The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: mahogany on January 27, 2024, 02:10:14 AM
-
I appreciate the content that this membership site provides and find it refreshing as compared to many of the Facebook sites; I've found those to be a bunch of back and forth series of memes and name calling from both sides (both Round Earth and Flat Earth) that really don't offer much civil discourse.
I am still new to this site and have read the Wiki to be sure I understand Flat Earth Theory as best as I can.
- With respect to the Flat Earth Theory of space travel being a hoax I was curious to know from flat earthers on this site if the space travel hoax (performed by NASA and other country space agencies) is something that you are 100% confident exists OR do you have doubts in this hoax being a reality? If any doubts, would be curious to know what those doubts are.
- In addition to the above Theory, would also be curious to get flat earthers' take on how 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica occurs or is possible on a flat earth model; I've read the section in the Wiki that refers to a YouTube video which uses a solid piece of magnifying glass to depict Earth's atmosphere and a flashlight to depict a local Sun; this model setup is highly inaccurate as the Earth's atmosphere isn't solid glass and the scale of the local Sun (using a flashlight) to the flat earth model being used is almost 1:1; the scale should represent the scale of what flat earthers believe the small local Sun to be as compared to the diameter of the flat earth plane. For example if the diameter of the flat earth plane is say 7,900 miles and the local Sun is say 30 miles, than the spotlight diameter should only be about 0.4% of the flat earth plane diameter.
Thanks.
-
I'm not terribly confident in the existence of the Conspiracy. The more individual countries seem to be involved; the more pictures they produce that are impossible to falsify as far we can tell; the more people you have to imagine have to be in it to some degree for it to even be possible; not to mention all the sources from independent sources that show the same sorts of images; it starts to stretch credibility to a small degree.
Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.
-
The only reason most people are enamored with NASA is because of a childhood space fantasy.
I rarely see any defense of the US Government and others over lying to the people to get into wars, poisoning its people in illegal medical experiments (which they have admitted), or showing us phony inflation and unemployment numbers. Because your defense of NASA and Co. is mainly rooted in your fantasy, and it is otherwise generally conceded that the governments are prolific liars and sociopaths who have ulterior motives and countless secrets, is it a weak argument that government space agencies should be inherently trusted.
Based on all we know, government claims should be inherently distrusted.
-
The only reason most people are enamored with NASA is because of a childhood space fantasy.
I rarely any defense of the US Government and others over lying to the people to get into wars, poisoning its people in illegal medical experiments (which they have admitted), or showing us phony inflation and unemployment numbers. Because your defense of NASA and Co. is mainly rooted in your fantasy, and it is otherwise generally conceded that the governments are prolific liars and sociopaths who have ulterior motives and countless secrets, is it a weak argument that government space agencies should be inherently trusted.
Based on all we know, government claims should be inherently distrusted.
No doubt governments lie, organizations lie, and corporations lie.
But, I think it a misguided rationale to therefore conclude that space travel must be a hoax.
- Aircraft Manufacturers such as Boeing lie and cover things up (e.g. the 737 Max controversy from a few years ago). Does this mean that jet air travel is a hoax?
- Auto Manufacturers such as Volkswagen lie and cover things up (e.g. falsification of their electric vehicle efficiency ratings from a few years ago). Does this means that petrol / electric vehicle travel is a hoax?
- In the early 1980's Milton Bradley released their Dark Tower Board game which a few years later went into litigation due to trade secret's being stolen from several independent game developers. Does this mean that board games are a hoax?
- Prior to Elon Musk purchasing Twitter, Twitter banned political figures (such as Donald Trump) because they said his speech violated their rules for compliance; it was found out later (as anyone could have predicted) that their internal algorithms and their political views were obviously bent against conservative viewpoints and to a degree Twitter tried to deny this. Does this mean that the Internet is an elaborate hoax and doesn't exist?
- Then, there was the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster of the mid-1980's. It appeared that NASA was so hell-bent on launching and bypassing safety protocols (with Morton Thiokol being an accessory) that their decision and push to space cost lives. But, this doesn't mean that space travel is a hoax. One could make the argument that it is because space travel exists that NASA felt pressure that day to launch in order to avoid another delay.
In the documentary "Behind the Curve", Bob Knodel was captured as saying "well, we weren't going to accept that" in reference to his Ring Laser Gyroscope experiment showing a 15 degree drift. Should one conclude that because he said "well, we weren't going to accept that" that there is a grand conspiracy amongst the flat earth community to cover up results? No, of course not. I think it was just a case of confirmation bias.
My view and opinion of the space travel conspiracy belief from flat earth members is that it isn't so much a belief that space travel is a hoax, but rather an expression of their distrust in authorities and science.
-
All of your examples give reason to distrust.
Ie. "In the early 1980's Milton Bradley released their Dark Tower Board game which a few years later went into litigation due to trade secret's being stolen from several independent game developers. Does this mean that board games are a hoax?"
This is not a reason to implicitly trust Milton Bradley on the IP rights for their games. This is a reason to distrust them. They stole that game, so why should we just assume that they are honest good working people and that all of their games are legitimate?
But this is essentially what you are asking us to do here, despite the government having essentially lied to us thoroughly and often about many of their "games".
You want to believe them in regards to space travel just because you love space, while you perform a 180 to distrust the government on a whole host of other topics which you aren't as passionate about.
-
If all of my examples give reasons to distrust, then does this mean that you distrust the flat earth community; this was on the examples list. I mean Bob Knodel of the flat earth community did say "well, we can't accept that" in regards to the 15 degree drift he observed from his own test. And, some of the test setups referenced in this Wiki are very inaccurate and faulty - for example the referenced YouTube video where the test setup uses a solid piece of magnifying glass to simulate earth's atmosphere. Should we conclude that the flat earth community should inherently be distrusted along with the claim that the earth is flat?
You stated that I want to believe them (NASA?) in regards to space travel just because I love space.
I suppose that I am to infer that you don't want to believe them (NASA) in regards to space travel just because you hate space.
-
Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.
In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.
-
The only reason most people are enamored with NASA is because of a childhood space fantasy.
There is something in that.
Based on all we know, government claims should be inherently distrusted.
There's something in that too.
But.
NASA et al aren't just going "trust me, bro". They release endless pictures and video of their missions. There are an increasing number of people doing broadcasts from space who presumably all have to be "in on it". You can watch their launches - I've seen one my self during a fortuitously timed trip to Florida when a Shuttle was going up.
There are multiple technologies which rely on satellites. I've posted before how my satellite TV stopped working when my neighbour had some construction done, the scaffolding of which blocked my dish's line of sight to the satellite. And on a work trip to Sri Lanka I observed how the dishes were angled upwards noticeably more steeply, which fits with the claim that TV satellites are above the equator.
Are Sky TV in on this deception or are they being fooled too? And to what end? No-one cares how this stuff works, so long as it does. Atmospheric conditions can affect satellite TV so it's clearly receiving a signal from up there somewhere.
Then there's GPS, which can be observed to work in the middle of large oceans.
And, of course, there's the ISS which can be seen from the ground. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. I've even see YouTube FE people concede that. What is it, if not a satellite orbiting the earth? 7 "space tourists" have made trips to the ISS. Are they all "in on it" too? Why? What's their angle?
And, of course, it's not just NASA. Lots of countries have now got space programs. And if you distrust governments then there's private enterprise now launching things. Even amateurs have sent up balloons which go high enough to see the earth's curve.
All the arguments I've seen for fakery are based on ignorance or incredulity. Where's the solid evidence that none of this is real?
-
Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.
In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.
Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?
-
If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?
Have you heard of the story of the blind men and the elephant (https://americanliterature.com/author/james-baldwin/short-story/the-blind-men-and-the-elephant?PageSpeed=noscript)? It's generally not a good idea to draw definitive conclusions from limited data.
-
Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.
In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.
Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?
Firstly, I'd be interested to know what you think the "immediate evidence" of your own eyes tells you.
There's two things about that. If you're talking about a flat horizon then you surely understand that on a sphere of sufficient size the observation would be indistinguishable from a flat plane? So that observation is not sufficient to determine the reality. Secondly, whatever observations you're talking about, you know that our senses are limited and fallible? There are things we can't see with the naked eye that are real - germs, UV light, etc. And there are things we see which aren't real. Optical illusions are a good example, these horizontal lines appear curved but they are in fact straight:
(https://i.ibb.co/QfkzMtj/hering.jpg)
So drawing conclusions just from looking at stuff is a bit dangerous.
Secondly, you shouldn't "blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better". You shouldn't blindly assume anything. For anything we can't directly observe we can only base conclusions on the evidence presented to us. I've never been to space but I've seen a shuttle launch. I've seen the videos and photos from space missions and seen expert analysis of them (as opposed to some dude who doesn't know what he's talking about saying "BuT wHeRe ArE tHe StArS?!!!"). I've read books about the Apollo missions and I've been to talks by astronauts. I've covered above the evidence that the ISS is real and satellite dishes really are pointing at something in the sky. If it is all fake then a lot of effort is being put into making it all look real, and for what? So, on balance, I'm inclined to believe it isn't all being faked.
TL;DR - be careful about basing beliefs just on your observations. They're not necessarily going to lead you to the correct conclusions. And with many things we can't observe them directly, so the best we can do is base conclusions on the weight of evidence.
-
Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?
This is a curious approach to science (or, indeed, philosophy). Being close to an object certainly permits a better focus on detail, texture, and might facilitate touch, taste, smell, etc, but actually reduces the ability to perceive its shape. To visually determine the form of an object, one actually needs to stand back from it, so that it can be seen in its entirety.
If you were placed at a corresponding proximity to the United Nations building, the Pentagon and the Great Pyramid of Giza, you would peceive all of them to be planar in nature, but have no idea whatever of their shape.
-
If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?
TL;DR - be careful about basing beliefs just on your observations. They're not necessarily going to lead you to the correct conclusions. And with many things we can't observe them directly, so the best we can do is base conclusions on the weight of evidence.
Do you have a worthwhile reply that answers the question posed by Roundy?
-
If all of my examples give reasons to distrust, then does this mean that you distrust the flat earth community; this was on the examples list. I mean Bob Knodel of the flat earth community did say "well, we can't accept that" in regards to the 15 degree drift he observed from his own test. And, some of the test setups referenced in this Wiki are very inaccurate and faulty - for example the referenced YouTube video where the test setup uses a solid piece of magnifying glass to simulate earth's atmosphere. Should we conclude that the flat earth community should inherently be distrusted along with the claim that the earth is flat?
You stated that I want to believe them (NASA?) in regards to space travel just because I love space.
I suppose that I am to infer that you don't want to believe them (NASA) in regards to space travel just because you hate space.
I've never spoken to Bob, and his theories or assumptions are not relevant to this website. One guy saying something somewhere is also not "the flat earth community", or even a representation of the FE community he was part of. The Wiki on this site is more representative to some kind of community consensus than the word of a single person. The information on the Wiki is collected from the TFES discussions, which at least generally involves more than one person. You will find that there is different information there on the operation of the Ring Laser Gyro than from what Bob thinks.
