Offline Orbisect-64

  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • I'M REVOLTING! . . . make of it what you will
    • View Profile
Salar de Uyuni (Salt Flats)
« on: June 26, 2015, 05:28:50 AM »
Perhaps this has already been posted here. (?)


Go to the wide photo at the bottom of the page.

a) Copy the photo to your computer and enlarge it to fill your screen from top to bottom.

b) Put your thumb nail on the horizon.

c) Move the photo from the left, and all the way to the right.

— There is no curvature.

— There is no peak in the center.

(NOTE: You will notice that the left side is a little higher. This is because the photographer didn't level the shot perfectly. You'll also notice that right over his vehicle there's an anomaly where the horizon fails to meet up perfectly. The difference in height at this point makes up for the height difference at the left side of the shot.)

Experiment: With a 50mm lens - Go to the ocean and take two pictures of the horizon, one photo from your LEFT (photo #1), and one from your RIGHT (photo #2). It doesn't matter if the shots perfectly overlap, because "earth curve" will be noticeable in any shot, if it's there.

Take photo #1 and overlap it so that the right side overlaps the center of the photo #2.

If the earth is round, the right side of photo #1 will dip into the middle of photo #2, as the center of each photo should be higher than at the edges.

If you reverse the photos you will have the same results.

If it does not dip into the center of the other photo, then there is no curvature.

(A 50mm lens is considered to be the way we see things—it's TRUE. Anything below 50mm is a "wide angle lens," and will distort the photo. Photos that make earth appear to have a curve are taken with wide angle lenses, likely around the 30mm range. If you are a photographer and have a large format camera this experiment will yield better results.)

« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 05:49:47 AM by Orbisect-64 »
PRONOIA: “The delusional belief that the world is set up to benefit people … The confident and assumed trust that despite years of lies and oppression, government is secretly conspiring in your favor.”

Re: Salar de Uyuni (Salt Flats)
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2016, 08:50:27 AM »
We interrupt this program to bring you . . . correct information based on solid, reasonable facts. 

Salar de Uyuni — Why So Flat?

Let's learn.  Salar means salt flat in Spanish.  Uyuni originates from the Aymara language and means a pen (enclosure).  Salar de Uyuni can be loosely translated as a salt flat with enclosures.

Salar de Uyuni is part of the Altiplano of Bolivia in South America.  The Altiplano is a high plateau that includes fresh and saltwater lakes as well as salt flats (also known as salt pans), and is surrounded by mountains with no drainage outlets.

Salar de Uyuni is in a basin, which is like a bowl or cavity in the earth’s surface.  It’s covered by a few meters of salt crust, which has extraordinary flatness.  The crust serves as a source of salt and covers a pool of brine, which is exceptionally rich in lithium (70% of the earth's supply comes from this place).  The brine is a saturated solution of sodium chloride, lithium chloride and magnesium chloride in water.

So there’s the water, which levels out in the basin, the layer of crust forming on top.  It is surrounded by mountains and has shores . . . like a lake, which I pointed out with Lake Pontchartrain.

The salt flat has a very stable surface that is smoothed by seasonal flooding when nearby Lake Titicaca overflows and discharges into Poopó Lake, which then floods Salar de Uyuni, and Salar de Uyuni has no drainage outlets.  Even if there was a curve in the salt pan’s surface, during flooding the water would pool by the shores, cover the middle, and level on the surface.  However, that’s not necessary because the water dissolves the salt surface and keeps it leveled.

As a result, the variation in surface elevation is less than 3 feet 3 inches over the entire 4,086 square mile area.  There are few areas on earth that are as flat

How far are you seeing in these pictures?  Not as far as you might think, but you can't tell if you don’t know what you’re looking at and don’t have enough information to self-correct incompetence.  You’re not seeing the entire Salar de Uyuni salt flats, but rather looking from the shores near the gateway tourist town of Uyuni towards a few “islands,” which are actually the remains of the tops of ancient volcanoes submerged during the era of Lake Minchin (the massive glacial lake that once covered the region), and are home to colonies of rabbit-like viscachas.   

Don't be so smug, arrogant, haughty, and proud.  This is why you're not finding your earth-curve.

"What's the earth coming to when flat things are described as round?  Does that make round things flat?"  It's not coming to much of anything.  What's round is round, what's flat is flat, spatial recognition skewed, and alarming lack of facts.  Doesn't quite rhyme, but it'll do.

You can't get enough curve in the earth to get the water to flow downhill.  Hmm.  Well I can understand your frustration if you're hoping to accomplish that in one of the most level spots on earth that doesn't even have a drainage outlet.  Crikey, that must suck!

