1261

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 13, 2022, 12:24:39 PM »

The discussion is not about the horizon, Bob, but I am going to try and clarify.

Sometimes I can see an object ten feet in front of my nose.

Sometimes I can even see objects claimed to be millions or billions of miles distant.

Other times, I cannot even see my own outstretched hand, held level in front of my face, because of the weather; yet, If I simply turn my gaze toward the sky, I can clearly see the moon and some stars at the same exact time.

The horizon is malleable and is dependent on a lot of conditions and location.

If I was on an otherwise flat desert and a sandstorm was afoot a mile away, I wouldn't see anything 1 mile and 1 inch away, if it was behind that sandstorm, yet I could see potentially see an automobile three miles away if I slightly turn my eyes to the left or right.

The discussion is about objects you can or cannot see and why.

And I think I even need to take my own advice, and just keep it focused on this crappy placard.

But it is about the horizon, because the horizon, whatever you think it may be, is clearly in between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship in the video (or indeed the badly drawn placard in the original NG video). You are absolutely correct in saying that, of course, on many days we can't see far at all - the lower layer of the atmosphere contains water or particulate matter that limits the visibility. If it's bad enough, even looking out to sea you won't get a distinct horizon at all. But if it's clear enough, we see that distinct horizontal line, clearly visible cutting across the ship in the video.

So again, what exactly do you think the horizon is?

Obviously, you think it is the horizon that is between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship, only because the view is highly focused on just that ship. Pray tell, what is the FOV in question regarding the ship or even the placard at that particular distance, given the sole focus is those particular objects in the distance? How do you know the camera could not pick up something else visible a little further distant if it just diverted its direction left or right?

1262

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 13, 2022, 11:18:41 AM »

Are you claiming those things do not sometimes occur on a highly localized point, thereby allowing views of objects further in the distance, yet obscuring portions of, or even all of, objects closer to the viewer?

What exactly are you suggesting the horizon line is? Because it clearly isn't mist / fog etc in a 'highly localised point'.

The discussion is not about the horizon, Bob, but I am going to try and clarify.

Sometimes I can see an object ten feet in front of my nose.

Sometimes I can even see objects claimed to be millions or billions of miles distant.

Other times, I cannot even see my own outstretched hand, held level in front of my face, because of the weather; yet, If I simply turn my gaze toward the sky, I can clearly see the moon and some stars at the same exact time.

The horizon is malleable and is dependent on a lot of conditions and location.

If I was on an otherwise flat desert and a sandstorm was afoot a mile away, I wouldn't see anything 1 mile and 1 inch away, if it was behind that sandstorm, yet I could see potentially see an automobile three miles away if I slightly turn my eyes to the left or right.

The discussion is about objects you can or cannot see and why.

And I think I even need to take my own advice, and just keep it focused on this crappy placard.

1263

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 13, 2022, 10:14:11 AM »

Well, there is quite a bit of interaction between the atmoplane and water, depending on temperatures. Fog, haze, low-level precipitation, etc.

Indeed, but if those things were causing the obscuration, we wouldn't see a discreet horizon line across the ship, would we? What we see is a solid horizontal line, below which the ship is invisible, and above which it is clearly in view. As the ship gets further away, the ship progressively disappears below that line. What exactly are you saying that the horizon line is?

Are you claiming those things do not sometimes occur on a highly localized point, thereby allowing views of objects further in the distance, yet obscuring portions of, or even all of, objects closer to the viewer?

1264

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 13, 2022, 09:59:01 AM »

not to mention the effects/interactions of the atmoplane and water.

What effects and interactions, precisely, are these? What could be happening to progressively obscure the lower portions of distant objects until they completely disappear from view?

Well, there is quite a bit of interaction between the atmoplane and water, depending on temperatures. Fog, haze, low-level precipitation, etc.

1265

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 13, 2022, 09:55:43 AM »

I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.

100 feet is approximately 30 metres.

When observing a ship of 52 metres, I think I can clearly see that the "waves and swells" are not reaching 60% of the height of the ship .....

I'm not asserting "anyone here" has written or claimed it in writing. But it's a common claim amongst other flat-earthers, and don't you think it's implied in the overall terminology?

No. I do not think the terminology of "flat earth," implies, instigates, or fosters a belief that mountains, valleys, or canyons cannot exist. That is just another feeble line promulgated by RE.

The waves and swells do not need to be 100 feet to commence obscuring portions of the ship that would be visible to an observer from shore.

1266

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 13, 2022, 09:50:41 AM »

I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.

Is that your answer to what the ships are going behind and emerging from in the video I posted? I mean, the sea looks pretty calm in that video. You’d think you’d be able to see the ships bobbing around more if it was swells.

No, it is my answer to the placard.

As far as your ship, it is irrelevant to the OP.

But in the case of your ocean liner, it is obviously not 100 ft swells at the particular points in question, but they would not need to be in order to obscure the portions of the ship at the given moments. If I am six feet tall standing on the beach, then six-foot swells three miles out are going to start concealing portions of that ship from my view, not to mention the effects/interactions of the atmoplane and water.

1267

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 13, 2022, 09:41:44 AM »

I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.

Possibly for the same reason that some people here want to claim that the earth is flat despite the fact that land is well noted for possessing mountains and canyons frequently exceeding heights and depths of thousands of feet.

The fact that mountains, valleys, canyons, etc., exist does not detract from the concept of an otherwise flat plane.

1268

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 13, 2022, 02:58:00 AM »

I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.

