FE bendy light weird for people north and south

L
Look at the intensity of red, yellow, purple, and blue light, and how it diminished over distance. L

And that has what to do with…

 But you do have this.  I can see Jupiter as long as it’s not set for me being blocked by earth’s curvature.  When Jupiter is in the sky, I can’t see its natural satellites with the unaided eye.  But a pair of binoculars or a good telescope changes that.  And they are not even transmitting photons by the same means as the sun.  Sun, source.  Jupiter and its natural satellites reflect the sun’s light like the moon. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 17, 2026, 05:48:59 AM

I love your comment about line of sight not being infinite. As Eric Dubay once put it, "thinks they can see objects millions of miles away...

And yet.  The sun is 93 million miles away, and not only does its photons reach earth, so does its charged particles.

And the earth gets in between the sun and moon to cast a shadow on the moon known as a lunar eclipse.

Too bad you don’t understand line of sight with the sun is literally the sun being a giant transmitter of photons that are reaching the earth and detectable by sight.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 16, 2026, 04:01:04 AM

Hoping to stump me.

Nope .  To show you how stupid or
Dishonest you are.  Trying to spin it makes you look more insane.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 15, 2026, 05:18:15 PM

You can test this scientifically using a friend, a flashlight, and wall with a corner.

Does FE make you stupid too?

You can’t see the light because it’s physical blocked from view.



Like duh..



Where sunset the “corner” is literally the sun setting behind the curvature of the earth to become physically blocked from view.

There is no “corner to turn” in flat earth. The sun is literally always in the line of sight.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 15, 2026, 05:18:15 PM

 Light generally travels in a straight wave.

That means..




There is literally nothing in the FE model to block the sun from view on a clear day at sunset.

Bulma.  We are posting about why you can’t see the sun acting like a giant lightbulb, actively transmitting photons and radiation.  Not stupid Ted and yellow lights reflecting off Lake Michigan. 

Bulma, the literally queen of stupid arguments to derail from anything that kills FE. 

By the way, Wise was wondering when your next drag queen show was.  That’s the lengths flat earthers will go to post off topic and derail a thread.  Lol

Look at the intensity of red, yellow, purple, and blue light, and how it diminished over distance.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 18, 2022, 03:16:27 AM

Sorry, long post with lots of photos.

So.

Let’s recap and get back on topic of this thread.

Trying to push the limits of perspective and small object photography to try to get a flat surface to make an object to become physically blocked from view where zooming cannot bring it back into view.

Yesterday I tried to use a small object on the railroad tracks at 350 steps.  Which is about 750 feet.  Unfortunately, the heat coming off the track made it impossible to focus on the target.

So. Changed gears. Did an experiment at night.  Placed a relatively small flashlight right on the track.  Took pictures of the flashlight at various distances.

Using the track because it is relatively on a grade made flat for the old railroad car yard. 

My camera was placed so it could be close to the tracks as possible on its highest zoom setting.


Used this flashlight.




Place the flashlight on the track


View from 100 steps no flash


View from 100 steps with flash


200 steps no flash


200 steps flash


300 steps no flash


300 steps flash


360 steps.  About 750 feet. No flash.


360 steps flash


360 steps camera at a greater hight above ground.  About three feet.


In conclusion. Pushing the limits of photography using the smallest practical objects on the flattest and longest surfaces I have access to.  I have not been able to use perspective to physically block an object from view. In the flat earth delusion, it’s impossible for the flat earth to block the sun from view.  Or a ship at sea in the example below.



Thus, thus is true.

The glare off the rail diminished with distance, but that has nothing to do with you can still clearly see the light source itself and how.

So.  Bulma with another stupid derailment and butchering of logic that has nothing to do with anything.  Just more useless flack to just be contrary.

You and implied in another thread you shouldn’t do something proven because everyone is using it to proficiency.  Is it mob mentality to breathe.  Looking forward to you breaking from the mob with breathing Bulma because everyone I talk with seems to be into breathing.   So by your logic it must be wrong. 

