Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Yes, I admit to some embarrassment about posting on an FE forum.
Anywho, I worked with pilots on a daily basis; not sure where your experience is drawn from. Good to know you hold them in such high esteem though, as most astronaut pilots are former fighter pilots,
There are lots of options to travel to the north pole. Not just one. Have a google/duckduckgo.
Surely by your definiton everywhere is restricted? Where are you drawing the line here?
Yes, and there are lots of options to travel to North Korea as well. You can even go to different parts of the country. All of them approved and pre-arranged by "The Great Leader" and his government. See? That proves that North Korea isn't as restricted as you think; it's only your imagination.
QuotePlease can you provide any evidence that backs up your view that 'it is fact' ...'that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distance away' and that 'Every seafarer and navigator know the traits of both mediums are identical in most instances when it comes to coloration'?
Well, I don't know how to be more clear on either point.
There is no clear delineation.
No, it is fact.Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.
Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.
On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.
Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?
Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.
Fact of the matter is?
Sorry, no, that’s your opinion.Every seafarer and navigator would disagree.Every seafarer and navigator know the traits of both mediums are identical in most instances when it comes to coloration.I am saying no one knows what it is they are looking at from that distance.
Yes, at time, in poor visibility, one cannot distinguish the horizon. But on many other occasions it is very clear.
Are you saying that even when it is clear, you believe that the water continues on, effectively appearing above the horizon, but that it looks to us exactly the same as the sky?
An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...QuoteThere are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
yet...
Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.
Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.
On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.
Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?
Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.
You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
That's the point.
We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.
You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.
And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.
I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not. I spent the first 18 years of my life looking at the horizon out to sea literally hundreds of times every day.
Do you live near the coast, SimonC?
Just because someone has done something for a number of years does not mean they have been doing it right. Practice doesnt make perfect. Practice makes permanent. My heating engineer had been using an old saw to cut coper pipe since he was an apprentice. He had no idea that modern day pipe cutters had been invented and carried on blissfully with his 'rough' and time-consuming jointing method.
Many people think/believe they can see a definite line of the horizon. But thats c.3 miles away. And is so fine that it isnt even the thickness of a piece of paper - and you couldnt see something that thin at 3 miles.
So if you see bumps of waves where is the exact line? At the peak or the trough of the waves? If so which ones? Some are bigger than others.
If we're getting to this level of detail, its a median line between the peaks and troughs. The volume of water present above the median is equal to the volume absent below the line. The position of the median is a function of gravity, the shape of the Earth, and the volume of water on the Earth. Waves are principally a localised topical effect of wind; past, and present.
@Gonzo; by my count that's 3 individuals who have failed to respond to your question. Its difficult to respond to someone's opinion on a phenomenon (in this case the maritime horizon), when we don't know whether they are actually in a position to observe it directly. (Or, indeed, if they've ever observed it directly).
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
That's the point.
We weren’t talking about how far away the horizon was. We were saying that it was often very clear. Because it is. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times a year I used to struggle to see a clear horizon in good visibility.
You couldn't plot with any accuracy the exact line of the horizon from 3 miles away. Even if you did manage to wade thogh the swell, waves, freak waves, refraction, haze, reflections.
Yes, often times, the sea and sky are indistinguishable. The other half of that equation is that often times the difference is like night and day.Whether or not I 'need to get out more," is not the point. You, nor anyone else for that matter, have zero ability to determine the precise conditions of any object from three miles away. Especially with the naked eye.
If you haven't observed this yourself, perhaps you need to get out more.
That's the point.
Well, this is just in error, considering the evidence they posted demonstrates the measures taken do not align with the requirements of sphericity.Yes, they "say" all of those things, but they don't show any of those things. All they do is talk about what they are going to do, show a guy setting up a telescope or some other gear then gut to a graphic like this with the 'Yes' box checked...Go ahead and post your evidence.
If I presented the same only the 'No' box was checked on the graphic you would have a fit and fall in it screaming that I didn't show anything and that I was just claiming a whole bunch of stuff without evidence.
They posted evidence the earth is not spherical.
My point is that they didn't post evidence. If I created the exact same video, showing the same footage and graphic, but had the check in the "SIGHTING: NO" box, you would not agree that I posted evidence the earth is spherical.
And not to mention the head of the experiments and maker of the video is a known UFO cult leader and hoaxer paranormal mentalist. Not really the most credible of sources.
What you describe is actually a tactic RE'rs do all the time.
THese guys posted, "The measurements were the same..." when it came to the buildings' peaks and bases measured.