1269

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 12, 2022, 03:38:21 PM »

Your explanation might make sense, except for the fact there are only three white stripes. At what point does one of those white stripes go missing in order to add up to one and one-half?

Would any number of missing stripes, of any colour, have persuaded you that the earth might, in fact, not be flat?

No, because I understand the farther away you are from objects, especially those at ground or water level, the less likely you are to see them. Imperfections in the surface and atmoplane being what they are.

1270

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: September 12, 2022, 12:41:24 PM »

If I were to play apologist for NatGeo here, I'd guess they are counting the white stripes as stripes. Stripes can be white, too, after all. So they are counting all of the white on the bottom, plus half of the red stripe. Doesn't excuse the fact that you can you can clearly see the horizon behind the boat which runs counter to what they are claiming to show here, but I have a feeling that's where they are getting the "one and a half stripes" from.

Your explanation might make sense, except for the fact there are only three white stripes. At what point does one of those white stripes go missing in order to add up to one and one-half?

1271

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: September 04, 2022, 09:22:18 PM »

All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.

What makes them meaningless? Because you somehow have the authority to deem US statutes, codes, & regulations meaningless? That's quite the awesome power you solely wield. Tell us more about your supreme level of authority.

They're meaningless as applies to any of these documents. If you bothered to read them, you would know.

You won't admit it because "OMB" and TDS, but they're as worthless as this entire news story.

1272

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: September 04, 2022, 04:19:04 PM »

all the kerfuffle over classification misses the point entirely. the search warrant specifies that the fbi was looking for evidence of crimes relating to three different statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1519
• 18 U.S.C. § 2071
• 18 U.S.C. § 793

notice that literally none of these mention classifications or anything of the sort. all that controls is whether or not the information is vital to national security interests. because, as others have pointed out, these documents belong to the usfg, not trump.

that said, i think it's extremely unlikely that trump will ever be charged with anything. welcome to politics.

There are no written checks or procedures on the President's power to declassify. This is why the courts will never convict Trump of this. There are no written presidential regulations and no standard to follow.

this is just a straight-up lie. an easily falsifiable lie. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-trump-just-declare-nuclear-secrets-unclassified

All of those US codes are meaningless and demonstrate the entire story is just news fluff, just like the Russia, Russia, Russia crapola.

1273

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Are the American police out of control?

« on: September 04, 2022, 12:41:59 AM »

so that people don't have to wonder whether you've made shit up every time you claim to have seen something.

Nobody "wonders" that. Not even you.

If anyone apart from you does, just leave them to tell me.

I am unsure if you know what the word, "nobody," means.

1274

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: August 26, 2022, 11:49:08 PM »

"...unproperly..." States the guy responsible for filing an affidavit with the court, relative to searching for sensitive classified national defense material....

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

It was the RUSSIANS!!!

1275

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 20, 2022, 07:32:06 AM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

How does glare make these lights in the distance in this embedded video relatively the same size exactly? What property of glare makes distant lights the same size?

Let me see if I have this right.  It is being claimed that the sun at sunset (when it's furthest away from the observer) appears larger than the sun at noon (when the sun would be closest to the observer), correct?  If so, then why are you presenting a photograph where the nearer street lights appear larger than the street lamps in distance as evidence?  Isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of the claim?

Let me see if I get this right> Markjo is claiming the closer lights appear larger when that is not the case at all.

1276

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 20, 2022, 07:28:41 AM »

The fact is this: They do appear larger.

That we will categorize as a flat earth type fact = total fiction.

Except it is not total fiction.

You even posted a source stating the exact same thing.

Gaslighting is the only thing you got.

Sad.

1277

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 20, 2022, 07:24:28 AM »

Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.

Actually, illusions are fundamentally based on things not being as they appear.

You cannot have an illusion unless there is something appearing.

Or, in the case of the your magician, something disappearing.

So, the "appear" needs to come first.

Bullwinkle knows this, yet still tries to argue against fundamental English.

Arguing semantics is exceedingly tedious and distracts from the important point.

It does not matter why the sun and moon appear larger.

The fact is this: They do appear larger.

Right.  What matters is that fact that the sun and moon appearing larger is not the reality of the situation.  If you wanted to take the trouble of properly measuring the size of the sun at noon and at sunset, you would find that they are exactly the same size.  That is not what one would expect if the earth was flat and the sun was physically moving across the sky.

How is it that you can possibly claim to lecture anyone about how things would seem in a world you so vehemently deny?

The sun and moon appear larger.

That is all there is to it. 

1278

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 19, 2022, 10:14:36 PM »

Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.

Actually, illusions are fundamentally based on things not being as they appear.

You cannot have an illusion unless there is something appearing.

So, the "appear" needs to come first.

Bullwinkle knows this, yet still tries to argue against fundamental English.

It does not matter why the sun and moon appear larger.

The fact is this: They do appear larger.

1279

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 19, 2022, 08:52:44 PM »

Did you miss the word illusion in there? 

Nope. Did you miss the word appear?

No I didn't, however I know how English works.  The sentence clearly says that it is an illusion that "the Sun appears bigger".  This means it does not appear bigger, it's just an illusion.  Did you also miss the sentence structure?  It did not just say "The sun appears larger"  it said "That the sun appears larger" as in they are referring to the statement "The sun appears larger" and go on to explain that it is incorrect.
 
 

Evidently, you do not know how English works.

David Copperfield caused an elephant, that was appearing in front of my eyes, to disappear.

But it was an illusion.

Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.

1280

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 19, 2022, 07:12:43 PM »

Did you miss the word illusion in there? 

Nope. Did you miss the word appear?

Or are you claiming illusions do not appear?