You notice how when I'm corrected, and the point is valid, I correct the argument a bit?

pick up shots from across the bay in Indiana from Chicago (nearly 50 miles away)

But when you get told the math doesn't add up, that the angles don't add up, that the same thing we've been telling you over and over has a "line of sight" issue.

The further something is, the lower the angle. When the rise of angle begins to resemble the blue line (horizon), it sinks into horizon. Also, the smaller the object, the more it shrinks as it moves toward the vanishing point. You've been told the sun isn't that big, isn't that far, and you've been shown repeatedly what that looks like. Unlike a person who's actually able to take criticism honestly, you deflect and deflect and deflect. You've probably been told the math, but you ignore it. It's simple.

• The sun gradually gets dimmer (Inverse Square Law, which applies to all electromagnetic frequency and thermal reactions, not only light)
• Its angle gets lower (basic geometry, when we're not lying and claiming pseudoscience bullcrap)
• And yes, it does shrink over the course of distance (Vanishing Point)

But unlike an airplane for instance, this last one doesn't happen right away. Just as a giant mountain range doesn't shrink to a pinprick immediately.  RE "common sense" says at sea level you can see a mountain 3 miles away. This is playbook for the general horizontal distance to height, that we are all told. But the numbers don't add up.

Mount Everest can be seen from over 120 miles away, specifically from the city of Kathmandu, Nepal, due to a decrease in air pollution.

Kathmandu is situated at an elevation of approximately 1,324 meters (4,344 feet) above sea level

At an altitude of 4000 feet, you can see approximately 71.4 kilometers (about 44.4 miles) to the horizon, assuming clear atmospheric conditions.

So significantly large objects do not shrink into vanishing point immediately, but gradually lower until angle is level with the real horizon, not the artificial one RE ppl came up with. Nearly 3x the supposed horizon limit.

"So why isn't the sun super big and far away?" Because the more you stretch distance, the more we run into the actual limit for that size and elevation, and the more heat and light degrades. If you set a fire in a chimney, and stick your hand in there, you will burn your hand off. If you have a metal grill, you can cook food slightly further away. Step further away, you warm yourself and dry clothing. Even further away, it's no longer palpable. The same thing with light, electricity, radio waves, dolphin sonar, etc. It really is impossible for a signal to continue outward for billions of miles. To put this into perspective, the supposed signals to outer space to contact alien life would never reach the nearest planet. Not that I believe in outer space, alien life, or planets as you know them. It would require an impossible amount of energy to transmit itself out. Range. Range is a thing.

Look, you yourself proved range is a thing.

But when you get told the math doesn't add up, l

Because you used road distance and not line of sight distance.  So the distances you were using acting ss if they were line of sight distances was absolutely wrong. 

Look, you yourself proved range is a thing.

You mean the curvature of the earth physically blocks things from view bottom up. And the rate it is physically blocked from view bottom up increase with distance. 


Back to the flashlight representing the sun.  You know, something that actively emits photons.

360 steps.  About 750 feet. No flash.


Every advantage given to “compression” and “perspective”.  Didn’t even come close to physically blocking the view of the “disc” of the flashlight from reaching the camera. Where the opposite happens at sunset where the direct view of the sun as in its disc is physically blocked from view by earth’s curvature.


How do you physically block the view of the sun so you can’t see it when it still illuminates the sky to the east of me after the sun sets.  You claim Bulma it’s light died, but the sun still illuminates the earth and sky for a time after it sets. The curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun’s disc from view where on a flat earth the sun’s disc would literally still be in the line of sight. 

Hoping to stump me.

Nope .  To show you how stupid or
Dishonest you are.  Trying to spin it makes you look more insane.

You can test this scientifically using a friend, a flashlight, and wall with a corner.

Does FE make you stupid too?

You can’t see the light because it’s physical blocked from view.



Like duh..



Where sunset the “corner” is literally the sun setting behind the curvature of the earth to become physically blocked from view.

There is no “corner to turn” in flat earth. The sun is literally always in the line of sight.

 Light generally travels in a straight wave.

That means..




There is literally nothing in the FE model to block the sun from view on a clear day at sunset. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 20, 2026, 03:06:45 PM

But when you get told the math doesn't add up, l

Because you used road distance and not line of sight distance.  So the distances you were using acting ss if they were line of sight distances was absolutely wrong.

