side, will rotate in a particular direction, if you spin it the other way, it rotates in the other direction.

This means if your gyroscope is not balanced it will drift, in a direction based upon which you spin it.
So if you have a rotation from Earth, along with a rotation from the unbalanced gyroscope, they could add or cancel.
So if you "carefully balance" a gyroscope for a particular location on Earth, and always spin it in the same direction, you can have it appear to not measure Earth's rotation.
But if you do, then spinning it in the other direction would not do the same, and instead make it rotate more.

So this experiment is to check the gyroscope is actually balanced properly.

Then the next important step to do is repeat this experiment twice.
In both cases on a platform slowly and smoothly rotating at the rate which is equal to the component of Earth's rotation perpendicular to the ground.
That would be one revolution every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds at the poles, no rotation at all at the equator. At 45 degrees (north or south) it would be one rotation every 1 day, 9 hours, 50 minutes and 54 seconds.
In one of these experiments, it should be rotating with the "alleged" (i.e. measurable, demonstrable, real) rotation of Earth, and in the other it should be against it.

These experiments are to check that the gyroscope is actually sensitive enough to measure the rotation of Earth, as it is quite simple for the pivots about which it needs to rotate to have too great an amount of friction to be able to rotate to measure the rotation of Earth.

There may be no adjustment to the gyroscope between these experiments other than changing the direction of rotation.

But instead of even attempting any of these controls, you just appeal to an alleged experiment without any controls and claim it doesn't measure the rotation of Earth.
And providing a quote with absolutely no reference is entirely worthless.
You have already demonstrated you are willing to lie to everyone. Why should anyone trust a quote you provide?

These flat Earthers went to Antarctica and proved the Earth is round! How dare you question them!
(Maybe because they went out of their way to say "no green screen here!"

Because they knew that lying POS like you and your cult leader Eric would do whatever you can to claim it is fake and they are shills.
And part of the planning of this experiment is to try to show that all those ways you could try to fake it are not what happened.

So, Bedford's experiment seems to be objects of the same height

And the important part you ignore is that they are viewed from that same height.
So if you want to fix up your crappy image, focus on the part at the same height:

See how it all appears the same?

But let's say he wanted to prove the sphere by putting one object closer but way off to the left.

i.e. yet again you just lie to everyone coming up with excuses for how things "could be faked", instead of even attempting the experiment yourself.
Yet again you don't give a damn about the truth and are just looking for excuses to reject reality.

and to bulma AND tubro - it optically convergess both in the horizontal and the vertical.


not just some arbitrary parobolic vertical.

I wish you'd come up with your own stuff, and stop reposting FlatEarth.ws memes.

Now why not try that honestly:
You wish we could come up with something new you could easily refute instead of simple facts which show you are spouting pure BS.

The simple fact is the azimuth of the sun is not correct for your fantasy.

A far simpler example is the equinox.
On the equinox, except right near the poles, everyone at a given longitude will see the sun rise due east at the same time and set due west.
But in your delusional fantasy it should be rising north of east and setting and setting north of west:


A simple fact you flee from like the lying coward you are.

Likewise, your pathetic excuse doesn't work either.
We have been over this before.
Again, on the equinox, the entire world gets roughly 12 hours of daylight.
That would require a semicircle of illumination from the sun.
Not a circle.
If you wanted it to be a circle, and have the equator always get its 12 hours of daylight, you would have crap like this:

There would be no way for the north pole to ever be in darkness. Yet it is dark for months of the year.

There would be no way for anywhere south of the equator to ever get more than 12 hours of daylight.
And in fact, the further north you go the more daylight hours you would have until you reach 24 hours of daylight.

Yet back in reality, we see that during the northern summer, the further north you go the more daylight hours you get, but in the southern summer, the further north you go the less you get.
And during this southern summer, the north gets less than 12 hours and the south gets more.

Again, your BS doesn't work.