"If there's less than one inch of water, and the earth slopes, shouldn't all the water flow downhill to the sides, leaving the center dry?"  It's very difficult to arrive at the logical and appropriate conclusion when you don't have correct facts.  Even perception becomes lost in translation.

"Anything to the contrary is asinine."  Funny, I don't feel very asinine.   

"And an even bigger mystery is... WHERE DID ALL THE BRAINS DISAPPEAR TO?"  Speak for yourself, I've still got mine.  Maybe you're not asking the right questions.

We've definitely established you can't science.  But then, you don't believe in science because you've ruled it out with non sequitur reasoning.

A.   Evolution is fake.
B.   Science teaches evolution
C.   Therefore science is fake

And used non sequitur reasoning to arrive at false conclusions:

A. Science says the earth is round
B. Salar de Uyuni is very flat
C. Therefore the earth is flat

I gots me an edumacation.  My indoctrination (conditioning, programming, brainwashing, etc.) has taught me to thru-think subjects, researching them thoroughly, asking the right questions, searching for factual information with a truly open mind untainted by bias, willing to examine the facts from all angles as I build a foundation while self-correcting and adjusting along the way.  The result is: arriving at correct conclusions that the evidence supports, while understanding that further evidence will need to be considered and conclusions reconsidered as I continue to correct and adjust.  Analytical thinking, critical thinking, fact checking, digging through all available resources and reviewing them thoroughly (not just for confirmations, but also for errors), searching for understanding, and realizing that learning is an ongoing process.  I frequently say that, the more I learn and the more I know, the more I realize I have to learn and the more I realize how much I really don't know.  That is the beginning of wisdom.

Here's a synopsis under Avoid Illusions of Knowing from the excellent book "Make It Stick."

At the root of our effectiveness is our ability to grasp the world around us and to take measure of our own performance.  We’re constantly making judgments about what we know and don’t know.  Learning to be accurate self-observers helps us to make good decisions and reflect on how we might do better next time.  We need to be sensitive to the ways we can delude ourselves

Problems with poor judgment are we usually don’t know we have it combined with the sheer scope of the ways our judgment can be led astray. We’re all hardwired to make errors in judgment.  Good judgment is a skill we must acquire to become an astute observer of our own thinking and performance. 

We start at a disadvantage because, when we’re incompetent, we tend to overestimate our competence and see little reason to change.  We are readily misled by illusions, cognitive biases, and the stories we construct to explain the world around us and our place in it. 

To become more competent, we must learn to recognize competence when we see it in others (no man’s an island) and become more accurate judges of what we ourselves know and don’t know, adopt learning strategies that get results, and find objective ways to track our progress.

Our understanding of the world is shaped by hunger for narrative, which rises out of our discomfort with ambiguity and arbitrary events.  This urge to resolve ambiguity is very potent, even when the subject is inconsequential.

Discomfort with ambiguity and arbitrariness is even more powerful in our need for rational understanding of our own lives.  We strive to fit the events of our lives into a cohesive story that accounts for our circumstances, things that befall us, and the choices we make (and their consequences).  We gravitate to the narratives that best explain our emotions

The chapter goes on to explain how when memory is recalled and reconstructed (our memories are very imperfect and inaccurate), they are subject to many influences (you can really see how the Mandela Effect kicks in here).  Then it moves on to the subheading “Unskilled and Unaware of It.” 

Essentially, incompetent people lack the skills to improve because they are unable to distinguish between incompetence and competence.  They overestimate their own competence and, failing to sense a mismatch between their performance (or progress) and what is desirable, see no need to try to improve. 

A huge reason for this problem is that these people seldom receive negative feedback about their skills and abilities from others in everyday life.  Essentially, we learn from our mistakes, and when we lack the information to self-correct, we need external correction.  Many people don’t correct the incompetent person because nobody likes to deliver the bad news.  Also, when people receive negative feedback, they must come to an accurate understanding of why the failure occurred.  (Consider me the friend who's not afraid to give you negative feedback, the friend who tells you you've got a snot hanging out of your nose, your zipper's down, and you have toilet paper stuck to your shoe, and you look ridiculous; fix it.) 

For success, everything must go right.  Failure can be contributed to any number of external causes: it’s easy to blame the tool for what the hand can’t do.  Furthermore, some people just aren’t astute at reading how other people are performing and are less able to spot competence when they see it, impairing their ability to make comparative judgments about their own performance.  (I would add that some people also mistake incompetence in others for competence and are thus not only unable to self-correct, then compound their own incompetence.)