God, what a thick head. Ceci n'est un pipe. This is not a real picture, it's an abstraction. 


You cannot ever ever see that part of the sun. It is outside actual visual range. It is outside of line of sight. In the same way as a distant object like Everest moves out of visual range. You can see Everest from 120 miles away, beyond what your pathetic curvature says it can, but then it levels out of sight.

If you are underwater in 100 m, the sun is very visible, then loses light as the water goes deeper, even traveling straight down. Notice in water, this is not even miles but feet.

I've seen underwater at around pool depth and that's it. The sun was very clear. The sky likewise is miles of gas, just horizontally rather than vertically. As the sun moves away or off-center it increasingly suffers not only from all the other things I've mentioned but also from layers upon layers or horizontal equivalent of moving into mesopelagic and bathypelagic zones then back towards the viewer. On this Earth, it never gets to the abyssopelagic zone or beyond, and this is a wonderful thing, because we humans would not be able to survive under those conditions. If would be terrifyingly dark and freakishly cold. If you want a vision of Hell, it isn't flames and eternal suffering, it's what the creatures of the deep have to deal with.

You cannot ever ever see that part of the sun. It is outside actual visual range. It is outside of line of sight.

The sun is fucking literally broadcasting photons where the photons are passing overhead and still refracted, illuminating the earth and sky on a longer path to illuminate the east several minutes after the sun sets.  Where you still can’t see stars for several minutes after sunset because it’s still too bright. 

Photons from the sun making it to the viewer isn’t the issue. 

 Light generally travels in a straight wave.

That means..




There is literally nothing in the FE model to block the sun from view on a clear day at sunset. 


Thus..



The sun is literally moving relatively below the earth’s curvature to set and become physically blocked from view bottom up by earth’s curvature where the shadow of earth falls across the land causing night fall. 

, what a thick head.

Too bad there isn’t something between the heliocentric reality and the FE delusion to work through this.  Where something is dimmer than the sun.  Can be more distance than the sun for RE and is definitely more distant than the sun in FE.

Oh.  Ya.  It’s called the planets.  Where on a clear night, they don’t dim but set below the horizon. 

The planets’ light aren’t dying when they pass the night, they get physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth when they set.  So.  In the FE delusion.  How is the sun’s light dying.  But the light of planets which are more distant and much dimmer than the sun still set at the same point of the much brighter sun. Where I can take a telescope, and use it to see the moons of Jupiter that are too dim for the unaided eye to see. But, even with the telescope, the moons stay visible in the telescope until they to set at the same point as the sun below the horizon.  If your logic was correct Bulma, the much farther and dimmer planets should “set” several degrees above the horizon.  Or not be seen at all. 

Photons from the sun making it to the viewer isn’t the issue. 

Because you say so?

Light generally travels in a straight wave.

Here's what I mean by straight wave.


Even over a short distance, despite being straight it fades. Air is thinner than water, so light encounters less particles in the way, but even if there were no particles (e.g. the "vacuum of space") energy loses its push, just as when I mowed the lawn today, and instead of the dust getting knockup infinitely drifting as cloud, it settled.

That means...

That doesn't mean what you think it means, and you told me about stealing while you take my pictures, deface them, and don't even bother to pay me royalties (well, the last bit is a joke, you couldn't pay me enough to let you use my stuff). Cease and desist.  I don't want you using my pictures anymore, if you can't use the actual picture. If you want to use the actual picture, my license for any artwork I made and didn't just compile together is Creative Commons By-ND

The CC BY-ND license allows others to reuse and distribute the work in an unadapted form for any purpose, including commercial use; adaptations are not allowed (see above under the ND license element for more about what counts as an adaptation). Attribution to the work’s creator must be provided.

You know me as bulma, so I'm assuming that part is covered, but you do not get to vandalize my stuff.

And fucking dreamstime can tell me to do the same, but they don't seem to care. That's the point.