And this has been raised previously, with your response being to just wilfully ignore it.

No matter how flat your your basketball is, try this.

You sure do love appealing to your tiny balls.
Now where is this basketball?
Sitting on Earth?
Cause guess what? All that shows is that Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.

Likewise, how fast are you rotating it? If it was a scaled down version of Earth with the same average density, you need to be rotating at one revolution per 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
If you spin it faster, you are just showing Earth doesn't rotate that fast.
If it is less dense, like a basketball, you need to rotate it even more slowly.

You are doing nothing to refute the RE or gravity.
This has been explained to you so many times it isn't funny.
All you are doing with this is showing you are a desperate lying POS who does not give a damn about the truth at all and is willing to repeatedly lie to everyone.

Then you talk about a bunch of tubes, and how the horizon is below eye level. But having been on mountains, this sounds like a whole lot of fraud.  I never remember looking down at the horizon.

No, that just sound like you are a human incapable of telling what is perfectly level.
And a lying POS looking for excuses to dismiss reality.
Notice how you don't say you have any instrument or equipment at all to determine if the horizon is level or not, just if you had to "look down"

Humans are notoriously bad at making accurate estimates of things like angles and distances, but are very good at looking at 2 close vertical lines and seeing which is left or right, or 2 close horizontal lines and seeing which is above or below.

So if you just look towards a line off in the distance at roughly eye level, you will have no idea if it is actually at eye level, or slightly below or slightly above.

You can even test this with a friend/parent/any random person willing to help, or some more creative ways.

Go find a surface you think is flat with a wall nearby. Feel free to even measure just how flat it is.
Normally a simple floor inside is enough.
Then have the other person place place a few sheets of paper on the wall, in part to obscure any reference you might always have, and in part to allow you to draw on it without drawing on the wall.
And on that paper, have them draw a few horizontal lines.
You want to have lines every few mm.

Then you get to come in, stand some distance away, look at the lines and pick the line you think is eye level. Then go and check. You will find you are likely off.

Remember, if you are standing on a mountain 10 km high, with the horizon roughly 360 km away,  That is equivalent to standing 3.6 m away from a wall with a line 20 cm down.
If instead, you are standing on a mountain 1 km high with the horizon just over 100 km away, that is equivalent to standing 1 m away from a wall with a line 2 cm down.

And what makes then even worse, is that humans will naturally use the horizon as a reference.
So saying you don't look down for the horizon, is like drawing a line on a pole, and then saying it hasn't sunk into the ground because that line hasn't gone below the line.
There are even examples called either gravity hills or magnet hills, where the surroundings and this fact people use the horizon to determine "level" where it appears things roll uphill.

The entire point of this water filled tube it to provide a reference.
With this water filled tube, you know where level is. You can then compare this level to the horizon and see if the horizon is below level or appears level within uncertainty.

And this is also a trivial experiment to do.
The simplest version just uses a clear water bottle.

But of course, instead of doing something that could easily show you are wrong, you just make excuses and reject it. Like the lying coward you are.

Because they don't have loads of money like NASA?

They have plenty.
Certainly enough to do that.
What they don't have is trust.
Because they don't have enough money for them all to go, they can only send a few. And those few that are sent who then admit Earth is round will be dismissed as shills.

it has more to do with your eyes than the Earth being curved?

Yet you are entirely incapable of providing any justification for what magic causes this.

No, the real question is still, "WHY would the government trick us?"

And you are yet to provide an example how.

Because they gain money, control, and human sacrifices from deceiving you.

How?
How does saying Earth is round if it is flat do any of that?

and to bulma AND tubro - it optically convergess both in the horizontal and the vertical.


not just some arbitrary parobolic vertical.

If actually understood the parabola, you would understand that it's a shorthand for the dome of visible sky. You can draw it as a cylinder if want. Or a box. But the point is, the ground is flat. Let's look at what I mean.


But Bulma! This wheat field I am standing in appears to be sloping upward toward the horizon! 

