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.


Messages - Action80

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 67  Next >
21
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 02:00:01 PM »
Why does the ceiling in the hallway appear to start merging with the floor at a distance?
It doesn't. I mean, if you were in a long enough corridor then I guess at some distance you might not be able to make out the ceiling from the floor.
ITT - AATW writes the classic, "It doesn't, but it does."
But you could zoom in with a decent camera and see clearly the gap between them.
And then further past the original point of merging, a new merging would occur.
But the horizon is a clearly defined line on a clear day and remains so no matter how much you zoom in.
All things appear to be clearly defined on a clear day and this has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

22
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 12:23:43 PM »

The horizon is as far as you can see.

It is there, just the same as it would be there if I was in a known to be perfectly level, hallway say of 10 miles distance.

If it is as far as you can see, why can we see objects behind it? Why can I see the horizon, for example, in front of the lower half of a distant ship? Or the sun?
Why does the ceiling in the hallway appear to start merging with the floor at a distance?

And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

You are not going to detect any bobbing action on a ship that large from that far away, even if you are zoomed in.

The cruise ship video, in other words, is another lousy distraction inserted to deflect from an entirely different OP.

Typical tactics.

23
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 12:05:53 PM »


Thanks - that pretty much exactly what I would have said.

Action80, again, I ask - what do you actually think the horizon is, and why is it there if the earth is flat?
The horizon is as far as you can see.

It is there, just the same as it would be there if I was in a known to be perfectly level, hallway say of 10 miles distance.

24
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 11:06:29 AM »
Maybe I missed the picture.  Got one?



It doesn't need to be a ship, either. Can do the same with lighthouses and islands. YouTuber Flatsa's video below shows the same geometric proof of Not Flat that my own video does. I won't post a link to my own, else Pete will slap me down for "spamming" my own. But here's his; the first minute or so shows that the seas around are Not Flat. See the comments at that video for my explanation.


So, you are just making a broad claim about an issue with no actual visual.

Thank you, but no thank you.

25
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 11:02:56 AM »
[
The wave in Alaska (Lituya Bay, I believe) was over 1700 feet high.
I am not making anything up.

You are.

A bit of a silly argument. Lituya Bay was a unique situation and, critically, was not open water, which is the situation we are discussing. The biggest wave ever was believed to have occurred off Portugal, and came in at 100 feet (visible by satellite, if any FE folks are interested!), but the biggest ever measured properly was more like 60 feet, and that was highly unusual. I went with info from this site, although Bill may well have something better:

https://www.livescience.com/tallest-wave-recorded-on-earth

The bottom line is that Bill is right - waves are typically very small compared to the height of large ships, so trying to invoke them somehow in explaining the obscuration of distant vessels is a pretty desperate argument.

I’ll ask again: what do you think the horizon actually is? What is causing it? If the earth is flat, why do we see a crisp line between sea and sky at a distance relatively close to us, compared to the size of the earth?
The bottom line is that Bill is wrong, He claimed it was near Alaska, when it was Alaska, and he was wrong about the height.

You are wrong in writing that he was right because he obviously is not.

You are correct in stating it really has nothing to do with the current discussion and that is primarily why I never even mentioned Lituya Bay, to begin with.

The bottom line is you are writing as if there are thousands of boats at any given time wandering the oceans, with the primary purpose of measuring wave height.

Pro-tip, there are not.

Regardless, as any object moves further away it will become less visible and that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

The difference between water and sky is a very tricky thing to discern most of the time.

26
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 06:06:33 AM »
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.

.. but, as I said in my opening line of reply #22 - "you don't actually NEED to see the ship go over the horizon to see that the sea is Not Flat."

I'm not talking about anything obscuring the ship. I'm talking about the situation where the observer, at a height of 100m, observes the ship of 52m, and should, if the sea is flat, see clear water behind and beyond the topmost point of the ship, but does not. Indicating the sea cannot be flat.

With the observer at 100m, every sightline to the water is a downward one, and must pass through every height between 0 and 100 on the way. 90, 80, 70, down to zero, including 52m

If the ship is 52m high, and the observer looks down from 100m, the continuation of the sightline to 52m must continue to zero. IF the sea is flat.
Maybe I missed the picture.

Got one?

27
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 14, 2022, 06:03:24 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.
Action gets it wrong again and just makes shit up.  100 feet is the highest wave ever recorded, and that was the largest ever recorded tsunami and occurred in 1958 near Alaska.

Mid ocean waves during storms might reach 33-34 feet, normally they are 5-10 feet.  The earth's diameter is nearly 42 million feet.  So the big stormy mid ocean waves of 34 feet don't amount to a pinch of coon shit.  The ocean is smoother than anything you have ever seen.  Smoother than electropolished metal.
The wave in Alaska (Lituya Bay, I believe) was over 1700 feet high.
I am not making anything up.

You are.

28
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: September 13, 2022, 12:37:52 PM »
Yeah, I have watched them. The camera panning is not anything like you describe it to be for one, and yes, you are labeling the horizon as the point where sky seems to meet surface. A lot of factors go into that particular point. No clue at all about surface conditions at the spot of the ship can be garnered by any observer from land.

29
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?

30
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.

31
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?

32
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.

33
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.

34
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.

35
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.

36
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.

37
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.

38
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?

39
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.

40
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:
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.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 67  Next >