What you are referring about daylight pattern in the Wiki is accurate in the sense that the seasonal daylight patterns can be explained in that manner. There is a way to explain it in that particular model, and that is all it presents itself as in the Wiki - an explanation of what may be happening - "If the light is shining through imperfect affecting phenomena it may widen into a non-circular shape." It does not claim to take any further steps to prove that it is occurring in that way. Your demands on that next step is irrelevant to the statement that an explanation exists for those shapes.
Since you don't deny that your main foundation for defending NASA is based on your love of space, and want to divert the discussion to other topics now, I will assume that you concede on the conspiracy discussion. I therefore don't really see any point in continuing the discussion with you.
-
Do you have a worthwhile reply that answers the question posed by Roundy?
The more fulsome reply to his question was in the part of my post you haven't quoted.
The TL;DR bit was merely a summary.
-
Do you have a worthwhile reply that answers the question posed by Roundy?
The more fulsome reply to his question was in the part of my post you haven't quoted.
The TL;DR bit was merely a summary.
There was nothing in your more "fulsome reply," that answers the question, which I will repeat here:
"If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?"
-
Indeed, I think the immediate evidence with my own eyes is more likely to be reliable than pictures from many thousands or more of miles away. I guess it's more of a philosophical position than anything else. If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?
This is a curious approach to science (or, indeed, philosophy). Being close to an object certainly permits a better focus on detail, texture, and might facilitate touch, taste, smell, etc, but actually reduces the ability to perceive its shape. To visually determine the form of an object, one actually needs to stand back from it, so that it can be seen in its entirety.
If you were placed at a corresponding proximity to the United Nations building, the Pentagon and the Great Pyramid of Giza, you would peceive all of them to be planar in nature, but have no idea whatever of their shape.
You attempted to answer the question posed by Roundy, but it still stands.
Why should one blindly assume the images purported to originate from thousands of miles away are a legitimate alternative to that which can be perceived in situ?
-
If all of my examples give reasons to distrust, then does this mean that you distrust the flat earth community; this was on the examples list. I mean Bob Knodel of the flat earth community did say "well, we can't accept that" in regards to the 15 degree drift he observed from his own test. And, some of the test setups referenced in this Wiki are very inaccurate and faulty - for example the referenced YouTube video where the test setup uses a solid piece of magnifying glass to simulate earth's atmosphere. Should we conclude that the flat earth community should inherently be distrusted along with the claim that the earth is flat?
You stated that I want to believe them (NASA?) in regards to space travel just because I love space.
I suppose that I am to infer that you don't want to believe them (NASA) in regards to space travel just because you hate space.
I've never spoken to Bob, and his theories or assumptions are not relevant to this website. One guy saying something somewhere is also not "the flat earth community", or even a representation of the FE community he was part of. The Wiki on this site is more representative to some kind of community consensus than the word of a single person. The information on the Wiki is collected from the TFES discussions, which at least generally involves more than one person. You will find that there is different information there on the operation of the Ring Laser Gyro than from what Bob thinks.
What you are referring about daylight pattern in the Wiki is accurate in the sense that the seasonal daylight patterns can be explained in that manner. There is a way to explain it in that particular model, and that is all it presents itself as in the Wiki - an explanation of what may be happening - "If the light is shining through imperfect affecting phenomena it may widen into a non-circular shape." It does not claim to take any further steps to prove that it is occurring in that way. Your demands on that next step is irrelevant to the statement that an explanation exists for those shapes.
Since you don't deny that your main foundation for defending NASA is based on your love of space, and want to divert the discussion to other topics now, I will assume that you concede on the conspiracy discussion. I therefore don't really see any point in continuing the discussion with you.
Tom,
You are making my point:
Yes, you've never spoken to Bob and his theories or assumptions are not relevant; one guy saying something somewhere is also not "the flat earth community" or even a representation of the FE community.
And yet, the authors of this Wiki refer to one guy saying something to help build a case for an elaborate space travel hoax.
The authors of the Wiki further refer to NASA's early rocket failures and sudden rocket success as further evidence of a conspiracy without having spoken to anyone at NASA as to why this was. Could it be that trying to achieving significant advancements such as space travel and a Moon landing are very difficult and perhaps need to go through many failures before achieving success. Perhaps this was also the case with the early days of powered flight?
So, one the one hand your saying that one shouldn't build a case for a flat earth conspiracy just because of what one guy said and someone you never spoke to. On the other hand, TFES authors then try to build a case for a space travel conspiracy based on what one guy said and someone they never spoke to.
In terms of defending the use of using a solid piece of magnifying glass and a large flashlight as an accurate model to simulate 24 hours sunlight in Antarctica via light shining through imperfect phenomena... it is the opposite of applying rigorous modeling and the scientific method. It seems that the standards you are expecting for FE evidence are very low compared to the standards you expect for RE evidence. Why not perform an experiment and adjust the model to remove the solid magnifying glass and adjust the scale of the small spotlight Sun to be 0.4% of the diameter of the flat earth plane? What would be your predictions in terms of the results?
You then further try to build an argument by making incorrect claims and assumptions about someone you don't even know, kind of like how you don't know Bob or NASA. You claimed that I love space and claimed that I am not as passionate about a host of other topics which is incorrect.
What's the purpose of being a Zetetic Council Member if you tend to make incorrect claims (without evidence), refer to and defend the use of highly inaccurate simulation models, and subscribe to conspiracy theories like space travel being an elaborate hoax.
One of the original questions I asked at the beginning of this thread was that I was curious to know from flat earthers on this site if the space travel hoax is something that you are 100% confident exists OR do you have doubts in this hoax being a reality.
-
"If I perceive the Earth to be flat while I'm right up against it, why should I blindly assume that the alternative evidence is better?"
So I asked him what evidence he's talking about. What observation has he made which leads him to "perceive the Earth to be flat".
I then guessed he might be talking about a flat horizon and explained why that is not evidence for a flat earth, given the earth's size. That observation is not sufficient to determine the shape of the earth. But maybe he's not talking about that in which case I await his response.
I went on to explain how our perceptions are not necessarily sufficient to determine reality. Our senses are limited and fallible.
I was also clear that he shouldn't blindly accept alternative evidence as better. As with anything we can't observe directly, we have to use weight of evidence to arrive at a belief.
But to answer his question properly I need to understand what he means when he says he "perceives the Earth to be flat".
-
So I asked him what evidence he's talking about. What observation has he made which leads him to "perceive the Earth to be flat".
I then guessed he might be talking about a flat horizon and explained why that is not evidence for a flat earth, given the earth's size.
The size of the earth is a statement you make solely based on the "alternative evidence."
That observation is not sufficient to determine the shape of the earth. But maybe he's not talking about that in which case I await his response.
I went on to explain how our perceptions are not necessarily sufficient to determine reality. Our senses are limited and fallible.
I was also clear that he shouldn't blindly accept alternative evidence as better. As with anything we can't observe directly, we have to use weight of evidence to arrive at a belief.
But to answer his question properly I need to understand what he means when he says he "perceives the Earth to be flat".
Everywhere I have been on this earth, it is personally perceived to be flat. That never changes.
-
The size of the earth is a statement you make solely based on the "alternative evidence."
True. Although by "alternative evidence" that isn't just photos from space. I've travelled enough to be confident that the world is pretty big, whatever shape it might be. But here's the point: an observation of a flat horizon, if that's what we are talking about, does not tell you what shape the earth is. It may rule some possibilities out - like us living on a very small sphere - but it doesn't give us enough information to leave only one possibility.
The earth could be flat or a sphere of a certain size and the point is that observation of a flat horizon doesn't distinguish between those two possibilities. Either of them being true would yield the same observation. And there are probably other possibilities which would yield that observation.
Everywhere I have been on this earth, it is personally perceived to be flat. That never changes.
What observation have you made which has led you to that conclusion?
-
The size of the earth is a statement you make solely based on the "alternative evidence."
True. Although by "alternative evidence" that isn't just photos from space. I've travelled enough to be confident that the world is pretty big, whatever shape it might be. But here's the point: an observation of a flat horizon, if that's what we are talking about, does not tell you what shape the earth is. It may rule some possibilities out - like us living on a very small sphere - but it doesn't give us enough information to leave only one possibility.
The earth could be flat or a sphere of a certain size and the point is that observation of a flat horizon doesn't distinguish between those two possibilities. Either of them being true would yield the same observation. And there are probably other possibilities which would yield that observation.
I am not going to write for Roundy, but I can write that a flat horizon matters not for me. For most of my day-to-day life, the horizon is cluttered with many objects obscuring its actual location.
Everywhere I have been on this earth, it is personally perceived to be flat. That never changes.
What observation have you made which has led you to that conclusion?
Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.
-
Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.
I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.
-
Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.
I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.
I look at something and I see it is flat. I look at my desktop and I see it is flat.
I look at the surface of the earth around me and I can see it, too, is flat, like the surface of my desk.
"...if we live on a globe..." Again, the only basis for offering communication of this nature is "alternative evidence."
I prefer to not extend my statements into the depths of conjecture you seem to prefer.
-
Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.
I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.
I look at something and I see it is flat. I look at my desktop and I see it is flat.
I look at the surface of the earth around me and I can see it, too, is flat, like the surface of my desk.
"...if we live on a globe..." Again, the only basis for offering communication of this nature is "alternative evidence."
I prefer to not extend my statements into the depths of conjecture you seem to prefer.
The argument of: I look out my window and I see it is flat (The Earth) therefore it must be flat....is poor at best. I realize that this argument may be based on the handed down teachings of the Zetetic method of observing with the senses, but it presents a fallacy.
You know the surface of your desk is flat because you are able to see the desk in it's entirety.
If your desk is 6 feet across and you are observing your desk from a distance of 6 feet away your ability to understand what you are looking at is much different than say observing an object that is say 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter from a distance of 6 feet away.
In the desk example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 6 feet across.
In the object example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter.
-
The "desk" thing is another interesting analogy. Is it actually flat? How do you know? Have you measured it? To what degree of accuracy?
"It looks flat".
I'm not talking about minor blemishes (maybe its wooden, does it have a grain, a surface texture)? What I'm talking about is the overall flatness; x axis and z axis, edge to edge, corner to corner, and to a selection of datum points across its surface. Is it cheap or of good quality. Have you applied a certified straight-edge and measured for bow and sag? You seem pretty sure, wonder if that's justified.
Clever money says its not very flat at all.
-
Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.
I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.
I look at something and I see it is flat. I look at my desktop and I see it is flat.
I look at the surface of the earth around me and I can see it, too, is flat, like the surface of my desk.
"...if we live on a globe..." Again, the only basis for offering communication of this nature is "alternative evidence."
I prefer to not extend my statements into the depths of conjecture you seem to prefer.
The argument of: I look out my window and I see it is flat (The Earth) therefore it must be flat....is poor at best. I realize that this argument may be based on the handed down teachings of the Zetetic method of observing with the senses, but it presents a fallacy.
You know the surface of your desk is flat because you are able to see the desk in it's entirety.