The means by which we navigate the world rely on our perceptual systems, intuition, memory, and cognition, with all their tics, warts, biases, and flaws.  When it comes to learning, what we choose to do is guided by our personal judgments of what works and what doesn’t, and we’re easily misled.  We must combat illusion and misjudgment by replacing subjective experiences as the basis for decisions with a set of objective gauges outside of ourselves.  We need reliable reference points, like cockpit instruments, and make a habit of checking them, then we can make good decisions about where to focus our efforts, recognize when we’ve lost our bearings, and find our way back again.

Again, I see people who are obsessed with looking at the surface and don't bother to look just below the surface and see the truth, which is in the facts.  For all that the flat earthers (and most all hardcore conspiracy theorists) claim they are truthseekers, they don't look very hard, they don't look in the right places, and they don't look beneath the surface.  Despite the fact that they are trying so desperately to lift the veil they perceive is over everyone's eyes, they stand still, staring, eyes wide shut.

Perception and spatial recognition problems are a common thread I'm seeing, and comprehension failures are likely a result of a narrow mindset that skims information for factoid snippets that will substantiate hypotheses while blindly overlooking very important contextual facts and information that would otherwise give a person a more balanced and complete picture.  The result is a custom-designed book (narrative) of self-assembled psuedo-knowledge missing pages and entire chapters.  To the outside observer it's blaringly obvious, but to the one on the inside looking out, they've boxed themselves in while trying to think outside without actually trying to venture outside and truly change their perspective, resulting in thinking with limitations.  How can you be a progressive thinker when you lack the basic skills to think progressively?

Maybe you need to get perspective from a better vantage point rather than ruining such a beautiful place with such quackery and silly nonsense.

Is this is valid research?!  Is this a valid experiment?!  Is this valid reasoning?!

"Go to the wide photo at the bottom of the page.

a) Copy the photo to your computer and enlarge it to fill your screen from top to bottom.

b) Put your thumb nail on the horizon.

c) Move the photo from the left, and all the way to the right.

— There is no curvature.

— There is no peak in the center."

Seriously?  Using that reasoning, let's go out and crush people's heads using just our forefinger and thumb (one more finger: must work even better!!).


"Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."—Sir Walter Scott (And often the one we're deceiving is our self.)
« Last Edit: April 02, 2016, 02:20:21 AM by Giants Orbiting »
"Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." —Sir Walter Scott


Offline Orbisect-64

  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • I'M REVOLTING! . . . make of it what you will
    • View Profile
Re: Salar de Uyuni (Salt Flats)
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2016, 01:19:14 AM »
Wow, you're still following me on websites like a jealous girlfriend? Don't learn your lessons, do you.

This was one of my first posts on this subject, so you choose the very worst thread to bash on, because I didn't have my arguments worked out to the full yet. Other posts I've submitted on the salt flats provide better reasonings.

What is going to be so sad is when the truth comes out to the full, and you have to face the fact that you were MOCKING God's very creation, while PRAISING his enemy's version of the creation - praising a lie that stood in the place of truth - even among us. In the end, you will have to face that you mocked the truth and praised the liar. Then you will understand the full impact of the deception, and why it is so important to understand. There will come a day when people will look back at this and say "Wow, we were all completely fooled into believing in a Satanic illusion. And understanding this, we will not be so quick to question God's Word in the future." The ultimate lesson to be learned from this will be a) to fully trust in the things yet to be written; b) and not to underestimate the deceiver, and his ability to trick us. Those who fail to learn this lesson will be unprepared for the final test, because they are too self confident, cocky, and IGNORANT of his methods, which proved so thoroughly effective in times past. . . so thorough that they got all of us to believe in a fairy tale. The story I will tell in the future will be about how I was even mocked by believers, who chose to mock God's word and trust in men. The story you will tell will be a warning of how well you were deceived, and that you were too prideful to look into the matter, open your eyes, and speak the truth. . . and you will use this to try to help others become aware of what is to come - a new deception.

The problem is that when I show you proof, you say you already know the truth, after having admitted to me that you NEVER LOOKED INTO IT. Thus you have drawn to your conclusion with zero evidence. Then you go off to do research, but you only do just enough research to find confirmation to support what you already believed. Thus you only set out to prove yourself right, and that is as far as you will look, no farther, because you found precisely what you set out to find (you would make a good scientist, you have their method down pat).

