61

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.

62

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.

63

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.

64

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.

65

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?

66

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.

67

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.

68

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.

69

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!!!

70

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.

71

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.

72

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. 

73

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.

74

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.

75

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?

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 19, 2022, 06:57:21 PM »

It is quite frequently observed that both objects appear much larger when they are on the horizon.

You don't ever tire of being wrong, do you?

That the Sun appears larger when it is on the horizon is just an optical illusion. The brain thinks that objects on the horizon should be farther away than objects overhead; since the Sun is the same apparent size in both places, the brain concludes that the Sun is physically bigger when it's on the horizon, and thus tricks you into thinking that the angular size is bigger than when it's overhead. This phenomenon is known as the Ponzo Illusion, and occurs for the Moon as well.

To convince yourself that this is, in fact, an optical illusion, put your head between your legs and look at the Sun upside down when it's on the horizon: it should look the same as it does when overhead.

For more information about the "larger Sun" and other astronomical myths, check out Phil Plait's article (now on the Moon and not the Sun but it's the same idea!).

Quoted from here.

Actually, you are the one who never tires of being wrong.

The source you provide states quite clearly that it appears larger.

Offering an explanation of why something appears larger actually serves to confirm it appears larger.

Thank you for confirming my statement.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 19, 2022, 06:13:24 PM »

The same logic applies to two distinct objects, each appearing in the sky via differing methods responsible for their visibility 
Wow...unbelievable...where do you come up with this ridiculous stuff?

I come up with it from the laws of perspective.
If something increases in distance from you then it’s apparent size, or angular size, gets smaller. Does that really need explaining?
You accept that is how reality works, yes?
As any object gets closer it appears bigger, as it gets further away it appears smaller.

In your model the sun and moon are much further away when on the horizon than when high in the sky, yes?

So why do they look the same size throughout the day and night respectively? They don’t vary in angular size in the way you would expect given the constantly varying distances they are from you in the course of a day or night. Why not? Why does that law of perspective which we all know applies to every object randomly not apply to the sun? Or moon.

The explanation given on the Wiki is what we are discussing. The explanation being some ad hoc mechanism which just happens to perfectly account for the constantly varying distances. The evidence for that mechanism is some incredibly blurry and overexposed photos - while elsewhere in the Wiki it’s said you don’t pay much attention to photographic evidence. And the mechanism is said to occur because of “intense rays of light” which might just apply to a full moon, it certainly does not apply to a new moon which can also be observed to maintain a consistent angular size through the night. This is just yet another ad hoc mechanism which is used to patch a glaring hole in FET. If the sun and moon really move as you claim then they would appear vastly different sizes when on the horizon and when overhead. But they don’t.

Actually, no.

It is quite frequently observed that both objects appear much larger when they are on the horizon.

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 19, 2022, 05:14:05 PM »

This is a thread about sunsets, not the moon.

Firstly, learn to quote.
Secondly, the reason to mention the moon is that the same logic applies. The moon also circles above us in your model.
So that should also appear much smaller at "moon rise" and "moon set" than it does when high in the sky. Because it's much further away.
The excuse for the sun could be said to apply also to a full moon which is also quite bright. But even when the moon is a slim crescent it still maintains the same angular size and speed throughout the night. The Wiki says:

The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.

How does that explanation work for a dim new moon? Or do you have another mechanism for that?

The same logic applies to two distinct objects, each appearing in the sky via differing methods responsible for their visibility 
Wow...unbelievable...where do you come up with this ridiculous stuff?

Again, this is a thread about sunsets.

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 19, 2022, 04:31:47 PM »

Thank you for the self-own.

That image is a complete blurry glare filled mess. I don't know how you can expect anyone to do any sensible analysis of it.

Wow, I easily made out 16 lights just looking at the picture for 15 seconds.

There are about 8 lights which can be distinguished, which do get noticeable smaller.

Are you expecting this to be taken seriously?

I do not think you need to worry about anyone taking your post seriously. Claiming the lights in the photo get noticeably smaller is ridiculous.

The effect is reproducible and is seen in other images.

But you don't pay much credence to photographic evidence, we have already established that.
As I said, that picture is a blurry, glare filled mess. There is no sensible way to analyse what's going on. I'd suggest if you are going to present more images you do so with ones with an appropriate camera setting or filter to remove glare and in which the photo is taken at such an angle that the distant light sources are distinguishable.
EDIT: I notice you ignored the point about the moon.

You do give credence to photographic evidence and are woefully inept at its proper analysis.

This is a thread about sunsets, not the moon.

Stop derailing the topic.

80

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Monkeypox- the best way to attack LGBTQ

« on: August 16, 2022, 11:33:19 AM »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469755/

Been a around a while and the last outbreak was contained in 2017.  5 years later, American dumbasses break that.

The virus is primarily transmitted by direct contact with infectious secretions from animals via handling of infected animals or consumption of poorly cooked bush meat.

Note the lack of butt sex.

Ah, come on...It does not state which body part is handling the animal.