If your desk is 6 feet across and you are observing your desk from a distance of 6 feet away your ability to understand what you are looking at is much different than say observing an object that is say 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter from a distance of 6 feet away.
In the desk example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 6 feet across.
In the object example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter.
I am not stating I can the entirety of the surface of the earth from 6 feet away.
I am stating I can see the various areas within my view during goings to and fro.
And wherever I have been, currently am, and wherever I will be in the future (i have no reason to doubt), I have seen, do see, and will see that the evidence is the earth is flat.
There is nothing fallacious about this statement at all and I would ask you recant your mischaracterization of my statement, as it borders on libel.
-
The "desk" thing is another interesting analogy. Is it actually flat? How do you know? Have you measured it? To what degree of accuracy?
"It looks flat".
I'm not talking about minor blemishes (maybe its wooden, does it have a grain, a surface texture)? What I'm talking about is the overall flatness; x axis and z axis, edge to edge, corner to corner, and to a selection of datum points across its surface. Is it cheap or of good quality. Have you applied a certified straight-edge and measured for bow and sag? You seem pretty sure, wonder if that's justified.
Clever money says its not very flat at all.
I would not take your bet, as it obviously isn't perfectly flat. My desk is a miniature example of the surface of the earth in regard to those imperfections being akin to those hills/valleys/dales.
-
Once again, there seems to be no answer as to why one would feel inclined to accept the "alternative evidence," of supposed "space travel" in lieu of personally gleaned observation. Plenty of swings, but too many whiffs.
-
Is it actually flat?
You would have thought that after four years here you'd know that nobody proposes that the Earth is a perfectly flat surface, or even a particularly flat one at all (though it does happen to be flatter than a pancake); much like how RE'ers do not propose that the Earth is a perfect ball.
Thus continues the plight of RE zealots - no matter how low the bar is set, you lot demonstrate that you're capable of being even worse.
-
Pete, I already discounted the grain and blemishes (the mountains and valleys, if you will). My suggestion is that Action80's desk probably has an overall curvature. He proposed it as an analogy to the observed Earth (despite the fairly obvious difference in perspective) and stated that it is flat, but has so far provided no evidence to this effect.
(4 years; my my).
-
Pete, I already discounted the grain and blemishes
So have I.
My suggestion is that Action80's desk probably has an overall curvature.
Yes, I understood you; and I despair over your thinking that this is insightful. You've seen Ferguson's map, right?
-
Ferguson's Map; indeed. Other brands also available.
Is it not clear to you that I am not debating the multitude of possible forms of map, but directly Action80's contention that the Earth is flat, "everywhere (he) goes".
Like his desk. And most of the maps.
(Oh, and "zealot" btw? Thank you; "praise indeed").
-
Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.
I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.
I look at something and I see it is flat. I look at my desktop and I see it is flat.
I look at the surface of the earth around me and I can see it, too, is flat, like the surface of my desk.
"...if we live on a globe..." Again, the only basis for offering communication of this nature is "alternative evidence."
I prefer to not extend my statements into the depths of conjecture you seem to prefer.
The argument of: I look out my window and I see it is flat (The Earth) therefore it must be flat....is poor at best. I realize that this argument may be based on the handed down teachings of the Zetetic method of observing with the senses, but it presents a fallacy.
You know the surface of your desk is flat because you are able to see the desk in it's entirety.
If your desk is 6 feet across and you are observing your desk from a distance of 6 feet away your ability to understand what you are looking at is much different than say observing an object that is say 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter from a distance of 6 feet away.
In the desk example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 6 feet across.
In the object example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter.
I am not stating I can the entirety of the surface of the earth from 6 feet away.
I am stating I can see the various areas within my view during goings to and fro.
And wherever I have been, currently am, and wherever I will be in the future (i have no reason to doubt), I have seen, do see, and will see that the evidence is the earth is flat.
There is nothing fallacious about this statement at all and I would ask you recant your mischaracterization of my statement, as it borders on libel.
The Earth is going to look flat to you because you are right up against an object that is ten of millions of feet in diameter or length. One is not going to be able to discern the true shape of an object reliably nor make a good conclusion either way that the Earth is flat or spherical. It's a poor method with which to draw a reliable conclusion.
I believe that you are drawing upon the Zetetic methodology of observing with the senses but without really applying some critical thought.
If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?
-
That's not the Zetetic method. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm) Please read the material.
Also, those sinking ship observations have been studied and debunked - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
The effect is not consistent and and tends to change constantly. There are plenty of examples of this, some in the above link
Bobby Shafto, who came to our forum as a Round Earther (and presumably still is), was interested in this in apparent honesty (more than most people who have come here) and has looked at the material and concluded that the sinking ship effect is not consistently reproducible, and he has also concluded that the sinking doesn't even match the RE curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzgHytLNTM
Video description:
"These are stills from the last 23 panning videos captured by Pablosdog from UCSB Campus Point and sweeping across the panorama from Santa Barbara's Mesa Lane to Point Mugu. This is of oil rig Platform Henry at a distance of 16.88 miles in the foreground with the hills of Ventura County at 50-55 miles and the Santa Monica mountains at 70+ miles in the background.
Details:
Camera location: varies slightly. Within 50 ft north/south of 34°24'32"N 119°50'32"W
Camera height: approximately 45 ft with tripod.
Platform Henry: 34°19'59"N 119°33'42"W
Ventura County "ridge" in background aligned with Henry: 34°09'35"N 118°55'46"W
(see / @pablosdog2808 for more information)
None of these depict the earth as one might expect if it is a globe with radius of 3959 miles without the optical effects of an atmosphere under varying conditions."
-
That's not the Zetetic method. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm) Please read the material.
Also, those sinking ship observations have been studied and debunked - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
The effect is not consistent and and tends to change constantly. There are plenty of examples of this, some in the above link
Bobby Shafto, who came to our forum as a Round Earther (and presumably still is), was interested in this in apparent honesty (more than most people who have come here) and has looked at the material and concluded that the sinking ship effect is not consistently reproducible, and he has also concluded that the sinking doesn't even match the RE curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TzgHytLNTM
Video description:
"These are stills from the last 23 panning videos captured by Pablosdog from UCSB Campus Point and sweeping across the panorama from Santa Barbara's Mesa Lane to Point Mugu. This is of oil rig Platform Henry at a distance of 16.88 miles in the foreground with the hills of Ventura County at 50-55 miles and the Santa Monica mountains at 70+ miles in the background.
Details:
Camera location: varies slightly. Within 50 ft north/south of 34°24'32"N 119°50'32"W
Camera height: approximately 45 ft with tripod.
Platform Henry: 34°19'59"N 119°33'42"W
Ventura County "ridge" in background aligned with Henry: 34°09'35"N 118°55'46"W
(see / @pablosdog2808 for more information)
None of these depict the earth as one might expect if it is a globe with radius of 3959 miles without the optical effects of an atmosphere under varying conditions."
Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.
Am challenging the notion that one could confidently glean the true shape of our Earth just by what they see around them or out of their window; especially when an observer's sight line is a few feet above a surface that is tens of millions of feet across in length or diameter.
An example I provided of where an observer may report seeing one thing but doesn't reflect reality is: a ship moving away from an observer that appears to be "sinking" but that isn't actually "sinking" in the water OR a ship far off in the distance from an observer that appears to be floating above water but that isn't actually floating above water.
Also, I've never spoken to Bobby Shafto, and his theories or assumptions are not relevant to this website. One guy saying something somewhere is also not "the flat earth community", or even a representation of the FE community.
-
Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.
Yet...
If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?
To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"
-
Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.
Yet...
If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?
To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"
Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.
-
Is it not clear to you that I am not debating the multitude of possible forms of map, but directly Action80's contention that the Earth is flat, "everywhere (he) goes".
Like his desk. And most of the maps.
It's quite clear. Your "gotchas" are already accounted for, and have been for a long time.
Just repeatedly restating your point and saying "nuh uh you dun get it" is not gonna be very productive in the upper. Please either address the point or concede it and move on. If you don't understand the point, ask clarifying questions.
Who knows, you might even earn yourself an actual compliment from someone, rather than just thriving on others pointing out that you're being silly.
-
Also, those sinking ship observations have been studied and debunked
And your source for that is...your own Wiki page. Come on, dude!
The effect is not consistent and and tends to change constantly.
This is incorrect by the way you define "inconsistent" on that Wiki page. You say:
It has been found that the Sinking Ship effect is inconsistent. At times it occurs and at other times it does not occur.
My emphasis. That part is simply not true. It is true that the level of refraction varies with atmospheric conditions and that does vary the distance to the apparent horizon, but the claim that at times the sinking ship effect does not occur is not true. There is no observation of a ship going away from the observer and never sinking below the horizon.
Bobby Shafto, who came to our forum as a Round Earther (and presumably still is), was interested in this in apparent honesty (more than most people who have come here) and has looked at the material and concluded that the sinking ship effect is not consistently reproducible, and he has also concluded that the sinking doesn't even match the RE curvature.
In the video he's saying the camera height is 45ft and the platform is just under 17 miles away.
A simple earth curve calculator which does not take refraction into account says the target hidden height should be 51ft.
This is some documentation of that oil-rig:
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/about-boem/BOEM-Regions/Pacific-Region/DPPs/DPP_1_1971-08-Proposed-Installation.pdf
From page 20:
The production deck will be located 37 feet above mean low low water and the drilling deck located 61 feet above the same reference. The drilling .deck will be 80 by 125 feet. The top of the drilling derrick will be at an elevation of 223 feet above the water level
So you should always be able to see the drilling deck and above. Without refraction you wouldn't be able to see the production deck. In some of those photos it appears you can, but as we've noted refraction exists and is variable depending on atmospheric conditions. In some of those photos the legs of the rig are completely hidden. What are they hidden by?
You claim in the Bishop experiment that:
With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore near Lovers Point 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore.
You're claiming that from a much lower viewer height and a further target distance. And you go on to claim that:
Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."
Why weren't you getting the inconsistencies which you now claim occur?
None of these depict the earth as one might expect if it is a globe with radius of 3959 miles without the optical effects of an atmosphere under varying conditions."
They certainly don't depict a flat earth. In all of the photos some of the rig is hidden. If your Bishop experiment result is accurate you should be able to see all the rig from a viewer height of 20 inches. Can you?
-
Once again, there seems to be no answer as to why one would feel inclined to accept the "alternative evidence," of supposed "space travel" in lieu of personally gleaned observation. Plenty of swings, but too many whiffs.
Because the personally gleaned observations are not sufficient to determine the reality of the shape of the earth.
Those observations could indicate the earth is flat, but they are also consistent with us living on a very large globe. And there are other possibilities. The only way to determine the truth is "alternative evidence".
This is true of lots of things, our personal observations alone aren't sufficient alone to determine reality, we have to augment those observations with "alternative evidence" - obviously that evidence should be assessed and checked to make sure it is reliable, as best you can.
-
Once again, there seems to be no answer as to why one would feel inclined to accept the "alternative evidence," of supposed "space travel" in lieu of personally gleaned observation. Plenty of swings, but too many whiffs.
Because the personally gleaned observations are not sufficient to determine the reality of the shape of the earth.