This is your bullshit. You deface someone else's drawing, you write all over it and draw unsightly lines that cannot be erased without some effort.  Btw, in two or three days, this picture goes kaput. The link changes, and it disappears. Stealing? I'm borrowing. Leo daVinci's defaced Mona will be a memory. Meanwhile, imgur files are as far as I know, permanent.  I've contacted imgur to request my picture's deletion for reasons of being defaced.

And fucking dreamstime can tell me to do the same, l

Look.  Another rambling useless incoherent Bulma post that has nothing to do with what was actually posted.

, what a thick head.

Too bad there isn’t something between the heliocentric reality and the FE delusion to work through this.  Where something is dimmer than the sun.  Can be more distance than the sun for RE and is definitely more distant than the sun in FE.

Oh.  Ya.  It’s called the planets.  Where on a clear night, they don’t dim but set below the horizon. 

The planets’ light aren’t dying when they pass the night, they get physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth when they set.  So.  In the FE delusion.  How is the sun’s light dying.  But the light of planets which are more distant and much dimmer than the sun still set at the same point of the much brighter sun. Where I can take a telescope, and use it to see the moons of Jupiter that are too dim for the unaided eye to see. But, even with the telescope, the moons stay visible in the telescope until they to set at the same point as the sun below the horizon.  If your logic was correct Bulma, the much farther and dimmer planets should “set” several degrees above the horizon.  Or not be seen at all.

They get blocked by the horizon perception.



This plane flies past at a very low altitude.






When a plane flies past, even if it is fairly level, it appears to rise (note the cloud line) and sink (note the fence line).

In the same way, with the horizon as a guide, the sun appears to rise and sink as it moves past. If the plane continued past the airfield into the mountains, we should see it shrink, and merge into the horizon.

"But bulma! Why doesn't the sun appear to shrink?"

Let's save that question.

When a plane flies past, even if it is fairly level, it appears to rise (note the cloud line) and sink (note the fence line).

Tell that to all the flat earthers howling that rockets only go up a bit and come straight back down again. 

Perspective IS a thing.  It DOES mean that an object above you moving away appears to get closer to the horizon.  That’s just a case of the distance and height determining the angle it is from you.  That’s all perspective really is.

For the horizon to block the view of the sun needs something else.  Like it actually being between you and the sun.

In the same way,

 We have already had this back and forth.

Where the sun is supposedly in the flat earth delusion an object about 30 miles across 6,000 miles above the earth that broadcasts photos where the sun is 400,000 times brighter than the moon. Where the sun is 200 millions times brighter than Jupiter.

So a relatively small jet isn’t anything like the sun.  Where a jet does change apparent size and seems to increase in speed as it gets closer.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 11, 2024, 05:37:19 AM

The sun rises. The sun arcs the sky. The sun sets.

And I addressed on the first page of this thread on what a sun on the flat earth should do…. Especially if you believe and push the video this thread debunks.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 15, 2023, 03:29:57 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 10:43:29 PM

The Sun is positioned below the dome of the Firmament, so it moves below the arc in circles above Earth.

So stupid.  Why doesn’t the sun illuminate the bottom of your dome? 24/7? Duh…

Anyway.  The sun would have to turn north after setting in California.  No evidence.

The sun and its radiation are physically blocked by the curvature of the earth to create night. 

The sun wouldn’t set on a flat earth because the sun is too far above the earth in the delusion with the dimensions of the earth too small. 

And.  Again.

If the earth was flat. The sun should still come at you with seemingly very little change in speed for a long time, then seem to speed up and to fly by at a high rate of speed.  Greatly changing in apparent size.

Something like this. 




Which is nothing like reality.



Or this




Where on a flat earth the sun always 300 to 3000 miles above the earth couldn’t illuminate a cloud like this from the bottom. (and seriously, flat earther’s can’t scientifically agree on an actual distance to the sun by now?)




Where the sun stays a constant size as it arcs high into the sky from a earth rotating around its axis as it orbits the sun that is that  center of the solar system.

Where the sun changes very little distance from the viewer. 


Sorry.  No indication a sun 32 miles in diameter orbiting above a flat earth in atmosphere at high speed always relatively above the clouds in the middle of the van Allen belts making a constant right turn illuminating the underside of a dome.