It's kind of like someone who poisons himself by cooking a frozen turkey that has only been thawing for less than 24 hours, when he was told to "let it thaw for three or four days." An acquaintance of his who works in the medical profession talks to others who have many more years experience in the medical field than herself, and they conclude that the turkey wasn't thawed properly, and it was Salmonella poisoning. The professional medic tries futilely to tell him this; but he brushes it off and believes what he wants to. Then he goes off to procure for himself people to tickle his ears by telling him what he wants to believe. He actually goes off to other people who are not medical professionals and gets their opinion. . . and the man is more willing to believe his friends' conclusions, than to believe the professionals, and the theory that perfectly fits all the facts (a large frozen turkey can not possibly thaw and be cooked in less than 24 hours); but he treats this evidence the same way he treats all evidence he doesn't like and doesn't want to hear. Why does he do this? Because he isn't humble enough to admit that HE is responsible for his own near death experience - he would rather choose to believe it was botulism (food poisoning) and shift the blame from himself to someone or something else. The sad consequence of this kind of justification and rationalization is that he never learns the lesson, that failing to listen, be humble, and change your thinking can cost you your life. A wise and humble man would admit "I'm wrong" and buy a meat thermometer, and avoid disaster in the future. A stupid man won't learn anything, and won't benefit himself. This man will be far more likely to be foolish again in the future, because he lacks the ability to make changes to himself - but rather, he tailors his truth to his own reasoning. . .  which he mistakenly thinks is to his benefit.

This story personifies this man's entire method of doing research. And I believe this example proves beyond the shadow of doubt that such a man sets out only to prove what he initially believed - he does not do true research, he merely justifies his preconceived understanding. It's prideful.


Now you may commence with the soul purpose of following me to every website you find me on, and trolling me with your hatred. You would have been better off just doing research, coming to your own conclusion, and leaving me out of this—then we could be friends to some degree. You could have made comments on anyone and everyone else's post, and left mine alone, for the sake of keeping the peace. . . IF that was what you wanted.

But clearly peace is not what you WANT. You came in here with the intention of mocking me, and you have. You choose to make it PERSONAL and attack me. You haven't learned, or changed, or improved. But your thinking will change when all truth becomes known. In the meantime, just go on doing your from of research with the intent to prove your preconceptions. THIS is the thinking process of such a man, and he applies it whenever he does research, and to whatever he doesn't like - especially if he dislikes the source the information is coming from.

Your post above is nothing more than mockery, jest, and jibes. Sadly, mockery in the absence of proof is exactly the same method ball earth proponents and evolutionists use. You stand in good company as 'birds of a feather.'

P.S. "Do not go beyond the things that are written."

Isaiah is the only person to have ever used the word for sphere in the Bible. And he also wrote that God drew a circle upon the earth. Isaiah knew the difference between a circle and a ball. And yet he used the word circle. This means that all Israelites knew the difference between the two simple shapes. And yet although they all knew the two words, the word for circle was always chosen as a description of the shape God drew, and the word for sphere was written zero times as a descriptor. In the book of Proverbs, the pre-human Jesus said in the first person: "When God drew a circle upon the face of the deep, I was there." It's curious how he felt the need to state "I WAS THERE" as if he wanted us to know that he stood as an eyewitness to the circle that was not a sphere. Think of ALL the aspects of the creation process he could have spoken about. Yet he chose only one - regarding the shape of the earth. . . almost as if he was told that, later, God's enemy was going to twist this very thing, and he felt he needed to make a statement that would one day set the matter right in the minds of true believers.

The word chugh means "to drawn around, make a circle" or "a circle as drawn by hand." I challenge you to take a piece of paper right now, and draw a sphere. You can not do it, because it's impossible to draw a three dimensional object. You do not draw a sphere, you form it, and using clay would be a better way to describe a sphere that is formed (The impossibility of drawing a true three dimensional object illustrates the equal impossibility that it was a sphere that he drew - on a surface) . . . Yet God chooses not to use such a description, while choosing over and over again to use chug which means "to draw a circle by hand." So what did God do? He "drew" a circle upon a surface - he did not form a sphere.

(I love how I told you about my deep research into the original Hebrew, and how I thoroughly and exhaustively dissected it and tore it apart before coming to my conclusion  -  And you counteracted it by saying later: "I looked into words like chugh and raquia, and the conclusion I came to is completely different than yours." Then when I asked you to elaborate and tell me about your research, you responded by cutting the conversation short and saying you don't want to get into it. In other words, if you had anything more than a flimsy response that is nothing more than your initial opinion, you would have offered it. . . but you don't, so you didn't. Your conclusion is not based on thorough research, and you have nothing to show to "give a reason for the faith within you." This too is indicative of the way you draw to conclusions based on just enough research to confirm what you already believed before doing "research." So when you try to tell me that I draw to conclusions with a veil over my eyes, I consider it as nothing. I always give you hard evidence, names, people, places, multiple sources, and you always give me nothing but that you don't agree, before doing research of your own to either confirm or prove false my research - you simply state that you don't like the story, so you reject it. Of the things you accuse me, you have no basis, and you accuse yourself ten fold.)