Those observations could indicate the earth is flat, but they are also consistent with us living on a very large globe. And there are other possibilities. The only way to determine the truth is "alternative evidence".
This is true of lots of things, our personal observations alone aren't sufficient alone to determine reality, we have to augment those observations with "alternative evidence" - obviously that evidence should be assessed and checked to make sure it is reliable, as best you can.
I agree. The "alternative evidence," should be assessed and checked for reliability.
It seems it is fairly lacking, given the multitude of alterations and outright fabrications offered by the presenters.
It should be instantly rejected.
-
Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.
Yet...
If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?
To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"
Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.
Once you can understand your obvious predilection to write posts directly contradicting your own posts, perhaps then you may be able to understand the logic of others, let alone mine.
I am not concerned at all about your logic.
-
Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.
Yet...
If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?
To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"
Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.
Once you can understand your obvious predilection to write posts directly contradicting your own posts, perhaps then you may be able to understand the logic of others, let alone mine.
I am not concerned at all about your logic.
If your logic is that what you observe around you with your senses (your eyesight) and all that you observe around you is what must be reality, than by this logic should I conclude that when you observe a Full Moon, half Moon, or a crescent Moon at night that you therefore believe that the Moon is emitting it's own light?
-
Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.
Yet...
If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?
To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"
Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.
Once you can understand your obvious predilection to write posts directly contradicting your own posts, perhaps then you may be able to understand the logic of others, let alone mine.
I am not concerned at all about your logic.
If your logic is that what you observe around you with your senses (your eyesight) and all that you observe around you is what must be reality, than by this logic should I conclude that when you observe a Full Moon, half Moon, or a crescent Moon at night that you therefore believe that the Moon is emitting it's own light?
I am not on the moon. I am here on Earth. Do you have something, I mean anything, related even remotely, to the OP?
I mean, you started the OP.
I will remind you of the title: Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax .
Care to stick with that, or do you wish to continue to derail your own thread?
-
Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.
Yet...
If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?
To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"
He's obviously using the sinking/floating ship observation as an example that you can't trust observation alone to determine reality. Although it should be pointed out that deducing reality from observation alone is not the zetetic method.
-
Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.
Yet...
If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?
To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"
Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.
Once you can understand your obvious predilection to write posts directly contradicting your own posts, perhaps then you may be able to understand the logic of others, let alone mine.
I am not concerned at all about your logic.
If your logic is that what you observe around you with your senses (your eyesight) and all that you observe around you is what must be reality, than by this logic should I conclude that when you observe a Full Moon, half Moon, or a crescent Moon at night that you therefore believe that the Moon is emitting it's own light?
I am not on the moon. I am here on Earth. Do you have something, I mean anything, related even remotely, to the OP?
I mean, you started the OP.
I will remind you of the title: Re: The Conspiracy Theory of Space Travel being a Hoax .
Care to stick with that, or do you wish to continue to derail your own thread?
Yes, you are correct...I started the OP.
But, "somebody" (and I'm not going to mention names) contributed to going off tangent when they communicated their observations of their desktop being flat and similarly perceiving and concluding in the same manner the Earth to be flat.
Feel free to answer either of the two original OP questions.
- I would especially be curious to get your take one of the questions regarding: the accuracy of a referenced YouTube video in the Wiki that uses a solid piece of glass dome to model the Earth's atmosphere and a flashlight to simulate the FE local Sun, where the flashlight's diameter representing a local Sun is about the same size as the solid piece of glass dome representing a flat earth.
-
I agree. The "alternative evidence," should be assessed and checked for reliability.
It seems it is fairly lacking, given the multitude of alterations and outright fabrications offered by the presenters.
It should be instantly rejected.
Well fair enough. I’m interested to know what you mean by alterations. I “alter” photos all the time - I crop them, use tools to change the colour balance. Sometimes I create composite images (that’s what a panorama is, your camera or phone stitches multiple photos together). None of these “alterations” indicate the photo is in any way fake.
I’m also interested what you mean by fabrications. You can allege things are fabricated, that doesn’t make you correct.
But photos/video from space are only part of the evidence for space travel. There’s also witness testimony, from astronauts and now some private citizens. There’s the fact rocket launches can be witnessed. There’s the technologies we use daily which rely on satellites. There’s the ISS which can be directly observed from the ground.
It’s worth noting that space exploration is not the only evidence for a globe earth. The earth being a globe was the accepted model for thousands of years before we had the ability to launch things in to orbit and beyond. Space travel is the final nail in the FE coffin, which is why a common FE tactic is to simply call it all fake. But space travel is only a small part of the evidence for a globe earth. Just looking around and saying “looks flat to me” is simplistic, you need to look at alternative evidence to determine the true shape. Space travel is simply part of that alternative evidence.
-
Yes, you are correct...I started the OP.
But, "somebody" (and I'm not going to mention names) contributed to going off tangent when they communicated their observations of their desktop being flat and similarly perceiving and concluding in the same manner the Earth to be flat.
Feel free to answer either of the two original OP questions.
- I would especially be curious to get your take one of the questions regarding: the accuracy of a referenced YouTube video in the Wiki that uses a solid piece of glass dome to model the Earth's atmosphere and a flashlight to simulate the FE local Sun, where the flashlight's diameter representing a local Sun is about the same size as the solid piece of glass dome representing a flat earth.
I did not contribute to going "off-tangent", as I was addressing the issue of the reasons for rejecting "alternative evidence" (i.e., space travel evidence) when you are right up against the evidence in plain view.
I have not watched the referenced YouTube video.
I do not know what material comprises the dome.
There is a rotating celestial sphere above our heads and the sun is part of that sphere.
That is my opinion.
-
I agree. The "alternative evidence," should be assessed and checked for reliability.
It seems it is fairly lacking, given the multitude of alterations and outright fabrications offered by the presenters.
It should be instantly rejected.
Well fair enough. I’m interested to know what you mean by alterations. I “alter” photos all the time - I crop them, use tools to change the colour balance. Sometimes I create composite images (that’s what a panorama is, your camera or phone stitches multiple photos together). None of these “alterations” indicate the photo is in any way fake.
I’m also interested what you mean by fabrications. You can allege things are fabricated, that doesn’t make you correct.
But photos/video from space are only part of the evidence for space travel. There’s also witness testimony, from astronauts and now some private citizens. There’s the fact rocket launches can be witnessed. There’s the technologies we use daily which rely on satellites. There’s the ISS which can be directly observed from the ground.
It’s worth noting that space exploration is not the only evidence for a globe earth. The earth being a globe was the accepted model for thousands of years before we had the ability to launch things in to orbit and beyond. Space travel is the final nail in the FE coffin, which is why a common FE tactic is to simply call it all fake. But space travel is only a small part of the evidence for a globe earth. Just looking around and saying “looks flat to me” is simplistic, you need to look at alternative evidence to determine the true shape. Space travel is simply part of that alternative evidence.
Space agencies have already admitted to fabricating images and altering the images released to the public.
The flat earth was the accepted model before the globe earth model.
Building a tower to heaven has always been the dream of man and this supposed space travel is simply another step in that practice.
Satan and his minions want to reoccupy their former seats near the throne.
-
Yes, you are correct...I started the OP.
But, "somebody" (and I'm not going to mention names) contributed to going off tangent when they communicated their observations of their desktop being flat and similarly perceiving and concluding in the same manner the Earth to be flat.
Feel free to answer either of the two original OP questions.
- I would especially be curious to get your take one of the questions regarding: the accuracy of a referenced YouTube video in the Wiki that uses a solid piece of glass dome to model the Earth's atmosphere and a flashlight to simulate the FE local Sun, where the flashlight's diameter representing a local Sun is about the same size as the solid piece of glass dome representing a flat earth.
I did not contribute to going "off-tangent", as I was addressing the issue of the reasons for rejecting "alternative evidence" (i.e., space travel evidence) when you are right up against the evidence in plain view.
I have not watched the referenced YouTube video.
I do not know what material comprises the dome.
There is a rotating celestial sphere above our heads and the sun is part of that sphere.
That is my opinion.
From one of my original OP questions: curious to know if you are 100% confident that space travel doesn't exist and is a conspiracy OR do you have some doubts about space travel being a conspiracy and not existing?
In your rotating celestial sphere that you mentioned, is the local Sun the same diameter as the flat Earth plane? Or, do you believe the local Sun to be much smaller than the FE plane?
-
From one of my original OP questions: curious to know if you are 100% confident that space travel doesn't exist and is a conspiracy OR do you have some doubts about space travel being a conspiracy and not existing?
In your rotating celestial sphere setup that you mention, is the local Sun the same diameter as the flat Earth plane?
I am relatively confident that outer space travel does not exist.
While I believe the earth to be flat, I am unsure if it is in the form of a circle. I do not observe the sun to be equivalent to the diameter or breadth of the flat earth plane.
-
From one of my original OP questions: curious to know if you are 100% confident that space travel doesn't exist and is a conspiracy OR do you have some doubts about space travel being a conspiracy and not existing?
In your rotating celestial sphere setup that you mention, is the local Sun the same diameter as the flat Earth plane?
I am relatively confident that outer space travel does not exist.
While I believe the earth to be flat, I am unsure if it is in the form of a circle. I do not observe the sun to be equivalent to the diameter or breadth of the flat earth plane.
Thanks and I do appreciate your answer.
You had mentioned "Building a tower to heaven has always been the dream of man and this supposed space travel is simply another step in that practice" and that "Satan and his minions want to reoccupy their former seats near the throne."
My follow up question (out of curiosity) would be: does religion or do your religious beliefs play a factor in terms of supporting your relative confidence that space travel does not exist and your belief that the earth is a flat plane?
-
From one of my original OP questions: curious to know if you are 100% confident that space travel doesn't exist and is a conspiracy OR do you have some doubts about space travel being a conspiracy and not existing?
In your rotating celestial sphere setup that you mention, is the local Sun the same diameter as the flat Earth plane?
I am relatively confident that outer space travel does not exist.
While I believe the earth to be flat, I am unsure if it is in the form of a circle. I do not observe the sun to be equivalent to the diameter or breadth of the flat earth plane.
Thanks and I do appreciate your answer.
You had mentioned "Building a tower to heaven has always been the dream of man and this supposed space travel is simply another step in that practice" and that "Satan and his minions want to reoccupy their former seats near the throne."
My follow up question (out of curiosity) would be: does religion or do your religious beliefs play a factor in terms of supporting your relative confidence that space travel does not exist and your belief that the earth is a flat plane?
No.
-
Space agencies have already admitted to fabricating images and altering the images released to the public.
Well, firstly, let's be careful about the word "fabricating". Space agencies do produce images which are intended to show what future missions may look like, or they're imaginings of what, say, exoplanets may look like. But, as you say, they're always clearly labelled as such so they're not evidence of anything underhand going on. They're not claiming they're real pictures of something.
As for altering yes, they admit they're producing composite images, they admit they're enhancing images. As I said, every time you take a panorama or use your phone's photo editing tools you are altering an image. That doesn't mean the image is fake.
The flat earth was the accepted model before the globe earth model.