And for a flat earth, the sun still would have to turn relative north and travel roughly parallel to the west coast of North America after passing over California.

Bulma.  The path of the and the appearance of the sun is nothing like a jet, nothing like what is required by flat earth, where the sun is whole magnitudes larger than a jet and millions of times brighter.

They get blocked by the horizon perception.

Trying to change the subject again.  Your post doesn’t actually address what was asked. 

And fucking dreamstime can tell me to do the same, l

Look.  Another rambling useless incoherent Bulma post that has nothing to do with what was actually posted.

, what a thick head.

Too bad there isn’t something between the heliocentric reality and the FE delusion to work through this.  Where something is dimmer than the sun.  Can be more distance than the sun for RE and is definitely more distant than the sun in FE.

Oh.  Ya.  It’s called the planets.  Where on a clear night, they don’t dim but set below the horizon. 

The planets’ light aren’t dying when they pass the night, they get physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth when they set.  So.  In the FE delusion.  How is the sun’s light dying.  But the light of planets which are more distant and much dimmer than the sun still set at the same point of the much brighter sun. Where I can take a telescope, and use it to see the moons of Jupiter that are too dim for the unaided eye to see. But, even with the telescope, the moons stay visible in the telescope until they to set at the same point as the sun below the horizon.  If your logic was correct Bulma, the much farther and dimmer planets should “set” several degrees above the horizon.  Or not be seen at all.

Tell that to all the flat earthers howling that rockets only go up a bit and come straight back down again.

Perspective IS a thing.  It DOES mean that an object above you moving away appears to get closer to the horizon.  That’s just a case of the distance and height determining the angle it is from you.  That’s all perspective really is.

Yeah, and?

It is visually difficult to determine when the plane is simply "descending" because it is flying past or actually descending because it is landing.

But you know what? There is a way to tell. You look at the top and/or front.

So back to rockets. 

Goes up, levels off, and then the nose goes down. The audience should say "Wtf?!? It didn't leave the atmosphere!" But because of a particularly bad bit of Emperor's New Clothes-level cognitive dissonance, the crowd sees the experts CHEER and because  they don't want to appear foolish because they don't get it, they cheer too. They later ask the internet which says this appearing to dip is not the shuttle flying out of sight to land on some remote location, but it breaking through the atmosphere, and that was an illusion of curvature. Meanwhile, I was on a beach in Florida, and watched a plane fly past. At a certain point in the sky, it stopped moving down, and started shrinking. Then it was gone.

So back to rockets. 

Goes up, levels off, and then the nose goes down. The audience should say "Wtf?!? It didn't leave the atmosphere!"

How is the audience on the ground supposed to tell whether or not the rocket is still in the atmosphere when the rocket is several hundred miles down range?

Meanwhile, I was on a beach in Florida, and watched a plane fly past. At a certain point in the sky, it stopped moving down, and started shrinking. Then it was gone.

How high was the plane when it stopped moving down?  How far away was it when it disappeared?  Wasn't it shrinking all the time it was moving away from you?

Yeah, and?

That you derails threads but just making crap up and never addressing what is actually posted.  Where you just post the same FE debunked lies.

Ok. 

When a plane flies past, even if it is fairly level, it appears to rise (note the cloud line) and sink (note the fence line).

Hey.  Jackass.  You realize the jets are landing. Right.  You mean where the jets are not acting like the sun in the FE delusion. Where the jets are physically losing altitude to actually land.  You understand the jets are landing and touching down after the fence.  Right. So your argument is based on something literally changing relative position to the earth/ground by getting lower while ignoring the sun on a given day for a supposed flat earth is supposed to stay a consistent hight.

Where your own example is more like the RE.  Landing plane vs sun going relatively below the horizon. 

Lol. 

Bulma, their own worst enemy. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 23, 2026, 01:37:30 PM

So back to rockets. 

Goes up, levels off, and then the nose goes down. The audience should say "Wtf?!? It didn't leave the atmosphere!"

How is the audience on the ground supposed to tell whether or not the rocket is still in the atmosphere when the rocket is several hundred miles down range?