Very good. Now turn around. Doesn't that also appear to be sloping upward toward the horizon? And if you turn to the left or right? That same optical impression of sloping upward toward the sky, and the sky sloping downward to Earth.

Now, obviously, this is an optical illusion, or the Earth would be an endless system of craters. But one thing we very clearly can see from this perspective is how little it resembles a sphere. A sphere should look like a mountaintop, with the horizon consistently below (like with that pipe thing you guys showed, but even in the wheat field or on a beach). Even on a mountaintop, we still get this uphill slope effect.

Now whatever shape you do want to make it (parabola or no), there are certain shapes that simply do not work for this perspective. You can scream and howl at this notion, but it's not really my concern. I'm just telling you that I know what I see.

If actually understood the parabola, you would understand that it's a

Which has nothing to do with how a ship going out to sea becomes physically blocked from view bottom up by the curvature of the earth.

And in the context of the documented Campanella experiment,  doesn’t explain why the light at night became visible only after lifting the light high enough above the earth’s curvature. 

Real life telephone poles.






Notice the road and the telephone pole bases don’t magically disappear.  The road goes downhill out of sight.  The bases on the telephone poles are blocked by high grass.


Things just don’t disappear because of perspective.  Your prescriptive argument is pure BS. 

amazing

you draw an optical phenomenon then compare it to the physical and say "see, it's impossible"


by that same logic, you'd claim because it looks like the railway tracks converge, then they can't be parallel because they look convereged

If actually understood the parabola, you would understand that it's a shorthand for the dome of visible sky.

So just a useless word to describe humans see based upon angles, and in no way an explanation for things disappearing and nothing like what you have previously claimed?

But Bulma! This wheat field I am standing in appears to be sloping upward toward the horizon!

The issue isn't it going up, it is it going down, something you can't explain.

And great job showing a complete lack of understanding between physical reality and your perception of it.

Now, obviously, this is an optical illusion

No, it is basic geometry.

But one thing we very clearly can see from this perspective is how little it resembles a sphere.

No, it resembles it quite well.
We see the ground "appear to rise" until it reaches a horizon.
Just like a mountain top.

The only question is how big it is (and how high you are above it), which relates to how far away the horizon will be and what angle it will be at.

Now compare that to a flat surface, where there is no horizon except the edge.

Again, if you were educated and honest, you would understand that.

But as the either complete imbecile or lying POS you are (or both), you say you don't, and spout pure BS instead.

A sphere should look like a mountaintop, with the horizon consistently below

And it is. You just need a tool accurate enough to measure it.

Even on a mountaintop, we still get this uphill slope effect.

Yes, showing you are a lying POS, because that what you tried comparing it to.
Even the mountain gives you that "uphill slope effect".

Now whatever shape you do want to make it (parabola or no), there are certain shapes that simply do not work for this perspective.

And a flat surface is one of them.

Alright.




Meanwhile, when cameras were claimed to pick up shots from across the bay in Indiana from Chicago (nearly 50 miles away), the media claimed "That's a mirage." Oh I see, so when you can't see far, because a freaking forest is in the way, you're like "See? The curvature!" But when you can see further than claimed should be possible, "Oh that? That's a mirage."

News flash, reporters! There's no such thing as a perfectly accurate mirage. A mirage is a trick of the eye.

"Oh that? That's a mirage."

Meanwhile, when cameras were claimed to pick up shots from across the bay in Indiana from Chicago (nearly 100 miles away),

Ok.  Have an actual link and location to your picture your using that looks like a picture a lot closer than 100 miles.  Taken at shore level. 

Funny.  Only the tops of the builds are seen. Flat earth.  The actual city should be seen.


Now.  How about you do some research.  And give the honest conditions the pictures are taken from.

This is actually the picture concerning the mirage.

Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

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






al Sunday
A year ago, I showed this amazing picture on air and online. The story has been one of the most viewed stories on our website, ever. Most clicked because of its rarity, and also because there are skyline skeptics that say my explanation is a cover-up.  A cover-up to their belief that this picture is proof the earth is flat.


Joshua Nowicki captured it through a lens. He’s an amateur turned semi-pro photographer

“I moved to southwest Michigan about 4 years ago and fell in love living along the lake and photography just kinda took off from there," Nowicki said.

Some photos he takes for himself, some he sells, but most he snaps just because he loves it. He snapped the now infamous photo last April.

Was it a mirage? Or is this proof to some the earth is indeed flat? We climbed the dunes to find out.

Due to the curvature of the earth, it’s not possible to see the Chicago skyline in such clarity and detail, at least under normal atmospheric conditions. 

How far away is the horizon?

This can be figured out with middle school math, remember the Pythagorean Theorem? Or you can just use this web based calculator, to try for yourself.


The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon. That’s still not far enough to see Chicago, at least at ground level. The Willis (Sears) Tower is 1,450 feet to the top. Doing the same calculations you could see it from up to 65 miles away on Tower Hill.

That day on the shores of Lake Michigan at Warren Dunes State Park, just 50 some miles to the west, Chicago was hard to see on the slightly overcast day. Looking towards the south less than 20 miles away you can see Michigan City, the power plant and Blue Chip Casino.

“It depends on where you are. Here at Warren dunes you have a better chance at seeing Chicago, up at St. Joe every once in awhile,” Nowicki said. 
“Earlier this year there was a good opportunity, It looked like 40 or 50 buildings which is the most I've ever had the chance to see."

The views along the lake are always changing, along with the weather.
“I do go out and take a lot of photos of Chicago along the lake. I go to different locations on different nights. I like to compare the photos as to what's changed. Are the buildings wider, taller, shorter are there more of them? Less of them? It's always different, it's so unpredictable, I want to catch as many different views of it as I can," Nowicki said.

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

Bulma.  53 miles is not 100 miles.  250 feet above the lake from a hill isn’t being right on the shore. 

 from across the bay in Indiana

By the way.  Do you have a reference or map that shows the bay of Indiana on a map.  And how big the supposed bay of Indiana is on Lake Michigan. 

Added.  Sense you like AI so much…

 from Chicago (nearly 100 miles away),

You picture looks more like a picture taken 15 miles away with a bigger wave.

Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan
Posted on June 13, 2014 by Matthew Wolf



https://yumyummatt.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/chicago-as-seen-from-around-south-lake-michigan/

New Buffalo, MI is roughly 40 miles (as the crow flies) to Chicago but you can still barely see the tops of a few buildings of the Chicago skyline from the beach at New Buffalo. Take a look at these ten images I found of photos from various distances along the lake. Please note that some of these photos are zoomed in at different levels which means that the skyline may look a little larger in some photos. Also, the map above will give you an overhead visual of where these photos were taken.

New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)



https://yumyummatt.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/chicago-as-seen-from-around-south-lake-michigan/

Bulma.  Of the earth is flat.  Why can one only see the tops of the three or four tallest buildings in Chicago only 40 miles away? 

Meanwhile,

You didn’t address the actual context of the post.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 20, 2025, 01:39:57 PM

If actually understood the parabola, you would understand that it's a

Which has nothing to do with how a ship going out to sea becomes physically blocked from view bottom up by the curvature of the earth.

Quote

And in the context of the documented Campanella experiment,  doesn’t explain why the light at night became visible only after lifting the light high enough above the earth’s curvature. 

Real life telephone poles.






Notice the road and the telephone pole bases don’t magically disappear.  The road goes downhill out of sight.  The bases on the telephone poles are blocked by high grass.


Things just don’t disappear because of perspective.  Your prescriptive argument is pure BS.

Telephone poles physically blocked from view.






Telephone poles off into the distance.  The bottoms don’t get magically blocked from view.  The just go off into the distance beyond the resolution imaging of the camera sensor. 