Right. Like there being 4 elements - earth, water, fire, air - was an accepted model before we understood about real elements. Like Newton's model of gravity was the accepted model before Einstein. As we, as a species, have understood more about nature newer models have always replaced older ones. The globe earth model replaced the flat earth one - that happened thousands of years ago. The heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one. That happened centuries ago. But the point is when that happens the newer model replaces the older one because it's better - it makes predications, it fits better with what we observe.
-
Space agencies have already admitted to fabricating images and altering the images released to the public.
Well, firstly, let's be careful about the word "fabricating". Space agencies do produce images which are intended to show what future missions may look like, or they're imaginings of what, say, exoplanets may look like. But, as you say, they're always clearly labelled as such so they're not evidence of anything underhand going on. They're not claiming they're real pictures of something.
As for altering yes, they admit they're producing composite images, they admit they're enhancing images. As I said, every time you take a panorama or use your phone's photo editing tools you are altering an image. That doesn't mean the image is fake.
Why be careful when the word fabricate is exactly what they do. You wrote it yourself, naturally accompanied by the "they have my blessing," reasons.
The composites are stiched together to match whatever image the editors wish to produce.
The flat earth was the accepted model before the globe earth model.
Right. Like there being 4 elements - earth, water, fire, air - was an accepted model before we understood about real elements. Like Newton's model of gravity was the accepted model before Einstein. As we, as a species, have understood more about nature newer models have always replaced older ones. The globe earth model replaced the flat earth one - that happened thousands of years ago. The heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one. That happened centuries ago. But the point is when that happens the newer model replaces the older one because it's better - it makes predications, it fits better with what we observe.
Four elements?
I think you mean 4 states of matter.
No. It doesn't.
The flat earth works.
There is a sphere, but it is celestial. It is rotating above our heads.
-
Why be careful when the word fabricate is exactly what they do. You wrote it yourself, naturally accompanied by the "they have my blessing," reasons.
The implication in the way you're using the word is that they are creating fake images intended to fool you.
Creating visualisations of what they imagine exoplanets might look like, or of future missions, isn't deceptive so long as they clearly indicate that's what the image is. Which, as you said at the start, they do. You used the word "admitting" - even that word implies they're up to something. When they clearly mark visualisations as such that isn't an admission, it's just clarity and transparancy.
The composites are stitched together to match whatever image the editors wish to produce.
True up to a point, but in order to make a composite you have to have a series of photos of the object you're making a composite of. I visited the Grand Canyon some years back and I have some panoramas of where I was. Those are composite images, but in order to create that composite I had to be at the Grand Canyon. The images aren't faked.
Four elements?
I think you mean 4 states of matter.
I'm not sure I do.
https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4270_The_Four_Elements.html
But in any case those aren't the 4 states of matter either, that model was replaced by a better one when a better one came along.
The flat earth works.
Does it, though?
It's not even possible to make a flat map with the known distances between cities being represented to a consistent scale.
There always has to be some distortion. Why? If the earth is flat then it should just be a matter of scaling down.
-
Why be careful when the word fabricate is exactly what they do. You wrote it yourself, naturally accompanied by the "they have my blessing," reasons.
The implication in the way you're using the word is that they are creating fake images intended to fool you.
Creating visualisations of what they imagine exoplanets might look like, or of future missions, isn't deceptive so long as they clearly indicate that's what the image is. Which, as you said at the start, they do. You used the word "admitting" - even that word implies they're up to something. When they clearly mark visualisations as such that isn't an admission, it's just clarity and transparancy.
These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.
The composites are stitched together to match whatever image the editors wish to produce.
True up to a point, but in order to make a composite you have to have a series of photos of the object you're making a composite of. I visited the Grand Canyon some years back and I have some panoramas of where I was. Those are composite images, but in order to create that composite I had to be at the Grand Canyon. The images aren't faked.
True up to all points. No half-assing it. The scans (not actual photos in the sense of point-and-shoot camera like here on earth) taken from high up are stiched together.
Four elements?
I think you mean 4 states of matter.
I'm not sure I do.
https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/4270_The_Four_Elements.html
But in any case those aren't the 4 states of matter either, that model was replaced by a better one when a better one came along.
Yeah, not important. They are the four states of matter, though.
The flat earth works.
Does it, though?
It's not even possible to make a flat map with the known distances between cities being represented to a consistent scale.
There always has to be some distortion. Why? If the earth is flat then it should just be a matter of scaling down.
The flat map exists. The supposed distances between various points on the earth are extrapolated only from the given travel times. The actual straight-line distances are not known as they are not able to be taken due to the methods used for long-distance travel where waypoints are not visible at ground level. The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.
There is no distortion on any useful travel map.
A full world map is useless in this regard.
Your point is moot.
-
The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.
This is interesting and quite a new concept to me. I'm not a pilot nor an aircraft navigator. Do you have an independent source you could share so that we can learn a bit more about it?
-
Action80,
You mentioned that the flat earth works. Going back to my original OP question: if Antarctica is an outer ring around a flat earth plane, how does 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica work all the way around the ring during the summer solstice months?
-
The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.
This is interesting and quite a new concept to me. I'm not a pilot nor an aircraft navigator. Do you have an independent source you could share so that we can learn a bit more about it?
https://hartzellprop.com/pilots-navigate-skies-gps/#:~:text=Celestial%20Navigation,altitude%20of%20a%20celestial%20body.
It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged.
As far as transcribing patterns of the celestial sphere above to the flat earth plane below, there are multitudes of ancient earthly temples still in existence today that provide very visible evidence of this fact.
-
Action80,
You mentioned that the flat earth works. Going back to my original OP question: if Antarctica is an outer ring around a flat earth plane, how does 24 hours of sunlight in Antarctica work all the way around the ring during the summer solstice months?
I do not believe that Antarctica is a ring. I have no independently gleaned evidence there is 24 hours of sunlight anywhere on the flat earth other than regions around Alaska and the Scandinavian countries.
-
These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.
This is simply untrue. You're mixing up two things. Three really.
The first is images which are visualisations - depictions of exoplanets and so on. Those aren't "fabrications". When they mark them as visualisations they're not "admitting" anything. This language implies an attempt at deception. If there was attempt at deception then why would they mark them as visualisations? These things are created to stir the imagination. You're not far off with science fiction, but like much science fiction it's based in reality. They use the data they have about exoplanets and use that to visualise what they might look like. They're not making any claim that they're real photos. And it's certainly not all they are doing.
The second is composite images, or images which have been enhanced. These are real photos, they've just been processed digitally. Like I said, you do this too every time you take a panoramic picture or use your phone's colour balance or cropping tools. This processing is done to make the images clearer, and does not indicate any deception or fakery.
Then there are just photos. There are plenty of those. Sure, the versions you see online are probably compressed and that might mean they have artefacts in, that doesn't mean the originals have been manipulated in any way and NASA have the raw versions on their website.
The scans (not actual photos in the sense of point-and-shoot camera like here on earth) taken from high up are stiched together.
Some are, some aren't. The blue marble is just a photo, taken with a camera on film. The same for earthrise.
The flat map exists.
Does it? Cool. Can you link me to it. The Wiki has multiple maps on it, which one is definitive?
The supposed distances between various points on the earth are extrapolated only from the given travel times.
This is incorrect. Travel times are a reasonable proxy for distance, but you can use Google Maps to find the distance between places and compare it with measurements you take mistake. There's a reason that as you zoom out the curve of the earth is now shown. Before that the world was extensively surveyed. There's a whole field of geodetic surveying which takes the earth's curve in to account.
The actual straight-line distances are not known as they are not able to be taken due to the methods used for long-distance travel where waypoints are not visible at ground level.
Also not true. It hasn't been true for centuries since Harrison cracked the problem of accurate timepieces at sea - using those and combining it with celestial observations meant that ships knew where they were. And it's definitely not true in the era of GPS.
The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.
This is just incorrect. They're based on the great circle route between those two points.
There is no distortion on any useful travel map.
Right. Because travel maps generally deal with a very small portion of the world. Which brings us back to where we started. You can't tell the shape of the earth just by looking around and thinking "looks flat". Any more than you can look at your hand and declare there are no germs on it because you can't see them. For objects which are too big or too small to observe directly in normal circumstances "alternative evidence" is required.
-
These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.
This is simply untrue. You're mixing up two things. Three really.
The first is images which are visualisations - depictions of exoplanets and so on. Those aren't "fabrications".
When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it.
When they mark them as visualisations they're not "admitting" anything. This language implies an attempt at deception. If there was attempt at deception then why would they mark them as visualisations? These things are created to stir the imagination. You're not far off with science fiction, but like much science fiction it's based in reality. They use the data they have about exoplanets and use that to visualise what they might look like. They're not making any claim that they're real photos. And it's certainly not all they are doing.
The second is composite images, or images which have been enhanced. These are real photos, they've just been processed digitally. Like I said, you do this too every time you take a panoramic picture or use your phone's colour balance or cropping tools. This processing is done to make the images clearer, and does not indicate any deception or fakery.
Then there are just photos. There are plenty of those. Sure, the versions you see online are probably compressed and that might mean they have artefacts in, that doesn't mean the originals have been manipulated in any way and NASA have the raw versions on their website.
There are plenty of threads clearly documenting the admitted lies published by NASA.
The scans (not actual photos in the sense of point-and-shoot camera like here on earth) taken from high up are stiched together.
Some are, some aren't. The blue marble is just a photo, taken with a camera on film. The same for earthrise.
They are not point-and-shoot.
The flat map exists.
Does it? Cool. Can you link me to it. The Wiki has multiple maps on it, which one is definitive?
Any map you have ever used is flat.
The supposed distances between various points on the earth are extrapolated only from the given travel times.
This is incorrect. Travel times are a reasonable proxy for distance, but you can use Google Maps to find the distance between places and compare it with measurements you take mistake. There's a reason that as you zoom out the curve of the earth is now shown. Before that the world was extensively surveyed. There's a whole field of geodetic surveying which takes the earth's curve in to account.
Google maps is just like using a Rand McNally Atlas for travel between distances people usually take. When you zoom out, they render some false image of a globe, based on translating the celestial sphere above to the flat surface below to jive the numbers with the waypoints.
I am not going to rehash a bunch of crap about geodetic surveyors which Tom has already effectively addressed, and to which you and all other RE-adherents simply utter "nuh - uh."
The actual straight-line distances are not known as they are not able to be taken due to the methods used for long-distance travel where waypoints are not visible at ground level.
Also not true. It hasn't been true for centuries since Harrison cracked the problem of accurate timepieces at sea - using those and combining it with celestial observations meant that ships knew where they were. And it's definitely not true in the era of GPS.
You got to match the timepiece with something and when it comes to travel over the oceans, those are marks above the head. Thank you for acknowledging the celestial observations, though. Seems like you might be catching on after all.
The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.
This is just incorrect. They're based on the great circle route between those two points.
The great circle of course being the one formed by the celestial sphere above our heads and mimicked on the flat plane below.
There is no distortion on any useful travel map.
Right.
Thank you for conceding the point.