That is a very nice question that I'm gonna turn rhetorically back to you. How are you so certain that it has in fact left the atmosphere? Especially since I see rockets by all accounts surrounded by blue skies.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 23, 2026, 01:37:30 PM

Meanwhile, I was on a beach in Florida, and watched a plane fly past. At a certain point in the sky, it stopped moving down, and started shrinking. Then it was gone.

How high was the plane when it stopped moving down?  How far away was it when it disappeared?  Wasn't it shrinking all the time it was moving away from you?

[/quote]

In midair almost directly in front of me. While planes can be seen from clear skies at high altitudes from hundreds of miles away, I was at sea level and it was probably the typical plane altitude of about 10,000 to 30,000 feet. I'd say the plane's radius of sight was around 10 miles, given that it moved from to my right to my left before disappearing from sight in a relatively short amount of time.

The plane was not shrinking the whole time, no. So here's how it went down.

While I was watching the beach, there was no shrinking at all, just ascending and descending. When I turned to look at it, it began to shrink. And I'd say it didn't sink into the water, but there was a perception of eye strain, and then in midair, I could no longer see it. No, it didn't disappear from the bottom, and no it didn't sink into the ground or exhibit curvature. It straight up moved from moving like the sun does (facing the beach of sky, and watching it drift across), to a straight on view. At a straight on view as it moves away, it shrinks; at a lateral view really looking at the sky, it does not (hint hint). If you want to see the sun shrink, you probably gotta face it diagonally.  Which pretty much nobody does.

Quote from: markjo on April 23, 2026, 01:53:04 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 23, 2026, 01:37:30 PM

So back to rockets. 

Goes up, levels off, and then the nose goes down. The audience should say "Wtf?!? It didn't leave the atmosphere!"

How is the audience on the ground supposed to tell whether or not the rocket is still in the atmosphere when the rocket is several hundred miles down range?

That is a very nice question that I'm gonna turn rhetorically back to you. How are you so certain that it has in fact left the atmosphere? Especially since I see rockets by all accounts surrounded by blue skies.

I asked you first.  Since you're the one making a claim, you're the one that's obligated to support that claim with more than just incredulity.

Quote

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 23, 2026, 01:37:30 PM

Meanwhile, I was on a beach in Florida, and watched a plane fly past. At a certain point in the sky, it stopped moving down, and started shrinking. Then it was gone.

How high was the plane when it stopped moving down?  How far away was it when it disappeared?  Wasn't it shrinking all the time it was moving away from you?

In midair almost directly in front of me. While planes can be seen from clear skies at high altitudes from hundreds of miles away, I was at sea level and it was probably the typical plane altitude of about 10,000 to 30,000 feet. I'd say the plane's radius of sight was around 10 miles, given that it moved from to my right to my left before disappearing from sight in a relatively short amount of time.

The plane was not shrinking the whole time, no. So here's how it went down.

While I was watching the beach, there was no shrinking at all, just ascending and descending. When I turned to look at it, it began to shrink. And I'd say it didn't sink into the water, but there was a perception of eye strain, and then in midair, I could no longer see it. No, it didn't disappear from the bottom, and no it didn't sink into the ground or exhibit curvature. It straight up moved from moving like the sun does (facing the beach of sky, and watching it drift across), to a straight on view. At a straight on view as it moves away, it shrinks; at a lateral view really looking at the sky, it does not (hint hint). If you want to see the sun shrink, you probably gotta face it diagonally.  Which pretty much nobody does.

That's the goofy thing about perspective: far away objects moving away from you tend to shrink less than near objects moving away from you.  It also makes it hard to accurately estimate the size, speed or actual distance of far away objects against a blue sky because there is no reference to give a sense of scale.  And unlike the sun, I don't think that I've ever seen an airplane at cruising altitude sink anywhere near the horizon before becoming too small to see.

While I was watching the beach,

The video you used showed airplanes changing apparent size.

The video you used was passenger jets on approach for landing.  They were changing relative altitude by getting closer to the earth.  Similar to the sun changing relative position to the earth to set and become physically blocked from view.