Bulma.  Ships going out to sea don’t get physically blocked from view by your prospective BS where zoom cont bring it back onto zoom.  They get physically blocked from view because of the curvature of the earth and why a good telescope cannot bring it back into view. 

Alright.

Bulma.  Just more deception, lies, and trying to change the context of the argument by yiu Bulma. 

Meanwhile, when cameras were claimed to pick up shots from across the bay in Indiana from Chicago (nearly 100 miles away), the media claimed "That's a mirage." Oh I see, so when you can't see far, because a freaking forest is in the way, you're like "See? The curvature!" But when you can see further than claimed should be possible, "Oh that? That's a mirage."

News flash, reporters! There's no such thing as a perfectly accurate mirage. A mirage is a trick of the eye.

News flash, bulmabriefs! The furthest distance across the lake (or "across the bay", as you say) from Indiana to downtown Chicago is about 40 miles. That's a lot less than "nearly 100 miles"; it's not even half that. Besides, that picture was taken from Michigan, but still only about 50 miles away (about half of "nearly 100 miles"). Maybe you should do at least a little fact checking on claims you think prove some point you're trying to make before you repeat them.

Beside that, "mirage" is a term with two different technical meanings. Both are real optical effects, not "a trick of the eye". The one that is taken to mean "seeing something that isn't really there" is a so-called inferior mirage, caused by abnormally hot air near the surface (like a hot roadway) that causes light to be refracted upwards; it looks like a pool of water (that doesn't really exist) reflecting light upwards - hence the origin of mirage meaning "something (like the pool of water) that doesn't really exist". The other is called a superior mirage, which is caused by an inversion (cooler air below warmer air) and makes distant objects (like distant horizons) appear higher than they actually are. The Chicago skyline appearing higher from across the lake than it normally does is an example. By the way, "superior" and "inferior" in this context does not mean one is better or worse than the other; rather, one makes things appear higher or lower than they actually are.

Don't rely too heavily on newspaper descriptions of technical phenomena. Do some checking before parroting them.

[lame photos from high cultist]

Now try it with a decent camera with decent resolution, or just use your eyes.

I have never been in a situation where I can't see to the end of the hallway.

Oh I see, so when you can't see far, because a freaking forest is in the way, you're like "See? The curvature!" But when you can see further than claimed should be possible, "Oh that? That's a mirage."

Now try again honestly.
When we can't see, even though there is nothing that should be blocking our view, and our view is clearly obstructed by curvature of Earth, with the distant object appearing to sink, that is curvature.
When particular conditions arise which results in more significant refraction than "standard", this will allow us to see further.
And this makes perfect sense. Refraction results in light bending downwards, allowing you to see over the curve.

There's no such thing as a perfectly accurate mirage.

And that image you appeal to (which doesn't even have anything to indicate it is a mirage) is not perfectly accurate. So no problem there.

A mirage is a trick of the eye.

Wrong again.
It is a result of the atmosphere bending light. Nothing to do with your eyes.
If it was a trick of the eye, you wouldn't be able to capture it with a camera.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 23, 2025, 02:19:29 PM

Alright.

Bulma.  Just more deception, lies, and trying to change the context of the argument by yiu Bulma.

This is "Why would the government trick us," no?

And what do we see here but government-employed agents running disinformation campaigns for RE and NASA.

Lies are your stock and trade. Like so.


It appears you didn't notice they did mention it was in Indiana.

All I ever saying is that they are in Indiana. I don't remember mentioning the Bay of Indiana. Lake Michigan covers Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, as they are to the west, south, and east of the lakeshore, respectively.

But since you asked for an AI answer, you need to take the full answer, which is...


Nice question, though! Thank you for showing just how dishonest you can be.

It's near a lake called Lake Michigan on the northwestern shores of Indiana.  There is no Bay of Indiana.

"Was this helpful?" Yes, Assist, it was.