"alternative evidence" is required worthy of dismissal.
I fixed that last part, as there is nothing to support the claim it is required.
-
Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.
"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
- Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.
"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.
-
https://hartzellprop.com/pilots-navigate-skies-gps/#:~:text=Celestial%20Navigation,altitude%20of%20a%20celestial%20body.
Thanks for providing that. Short but sweet. It was enough for me to do some additional research.
It seems the use of celestial bodies kind of went out of favor just after WWII. Ground based VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Stations began to be deployed in 1950 and rapidly became the mandated method of navigation for commercial air travel.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/twenty-years-gps-and-instrument-flight (https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/twenty-years-gps-and-instrument-flight)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Table_Rock_VOR.jpg/800px-Table_Rock_VOR.jpg)
Apparently, in 1983 GPS was first authorized for use on commercial flights by Ronald Reagan and has now essentially phased out VOR.
https://aerospace.org/article/brief-history-gps (https://aerospace.org/article/brief-history-gps)
It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged.
This is not generally true. The planes back in the celestial navigation days were not capable of long haul flights. So most longer routes were done by flying zig-zag patterns to airports in range to make fueling stops. Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles. Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.
Lindberg's route:
(https://bostonraremaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/BRM3048-Lindgergh-flight-ms-map_lowres-3000x2319.jpg)
Modern route:
(https://www.flightsfrom.com/routes/EWR-CDG.png)
As far as transcribing patterns of the celestial sphere above to the flat earth plane below, there are multitudes of ancient earthly temples still in existence today that provide very visible evidence of this fact.
Quite possibly so, but not of much interest to me right now and of little application today.
-
Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.
"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
- Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.
"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.
Incorrect, as the evidence for what is offered in support of flat earth is readily apparent to any observer on the flat earth. It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.
-
https://hartzellprop.com/pilots-navigate-skies-gps/#:~:text=Celestial%20Navigation,altitude%20of%20a%20celestial%20body.
Thanks for providing that. Short but sweet. It was enough for me to do some additional research.
It seems the use of celestial bodies kind of went out of favor just after WWII. Ground based VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Stations began to be deployed in 1950 and rapidly became the mandated method of navigation for commercial air travel.
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/twenty-years-gps-and-instrument-flight (https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/twenty-years-gps-and-instrument-flight)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Table_Rock_VOR.jpg/800px-Table_Rock_VOR.jpg)
Apparently, in 1983 GPS was first authorized for use on commercial flights by Ronald Reagan and has now essentially phased out VOR.
https://aerospace.org/article/brief-history-gps (https://aerospace.org/article/brief-history-gps)
It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged.
This is not generally true. The planes back in the celestial navigation days were not capable of long haul flights. So most longer routes were done by flying zig-zag patterns to airports in range to make fueling stops. Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles. Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.
Lindberg's route:
(https://bostonraremaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/BRM3048-Lindgergh-flight-ms-map_lowres-3000x2319.jpg)
Modern route:
(https://www.flightsfrom.com/routes/EWR-CDG.png)
As far as transcribing patterns of the celestial sphere above to the flat earth plane below, there are multitudes of ancient earthly temples still in existence today that provide very visible evidence of this fact.
Quite possibly so, but not of much interest to me right now and of little application today.
I may have missed it, but it seems there was nothing in your reply that actually contradicted anything I wrote. So, thank you for posting the confirmations.
-
Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.
"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
- Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.
"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.
Incorrect, as the evidence for what is offered in support of flat earth is readily apparent to any observer on the flat earth. It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.
The argument that you using is inconsistent and a poor one at best.
You first lay out your standard as to why something is a fabrication: "When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are 'fabricating' it"
It is then pointed out to you that all flat earth models / animation models are coming from someone's mind, therefore are fabrications.
You then seem to say that your own fabrication standard doesn't apply to flat earth fabrications because every observer only see's a flat earth. And yet, the same can be said that every observer only see's a spherical earth (i.e. I look out over the sea and every-time I observe a ship move away from me it is disappearing bottom first; I can see certain stars from the northern hemisphere but not in the southern hemisphere, etc.). It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.
Furthermore, photo's of a spherical earth taken from space that come from a camera (or video camera) are not coming from the mind and so therefore are not fabrications but then you will deem them to be fabrications or fakery because of your belief in a space travel conspiracy or hoax that are coming from these people (TFES, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) and are accepted by the gullible populace (you and the flat earth community) as experts.
-
Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.
"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
- Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.
"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.
Incorrect, as the evidence for what is offered in support of flat earth is readily apparent to any observer on the flat earth. It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.
The argument that you using is inconsistent and a poor one at best.
You first lay out your standard as to why something is a fabrication: "When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are 'fabricating' it"
It is then pointed out to you that all flat earth models / animation models are coming from someone's mind, therefore are fabrications.
The models I propose are based on direct evidence that anyone can see.
That is the difference. If you do not like the models or like the models, they remain based on the evidence right up against all of us.
You then seem to say that your own fabrication standard doesn't apply to flat earth fabrications because every observer only see's a flat earth. And yet, the same can be said that every observer only see's a spherical earth (i.e. I look out over the sea and every-time I observe a ship move away from me it is disappearing bottom first; I can see certain stars from the northern hemisphere but not in the southern hemisphere, etc.). It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.
Why are you rehashing the debunked "sinking ship"? Tom put that to bed a long time ago.
You think you would see the same stars showing themselves at different places on the celestial sphere above our heads if you change your position on the flat earth plane below? Why?
Furthermore, photo's of a spherical earth taken from space that come from a camera (or video camera) are not coming from the mind and so therefore are not fabrications but then you will deem them to be fabrications or fakery because of your belief in a space travel conspiracy or hoax that are coming from these people (TFES, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) and are accepted by the gullible populace (you and the flat earth community) as experts.
NASA has been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact.
Universal Studios has been showing a revolving globe earth on screen to the public at large for nearly 100 years.
I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.
-
Action80 - when applying your own words, you are also implying that flat earth is a fabrication and science fiction, just like Hollywood.
"When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it."
- Flat Earth models are creations coming from FE minds, thus by your above standard flat earth is a fabrication.
"These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others."
- Equally so, these people (Rowbotham, Carpenter, Shenton, Lady Blount, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) are accepted by the gullible populace (the flat earth community) as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.
Incorrect, as the evidence for what is offered in support of flat earth is readily apparent to any observer on the flat earth. It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.
The argument that you using is inconsistent and a poor one at best.
You first lay out your standard as to why something is a fabrication: "When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are 'fabricating' it"
It is then pointed out to you that all flat earth models / animation models are coming from someone's mind, therefore are fabrications.
The models I propose are based on direct evidence that anyone can see.
That is the difference. If you do not like the models or like the models, they remain based on the evidence right up against all of us.
You then seem to say that your own fabrication standard doesn't apply to flat earth fabrications because every observer only see's a flat earth. And yet, the same can be said that every observer only see's a spherical earth (i.e. I look out over the sea and every-time I observe a ship move away from me it is disappearing bottom first; I can see certain stars from the northern hemisphere but not in the southern hemisphere, etc.). It can be garnered individually by each and every person. It is not a figment of imagination.
Why are you rehashing the debunked "sinking ship"? Tom put that to bed a long time ago.
You think you would see the same stars showing themselves at different places on the celestial sphere above our heads if you change your position on the flat earth plane below? Why?
Furthermore, photo's of a spherical earth taken from space that come from a camera (or video camera) are not coming from the mind and so therefore are not fabrications but then you will deem them to be fabrications or fakery because of your belief in a space travel conspiracy or hoax that are coming from these people (TFES, Sargent, Nathan Thompson, David Weiss, etc.) and are accepted by the gullible populace (you and the flat earth community) as experts.
NASA has been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact.
Universal Studios has been showing a revolving globe earth on screen to the public at large for nearly 100 years.
I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.
Everything you are saying can simply be turned around and used as evidence against a flat earth as well. For example:
- The spherical earth is based on direct evidence that anyone can see. If you do not like the spherical earth, it remains based on the evidence right up against all of us.
- Why are you rehashing the "sinking ship"? AATW put that to bed a while ago.
- You think you would see the same stars showing themselves in different hemisphere's, but they don't? Why?
- Flat Earth Community members have been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact. (for a few examples, refer to "Behind the Curve")
- Samuel Rowbotham has been proposing and showing a flat disk earth in book's to the public at large for over 100 years.
- I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.
Have you ever considered an opposite argument to your belief that space is a hoax, where:
- perhaps it is because jet air travel does exist that aircraft manufacturers are motivated to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win air travel dominance -- i.e. the Boeing 737 Max scandal.)
- perhaps it is because hybrid and electric vehicle ground travel does exist that auto manufacturers are motivated to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win auto travel dominance -- i.e. the Volkswagen scandal)
- perhaps it is because space travel does exist that space companies (agencies and private alike) are motivated to lie (i.e. they are competing to win space travel dominance and be first to explore -- i.e. the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster)
-
-snipped for brevity
Everything you are saying can simply be turned around and used as evidence against a flat earth as well. For example:
- The spherical earth is based on direct evidence that anyone can see. If you do not like the spherical earth, it remains based on the evidence right up against all of us.
^Must assume additional evidence not immediately against us in order to even make the statement.
- Why are you rehashing the "sinking ship"? AATW put that to bed a while ago.
AATW has done nothing of the sort. Tom clearly stated the effect was inconsistent. Which it is, despite AATW's protestations otherwise. He goes on to write that because all ships (we might as well add any object traveling on any surface) traveling away from the observer disappear from view eventually, it must be due to the horizon based on Earth's sphericity. Well, the fact is there are limits on visual acuity and other factors at play. In one thread, he tried to foist off a picture of a masted ship behind a very evident wave as evidence of globe earth and was slapped down very quickly by Pete.
- You think you would see the same stars showing themselves in different hemisphere's, but they don't? Why?
No, nobody thinks that. The reason is the evidence shows they are not visible to everyone in different areas of the flat earth plane. They would not because the stars occupy different areas of the celestial sphere above our heads.
- Flat Earth Community members have been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact. (for a few examples, refer to "Behind the Curve").
I am unfamiliar with Behind the Curve. I do not know if they lied or not in the documentary. If they did, it does not alter the evidence right up against us.
- Samuel Rowbotham has been proposing and showing a flat disk earth in book's to the public at large for over 100 years.
Samuel Rowbotham is dead. His book lives on.
- I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.
The evidence right up against us is very real.
Have you ever considered an opposite argument to your belief that space is a hoax, where:
- perhaps it is because jet air travel does exist that aircraft manufacturers have been demonstrably shown to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win air travel dominance -- i.e. the Boeing 737 Max scandell.)
Everybody lies. Relevance to your OP? Or more OP derailment by the author?
- perhaps it is because hybrid and electric vehicle ground travel does exist that auto manufacturers have been demonstrably shown to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win auto travel dominance -
- i.e. the Volkswagen scandell).
Looks like more OP derailment by the author.
- perhaps it is because space travel does exist that space companies (agencies and private alike) have been demonstrably shown to lie (i.e. they are competing to win space travel dominance and be first to explore -- i.e. the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster)
Space travel dominace? LOL! They all cooperate!