State by time stamp from your video where the approach path of any of the jets shown was recorded before the jets were visible in the sky. 

[quote author=bulmabriefs144

 And unlike the sun, I don't think that I've ever seen an airplane at cruising altitude sink anywhere near the horizon before becoming too small to see.

That’s double for contrails where conditions are right for contrail formation.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 30, 2023, 02:59:16 AM

The same distance away over the surface, like a plane is 50 miles away, while in the sky, 50 miles above the surface, that's what I'm saying here.

Did this jet(s) crash?

Quote

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html
[/img]

Quote

https://www.weather.gov/fgz/CloudsContrails

Quote

https://www.eumetsat.int/contrails-when-do-we-see-them-satellites
[/img]

Still doesn’t explain why human machines can’t orbit the earth in the same paths as the sun and moon.  Or be launched to crash into the dome.  Or all the objects humankind as added the night sky visible from earth.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 23, 2026, 07:39:51 PM

While I was watching the beach,

The video you used showed airplanes changing apparent size.

At all points of the  video, the planes were at horizontal view.

Weren't they?

Go frame by frame in slow motion, and you will see that never during the entire filming is the plane moving anything but closer or further.



When a plane flies past laterally, visually it is equidistant (neither closer or further), so your brain instead interprets it based on relative angle.

At all points of the  video, the planes were at horizontal view.

Were the jets blocked physically from view like a rising or setting sun.

Where you referenced a video where the jets are on approach to land literally changing height relative to the earth / ground by decreasing altitude.

So your video Bulma has nothing to do with what you posted.

At all points of the  video, the planes were at horizontal view.

Weren't they?

Nope. 

First jet is well above the horizon where the video fades in.













The jets coming in over the sea are very much above the horizon in the line of sight.  Where you need the jets to decrease in altitude and touchdown to get them to act like a setting sun.  Which is nothing like the FE delusion sun that day to day would stay a specific hight above the earth. 

At all points of the  video, the planes were at horizontal view.

Weren't they?

Still Nope. 

Second jet is well above the horizon.







The jets coming in over the sea are very much above the horizon in the line of sight.  Where you need the jets to decrease in altitude and touchdown to get them to act like a setting sun.  Which is nothing like the FE delusion sun that day to day would stay a specific hight above the earth. 


Bulma.  Their own worst enemy.  Confirming flat earthers are blind. 

I drew an artificial horizon using the fence and the cloud bank.

Yes, it's above the horizon, which is atop the water. I showed that vertical height "changes" as it approaches and moves away.


Is there lateral motion in the video?

I do not think there is. When objects moves laterally, they do not appear to change size.

I drew an artificial horizon using the fence and the cloud bank.

You’re babbling again.
 Your original post.

They get blocked by the horizon perception.


This plane flies past at a very low altitude.

When a plane flies past, even if it is fairly level, it appears to rise (note the cloud line) and sink (note the fence line).

In the same way, with the horizon as a guide, the sun appears to rise and sink as it moves past. If the plane continued past the airfield into the mountains, we should see it shrink, and merge into the horizon.

"But bulma! Why doesn't the sun appear to shrink?"

Let's save that question.

The jets are not magically materializing out over the water.

The jets are very far above the horizon when over the water.

The planes are decreasing in altitude because they are landing.

The jets are changing apparent speed and apparent size very noticeably. 

The only part of your video where the jets are acting like a setting sun is when they are physically changing relative hight above the earth like the sun in the RE. 

The plane is flying through the horizon at its relative level. It is moving horizontally at you.
It reaches your position, it is vertically above the viewer, before going back to horizontally away.
The plane I saw did not appear to change size, just rise and fall, until I stopped looking at it laterally.

Round Earthers, despite claim their Earth is 3D, and ours is not, can ironically only understand TWO dimensions. That is why they are fooled as small children.

The plane is flying through the horizon at its relative level.

Hey.  Jackass.  The video you posted was of passenger jets on the approach to land decreasing in altitude.  Changing relative position like the sun to a round earth.  Where airplanes can nose up to land / touchdown so they don’t crash nose first into the runway.