So here we have the Biblical witnesses. (Mt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; Deut. 19:15)

1) We have multiple writers.

2) We have the testimony of the most high creator himself. (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21)

3) And we have the eyewitness of Jesus.

And we would choose to call them liars, or claim that they got their words mixed up? Or maybe we would say "God chose to say circle because a spherical earth would have been too complex for the Israelites understand." Maybe we would claim that although little children know the difference between a ball and a circle, the full grown Israelites would not. Or maybe truth comes from man, and we should discard what God says in favor of philosophy. Perhaps you teach people that some parts of the Bible can be discarded and interpreted according to modern views - and in doing so call into question which is the authority, and how trustworthy the Bible is when we can choose what to dismiss and what is valid. If you think God avoided telling us the earth is a sphere because the ancient Israelites would not have understood such a concept. . .  then I recommend you go read Ezekiel which explains the heavens, which they would never see, in terms that are far more abstract than a simple spherical earth, which they lived upon. . .  and then tell me God chose not to explain a sphere because it was too complex. . .  and yet "he is hanging the earth upon nothing" was not too much for them to grasp? Foolishness.

"Let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”"—Romans 3:4

At the end of the day, you are forced to "go beyond what is written" in order to dismiss God's words in favor of your upbringing.

Speaking of upbringing. So let me get this straight. . .







Where was I?

Oh yeah. . .

So let me get this straight. YOU graduated from a system where those who run it admit that its purpose is to turn out people who know nothing but lies. . . And you believe that somehow YOU were so smart that YOU beat the system at their own game?

Are you trying to tell me that you graduated from a system designed to teach you lies and made it out of that system knowing the truth?

And then to COMBAT God's Word you are going to run straight to their textbook reasoning?

Maybe you would rather believe the words of men like this:


Maybe you will try to make William Casey look like a know-nothing pencil pusher who works down in the mail room, rather than the DIRECTOR of the entire CIA, who might just know a little something about the inner workings of the country - and may even know a little more than you do. . . or maybe you have it in mind to set his thinking straight. Or maybe you think that lies spoken in America are truth spoken elsewhere - therefor the same lies coming from a school system in other countries become truth when they re-enter America - therefor we're OK because the lies here that became truth elsewhere turned to truth upon reentering America. I have no clue how far you take your reasoning proccesses. All the signs are there, you just refuse to LOOK at them.


So let us talk about who is spreading disinformation and lies, shall we? If you believe you were educated in a system designed to teach you lies, and that quoting them spreads truth, then you can not be helped. Humble yourself, and change your thinking. You think you are fighting against ME. And you are so BENT on proving ME wrong, that you're "going beyond what is written" to do it. It's not me you're fighting, in the end, it is truth.


When the truth becomes known, you will look back on my OP above and realize that even though this was not one of my better reasonings, that it is truth - because when the lie is exposed, you will see that NONE of the counter evidence was ever real; it was merely false witness. Trials are not decided by single pieces of evidence, they are decided by a body of evidence - and this one, when added to the whole body, adds to the mountain of evidence. . . which you choose to be dismissive of.

One more thing. The reasoning in the OP is designed to counteract an argument in favor of the earth being a ball. Proponents of the globe earth argue that you can see a curve. Yes that is right, THEY claim you can see a curve, when the fact is that a ruler on a piece of paper proves there is none. We keep trying to tell them this reasoning is foolish, but like you, they refuse to listen to the facts.

So you think my reasoning is foolish? You think it's foolish to argue that there is no visual curve on large bodies of water? WELL THAT'S WONDERFUL! because reasoning that you CAN see a curve that isn't there was spread by the people you are choosing to believe. So in calling my reasoning stupid, when the people YOU believe, came up with it, is admitting that the people you believe, come up with stupid reasonings, and that you are being stupid in believing in them. Stop being stupid.

« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 02:39:51 AM by Orbisect-64 »
PRONOIA: “The delusional belief that the world is set up to benefit people … The confident and assumed trust that despite years of lies and oppression, government is secretly conspiring in your favor.”