You really should just take a break. You are all over the place and have lost the ability to formulate cogent statements in support of your view.
-
I may have missed it, but it seems there was nothing in your reply that actually contradicted anything I wrote. So, thank you for posting the confirmations.
Right, I wasn't contradicting you. Except that this is not generally true "It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged." Most of the routes today are nothing at all like they were when bubble sextants were the in thing.
No, I was just adding some information that's more up-to-date than your Sopwith Camel vintage stuff.
Do I always have to contradict someone?
-
When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it.
The implication in the way you use that word is that they are trying to deceive. This is untrue.
If it were they wouldn't mark visualisations as such, they wouldn't state when images are composites.
Some are, some aren't. The blue marble is just a photo, taken with a camera on film. The same for earthrise.
They are not point-and-shoot.
Yes they are.
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/blue-marble-photo-50th-anniversary-snap-scn/index.html
The iconic photo, known as “Blue Marble,” was taken by NASA astronauts Eugene “Gene” Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt on December 7 using a Hasselblad camera and a Zeiss lens, about 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles) away from home, as the Apollo 17 crew made its way to the moon.
"Oh my God, look at that picture over there! There's the Earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty!" Bill Anders shouted at fellow astronaut Jim Lovell. "You got a colour film, Jim? Hand me a roll of colour, quick, would you?"
"That's a beautiful shot," said Lovell as Anders clicked the shutter and captured what has become one of the world's most famous photographs.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230511-earthrise-the-photo-that-sparked-an-environmental-movement
I fixed that last part, as there is nothing to support the claim it is required.
it doesn't need supporting, it's an obvious truth. Someone referenced the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant above and it's a good analogy. The men all felt different parts of the elephant and came to different conclusions about what an elephant must be like. None of them had enough data to be correct. In the same way, looking around your local area and thinking "looks flat to me!" is not sufficient to determine the reality of its shape, that observation can be explained in multiple ways. One of which is that the earth is flat, but alternative evidence shows that it is not.
-
I may have missed it, but it seems there was nothing in your reply that actually contradicted anything I wrote. So, thank you for posting the confirmations.
Right, I wasn't contradicting you. Except that this is not generally true "It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged." Most of the routes today are nothing at all like they were when bubble sextants were the in thing.
No, I was just adding some information that's more up-to-date than your Sopwith Camel vintage stuff.
Do I always have to contradict someone?
If the routes are different, I would expect you to post evidence of that. You didn't. As a matter of fact, however, the example you provided with Lindbergh is very much "essentially," the same as those taken today.
-
When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it.
The implication in the way you use that word is that they are trying to deceive. This is untrue.
If it were they wouldn't mark visualisations as such, they wouldn't state when images are composites.
That is the point. Any images purported to to originate from "outer space," are intended to deceive.
The images of "exoplanets," are the same, even more so.
Yes they are.
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/blue-marble-photo-50th-anniversary-snap-scn/index.html
The iconic photo, known as “Blue Marble,” was taken by NASA astronauts Eugene “Gene” Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt on December 7 using a Hasselblad camera and a Zeiss lens, about 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles) away from home, as the Apollo 17 crew made its way to the moon.
"Oh my God, look at that picture over there! There's the Earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty!" Bill Anders shouted at fellow astronaut Jim Lovell. "You got a colour film, Jim? Hand me a roll of colour, quick, would you?"
"That's a beautiful shot," said Lovell as Anders clicked the shutter and captured what has become one of the world's most famous photographs.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230511-earthrise-the-photo-that-sparked-an-environmental-movement
NASA as a source again. They already admitted to photoshopping the earth on several occasions, I think one of those instances was on Earthrise.
I fixed that last part, as there is nothing to support the claim it is required.
it doesn't need supporting, it's an obvious truth. Someone referenced the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant above and it's a good analogy. The men all felt different parts of the elephant and came to different conclusions about what an elephant must be like. None of them had enough data to be correct. In the same way, looking around your local area and thinking "looks flat to me!" is not sufficient to determine the reality of its shape, that observation can be explained in multiple ways. One of which is that the earth is flat, but alternative evidence shows that it is not.
It is an obvious truth only to you and re-adherents. Given the great amount of evidence right up against us, and the well-documented instances of space agencies of various countries fabricating data, the alternative evidence can be summarily dismissed.
-
{Redacted}
I've just been diagnosed with COVID-19. I can't think nor focus either optically or intellectually.
I'll be back when I can.
(Yeah!!!)
-
Yes they are.
https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/blue-marble-photo-50th-anniversary-snap-scn/index.html
[/quote]
The iconic photo, known as “Blue Marble,” was taken by NASA astronauts Eugene “Gene” Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt on December 7 using a Hasselblad camera and a Zeiss lens, about 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles) away from home, as the Apollo 17 crew made its way to the moon.
"Oh my God, look at that picture over there! There's the Earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty!" Bill Anders shouted at fellow astronaut Jim Lovell. "You got a colour film, Jim? Hand me a roll of colour, quick, would you?"
"That's a beautiful shot," said Lovell as Anders clicked the shutter and captured what has become one of the world's most famous photographs.
There's little doubt that the Earthrise image has been chopped about and digitally altered to enhance its impact in the modern age, but it was first published in 1969. Adobe Photoshop was developed by Thomas Knoll, born 1960. You think maybe NASA saw his potential and brought him onboard at age 9?
-
-snipped for brevity
Everything you are saying can simply be turned around and used as evidence against a flat earth as well. For example:
- The spherical earth is based on direct evidence that anyone can see. If you do not like the spherical earth, it remains based on the evidence right up against all of us.
^Must assume additional evidence not immediately against us in order to even make the statement.
- Why are you rehashing the "sinking ship"? AATW put that to bed a while ago.
AATW has done nothing of the sort. Tom clearly stated the effect was inconsistent. Which it is, despite AATW's protestations otherwise. He goes on to write that because all ships (we might as well add any object traveling on any surface) traveling away from the observer disappear from view eventually, it must be due to the horizon based on Earth's sphericity. Well, the fact is there are limits on visual acuity and other factors at play. In one thread, he tried to foist off a picture of a masted ship behind a very evident wave as evidence of globe earth and was slapped down very quickly by Pete.
- You think you would see the same stars showing themselves in different hemisphere's, but they don't? Why?
No, nobody thinks that. The reason is the evidence shows they are not visible to everyone in different areas of the flat earth plane. They would not because the stars occupy different areas of the celestial sphere above our heads.
- Flat Earth Community members have been demonstrably shown to lie to the public at large. That is a fact. (for a few examples, refer to "Behind the Curve").
I am unfamiliar with Behind the Curve. I do not know if they lied or not in the documentary. If they did, it does not alter the evidence right up against us.
- Samuel Rowbotham has been proposing and showing a flat disk earth in book's to the public at large for over 100 years.
Samuel Rowbotham is dead. His book lives on.
- I suppose you are going to tell us this was all real too.
The evidence right up against us is very real.
Have you ever considered an opposite argument to your belief that space is a hoax, where:
- perhaps it is because jet air travel does exist that aircraft manufacturers have been demonstrably shown to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win air travel dominance -- i.e. the Boeing 737 Max scandell.)
Everybody lies. Relevance to your OP? Or more OP derailment by the author?
- perhaps it is because hybrid and electric vehicle ground travel does exist that auto manufacturers have been demonstrably shown to lie. (i.e. they are competing and will do everything they can to win auto travel dominance -
- i.e. the Volkswagen scandell).
Looks like more OP derailment by the author.
- perhaps it is because space travel does exist that space companies (agencies and private alike) have been demonstrably shown to lie (i.e. they are competing to win space travel dominance and be first to explore -- i.e. the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster)
Space travel dominace? LOL! They all cooperate!
You really should just take a break. You are all over the place and have lost the ability to formulate cogent statements in support of your view.
The examples I provide above are simply to present an alternate argument to your belief in a conspiracy and is indeed related to my OP.
- Your argument is that because NASA lies, they must therefore be lying about space travel and so space travel must be a hoax.
- The alternative argument I am presenting is that it is because space travel exists, that NASA lies. I.e. NASA will do whatever is necessary to compete to "win" space travel dominance, including lying. Lying about the readiness to launch the Challenger Space Shuttle when they knew they shouldn't have launched. Or Boeing lying about the safety of their 737 MAX jet. Or Volkswagen lying about their vehicle energy efficiency. Boeing lie and Volkswagen lie BUT that doesn't mean air travel is a hoax and it doesn't mean hybrid electric vehicle travel is a hoax.
Again, I am presenting an alternate argument to your conspiracy belief and that you might have it all backwards -- perhaps it is because space travel exists, it is because jet air travel exists, and it is because electric vehicle travel exists that corporations such as NASA, Boeing, and Volkswagen lie so that they can win and dominate.
In terms of Tom and his "debunking" of the sinking ship, I don't think his conclusions are anymore reliable than AATW and his "bunking" of the sinking ship conclusions.
-
AATW has done nothing of the sort. Tom clearly stated the effect was inconsistent. Which it is, despite AATW's protestations otherwise. He goes on to write that because all ships (we might as well add any object traveling on any surface) traveling away from the observer disappear from view eventually, it must be due to the horizon based on Earth's sphericity.
The effect is NOT inconsistent in the way he claims it is. His Wiki page claims that "at times it occurs and at other times it does not occur.". That just isn't true. Ships always disappear below the horizon, distant landmarks are always partially obscured. And here's the point, they always disappear bottom first. Why? Why would they if the earth is flat? I've posted the Turning Torso video multiple times on here. It's clear that the further away the picture is taken from the more of the building is hidden. Why would that be? Yes, the amount of occlusion varies depending on atmospheric conditions but it's never the case that it just doesn't happen at all.
And, as I noted, Tom is completely contradicting his claimed observations in the Bishop experiment. In that he claims he can, from a 20 inch viewer height, see 23 miles across a bay and see the distant beach all the way to the shoreline. He claims to be able to reproduce that consistently at different times of year (and thus in different temperatures, so different atmospheric conditions) so long as it's calm and clear. So which is it? Is it something he can consistently reproduce or is it inconsistent? As so often when he ties himself in knots like this, he never responded.
It is an obvious truth only to you and re-adherents. Given the great amount of evidence right up against us, and the well-documented instances of space agencies of various countries fabricating data, the alternative evidence can be summarily dismissed.
As discussed, evidence from space agencies is just part of the alternative evidence. The earth's shape was known for thousands of years before we had the ability to launch things in to orbit. Your "great amount of evidence" seems to amount to you looking around and thinking "looks flat to me". Can you really not understand why that is not sufficient to determine the shape of the earth? Let's try this. If the earth is flat, what shape is it? I mean is it round? Square? Another shape? Does it go on forever? Your honest answer surely has to be you don't know. Your observations don't give you enough information to determine that. It's the same with the overall shape of the earth. Your observations don't just leave one possibility, so aren't sufficient to determine the reality.
-
Where is this evidence that "Ships always disappear below the horizon, distant landmarks are always partially obscured. And here's the point, they always disappear bottom first."? I don't see that you have provided any evidence at all. These are just statements.
Also, the type of curve that this effect is making may not be compatible with creating noticeable obscuration of something near the surface at 23 miles. Most of the examples of variable light curvature of a closer distance. As I have stated, I could either see the other shore or I could not. If light is bending it would need to be bent in a special and precise way to half-obscure a distant 23 mile landmass.
-
If the routes are different, I would expect you to post evidence of that. You didn't. As a matter of fact, however, the example you provided with Lindbergh is very much "essentially," the same as those taken today.
I'm finally felling better and have a minute or two.
Below is a map for air routes in the 1930s when celestial navigation was used. As I said before, zigzagging to maximize time over land and minimize the hop distance since those planes had poor range.
(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5c647bc99b7d150fe925ea5c/1553466826304-87NNDL5THTGXTBUJJ35Z/197kosmgtua87jpg.jpg?format=2500w)
Here is a modern day route from London to Johannesburg. Not very much like to old route, is it?
(https://maps.directflights.com/directflights/800/LHR-JNB.jpg)
The only similarities between modern routes and the old routes is that to fly to SOME destinations to the south, east, west or north, you head kind of south, east, west or north respectively.
Also, key factor, celestial navigation does not and cannot work on a flat earth. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.07491.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.07491.pdf)
-
Need to play Devil's advocate here BillO; the proof is not in this particular pudding.
The reason for the 1920s/30s routing was, as you say, to accommodate the relatively short range of the aircraft involved (and incidentally goes some way to explaining the current hodge-podge of middle-east politics, as the British Empire ran roughshod over emirates and sheikhdoms in order to provide an air-route to British southern Africa and to India).
Your Directflights map is not an air-route at all, its a travel agent's illustration of a hypothetical link between the 2 cities, in the same way that the London Underground Map joins Waterloo to Paddington. Its not a navigational map. If you look at a tracking site like Flightradar24 you'll find that the normal route is typically Balkans, eastern Med, Egypt, northern Red Sea, Ethiopea, Kenya, Tanzania, and all well to the east of a Great Circle. The reason for this is to related to common sense as well as insurance requirements; most aviation insurance excludes flight over war-zones, rogue-states and specifically some countries such as North Korea, Libya, Yemen. Hence, very similar to Imperial Airways, in fact, but in hours rather than days, and not a pith-helmet in sight.
I agree 100% with your concept of modern air-routes generally being more direct, but you'll likely be looking at oceanic examples to get your point over. Glad you're feeling better btw.
-
I'm not trying to prove anything, other than the fallacy of Action80's claim that today's routes are essentially the same as when celestial navigation was used.
I agree 100% with your concept of modern air-routes generally being more direct, but you'll likely be looking at oceanic examples to get your point over.
Non-stop flights are great circle routes regardless of being over land or water. That's what's shown in that directflights image. There are route calculators out there and I used one to verify that fact. However they do not produce single addressable images.
Glad you're feeling better btw.
Thanks.
-
Here is an example: https://www.greatcirclemap.com/?routes=LHR-JNB
(https://www.greatcirclemap.com/?routes=LHR-JNB)
-
Where is this evidence that "Ships always disappear below the horizon, distant landmarks are always partially obscured. And here's the point, they always disappear bottom first."? I don't see that you have provided any evidence at all. These are just statements.
I mean, this is a well known phenomenon. You have whole a Wiki page which attempts to explain why it happens on a Flat Earth.
I've also made personal observations of things like wind farms out to sea. It's noticeable how the distant turbines are obscured more. I've posted videos like the Turning Torso one - multiple observations made from different distances which show the effect. And you can find many timelapse videos on YouTube showing ships going out to sea or coming in to harbour which clearly show the effect.
Do you have an example of a timelapse or other observation where it does not occur?
Also, the type of curve that this effect is making may not be compatible with creating noticeable obscuration of something near the surface at 23 miles. Most of the examples of variable light curvature of a closer distance. As I have stated, I could either see the other shore or I could not. If light is bending it would need to be bent in a special and precise way to half-obscure a distant 23 mile landmass.
As a wise man once said, Where is this evidence that "The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore."? I don't see that you have provided any evidence at all. These are just statements.
And the point you are desperately trying to avoid is that you claim that "provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year.". Again, no evidence provided, just your statements. And yet on the aforementioned Wiki page you claim the effect is inconsistent.
-
If you look at a tracking site like Flightradar24 you'll find that the normal route is typically Balkans, eastern Med, Egypt, northern Red Sea, Ethiopea, Kenya, Tanzania, and all well to the east of a Great Circle.
Here is a non-stop flight that occurred today. Virgin Atlantic flight VIR449 from London to Johannesburg. With very slight endpoint deviation to allow for airport specific traffic patterns, follows a fairly precise great circle route.
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/VIR449/history/20240226/2235Z/EGLL/FAOR (https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/VIR449/history/20240226/2235Z/EGLL/FAOR)
Here's the same thing from Flightradar24:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/vs449#34273b21 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/vs449#34273b21)
-
Agreed on this example BillO, and refutes Action80's assertion that
It is important to note the routes taken today have remained essentially unchanged.
Examples are even more different in the southern hemisphere (Hemiplane?). Witness Qantas QFA864 (B787, VH-ZNN), currently around 51S 60E en-route J'burg-Sydney; a route which didn't exist in the early 20th Century.
-
snipped for brevity
Also, key factor, celestial navigation does not and cannot work on a flat earth. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.07491.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.07491.pdf)
How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?
You have nothing.
Even that paper is full of holes.
-
How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?
Ever since planes with the range have been available, and that matters squat because they do fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg and back and they don't fly the old routes anymore. On the slight chance you are asking in earnest, the Boeing 707 was the first airliner that was capable of making the flight. It was first flown in 1950. So, the ability has been there for 74 years.
You have nothing.
You have to love the projection here. Scintillating!
Even that paper is full of holes.
So surely you can point out a few of these "holes" with your detailed reasoning as to why they are "holes", to help us all understand, right? Or are you just making baseless statements?
-
How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?
Ever since planes with the range have been available, and that matters squat because they do fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg and back and they don't fly the old routes anymore. On the slight chance you are asking in earnest, the Boeing 707 was the first airliner that was capable of making the flight. It was first flown in 1950. So, the ability has been there for 74 years.
What slight chance?
They have not been making non-stop flights to Johannesburg from London for that long.
When you compare those routes when they started to what they fly now, they are essentially the same, as I stated.
You have nothing.
You have to love the projection here. Scintillating!
In your original response, you chose to provide the route taken by Lindbergh, which...SURPRISE!!!...doesn't vary much from what is taken now. Projection?
Even that paper is full of holes.
So surely you can point out a few of these "holes" with your detailed reasoning as to why they are "holes", to help us all understand, right? Or are you just making baseless statements?
Yeah, one of the holes is using the dimensions of a spherical earth to arrive at a conclusion.
-
They have not been making non-stop flights to Johannesburg from London for that long.
Where is your evidence for this?
Also, need I remind that your question was:
How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?
The 707 was able in 1950. If you wanted a different answer, you should have asked a different question.
When you compare those routes when they started to what they fly now, they are essentially the same, as I stated.
In what way is the route from London to Johannesburg the same today as it was in 1930?
In your original response, you chose to provide the route taken by Lindbergh, which...SURPRISE!!!...doesn't vary much from what is taken now. Projection?
No, not projection at all. Is that another word you have trouble with?
Go back and read that post. I specifically said it was like the route they take today. I was using it as an example of one of the first great circle routes. Here's a reminder:
Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles. Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.
Yeah, one of the holes is using the dimensions of a spherical earth to arrive at a conclusion.
Yes, thanks for pointing that out, and not only is not a "hole" it proves their point as when they use a flat earth is does NOT work.
Your getting like Ranty now, working hard to prove the earth is round!! Keep it up buddy!
-
They have not been making non-stop flights to Johannesburg from London for that long.
Where is your evidence for this?
Also, need I remind that your question was:
How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?
The 707 was able in 1950. If you wanted a different answer, you should have asked a different question.
I already made my statement.
Long-distance travel routes have not varied significantly since their inception.
And they haven't.
Your own post showing Lindbergh's route clearly demonstrates that.
When you compare those routes when they started to what they fly now, they are essentially the same, as I stated.
In what way is the route from London to Johannesburg the same today as it was in 1930?
Introducing a prior multistop route into the discussion of a long-distance non-stop route is typical of the BS you try to interject into any examination of issues conducted in the threads on these boards. Your style is tiresome and weary and isn't worth the effort.
In your original response, you chose to provide the route taken by Lindbergh, which...SURPRISE!!!...doesn't vary much from what is taken now. Projection?
No, not projection at all. Is that another word you have trouble with?
Go back and read that post. I specifically said it was like the route they take today. I was using it as an example of one of the first great circle routes. Here's a reminder:
Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles. Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.
Confirming my response then. The long-distance routes today used by airliners have changed very little.
Yeah, one of the holes is using the dimensions of a spherical earth to arrive at a conclusion.
Yes, thanks for pointing that out, and not only is not a "hole" it proves their point as when they use a flat earth is does NOT work.
Your getting like Ranty now, working hard to prove the earth is round!! Keep it up buddy!
Not hardly, as the sphere that should be labeled as such by them is NOT the earth, but the celestial sphere above.
Try harder next time.
-
Nuh -uh! I said stuff, I do not need data, I'm pretty sure I'm right!!
Now you're just trolling, and very weekly at that.
Hitchens's razor applies here. You made a statement and provided no evidence. It's worthless dribble.
Introducing a prior multistop route into the discussion of a long-distance non-stop route is typical of the BS you try to interject.. and I choose to ignore what I said myself.. and excuse me while I move the goalposts..
There were no long distance non-stop commercial flights in the celestial navigation days. This is exactly the kind response I'd expect from someone that has absolutely no self awareness.
Not hardly, as the sphere that should be labeled as such by them is NOT the earth, but the celestial sphere above.
Very funny! And I thought you had no sense of humor. You are joking, right?
Enjoy your fishing trip.
-
There were no long distance non-stop commercial flights in the celestial navigation days. This is exactly the kind response I'd expect from someone that has absolutely no self awareness.
The first non-stop flights made were all non-commercial.
Introducing that term is simply a diversionary tactic on your part.
The point is they were made using celestial navigation.
I am aware.
-
I am aware.
Apparently not. You introduced the concept of "methods used for long-distance travel". Remember?
One off flights like that of Lindbergh were not generally done for the purpose of "travel". In his case he was trying to break a record and win a prize. In fact, in all cases I can come up with, getting from A to B was not the intent. You usually don't build one-off special aircraft to visit auntie Matilda.
You're good for a chuckle though.
As an aside (not part of the "discussion") it should also be noted that Lindbergh's "trip" actually began in San Diego, then on to St. Louis and New York before setting off over the Atlantic. So, his "travel route" is distinctly not even close to a current non-stop flight from San Diego to Paris. However, the Orteig Prize was only concerned with NY to Paris. Fun fact.