Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Your missing the crucial point, in that its an ice WALL, of course you can't sail over it. I've even told you that basic face before.
Now you prove someone's flown over it. Show footage of someone flying over it, not just a little part.
I don't need to, I've seen first hand how the horizon is always at eye level.Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants.
Well firstly, those photos are simply stills from that video.
And secondly if you dispute the findings you have all the information you need to repeat the experiment. I presume that Tom has stopped posting to do just that, given how important he regards empirical evidence.
I look forward to your findings.
That source doesn't matter, I just grabbed the first link I saw since it just said what Cook did. Nice to see you acknowledge he sailed around Antarctica, shame your unaware he was unable to progress past the ice wall.
Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other.This is true about the mechanism, but there are plenty of points where the two tubes of liquid line up and the horizon dip can be seen very clearly.
Here are some screen grabs from the 3 altitudes to help:
Very clear how the horizon dips more with altitude. Not a huge dip, as I've said but measurable and these are empirical measurements which prove it.
Honestly, the wriggling you do rather than concede any point no matter how clearly you are shown to be wrong really is embarrassing.
Because of photos taken at different points. Not all of those photos are taken in the same place. In the age of sail, Captain Cook sailed around the ice wall and was unable to progress.
http://tabooconspiracy.com/blog/flat-earth/captain-cook-and-the-old-explorers-of-antarctica/
I think you may have misunderstood how the experiment works.
I see perfectly well how the experiment works. The experimenter is aligning the water to be level, but the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.
There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other. Bad experiment.
Now how about addressing my points? Pointing me at different experiments really sounds like you guys are saying "well, you win on this one.... but look at this other thing I found"
And I've already said before you can't get a photo of an ice wall surrounding the world.
... because we see in emperical reality that the horizon does rise with altitude.
You can test your "empirical reality" yourself, using easy affordable device descrbed in the video I linken in my previous post.
In that video there is no fog or blur at the horizon there.
Do it and see it.
The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.
Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?
Why not address my points rather than trying to distract with various videos of different experiments?
Well, then it seems that you need to go back to the drawing board with your rationalized theories, because we see in emperical reality that the horizon does rise with altitude.
Well you asked for evidence of the ice wall before and I posted it and you dismissed it.
What do you mean then? How far does it stretch? Hundreds of miles, but we can't accurately give an exact mileage as there's no light and hurricanes rage and temperatures plummet to levels no living thing can tolerate.It goes all around the circumference of the earth.
That's not what i asked.
The infamous Bishop experiment:Quote"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 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"
For this to be true even on a flat earth it would mean no wave of over 20 inches high over a 23 mile stretch of sea. I'd suggest that is implausible, especially as he claims to be able to repeat this at any time in any conditions.
Excellent diagrams. This is a field where representing things visually is very helpful. As we've seen from some of the obscure and confused diagrams in other threads, visual aids can be used to clarify or obfuscate.
If it's possible to see that distance across water, then it's possible to take a picture, presumably.
It goes all around the circumference of the earth.
I don't know if Dr Rowbotham did but I've linked to a picture already and there have been many sources from people like captain cook who were unable to progress past the ice wall.https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
And the ice wall extends for hundreds of miles as described by Dr Rowbotham.
Did he see the ice wall himself?
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
And the ice wall extends for hundreds of miles as described by Dr Rowbotham.
The fact they didn't go to the moon in 1969 is totally irrelevant, the technology was far too primitive to achieve that goal.
I'm not 'making it up', the force of gravity is not scientifically proven to come from the core, its a theory. It is actually spread evenly underneath the earth, pulling down together. It is not only pulling down from the earths core.No it doesn't, there's no definite proof gravity pulls things into a ball, it's only a theory and cannot be proved because it's an incorrect theory. The force of gravity does not only come from the centre, it exists all underneath the world, so with the force pulling down on all points it cannot possibly pull everything into a ball because the force of gravity is spread evenly across the world.It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
Even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove gravity, he acknowledged it's existence.
Gravity (using the commonly accepted definition of gravity) certainly does go against FET.
If you are unilaterally going to make up a force with different properties to those ascribed to gravity and name it gravity as well that's up to you, but you can't expect others to just go along with that.
It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
If you care to go looking, there's a semi-recent thread by use 3DGeek around that ended up getting some attention. I can't say why they don't engage them normally, but Tom's argument essentially boiled down to: "We don't know actual overland distances, and as such have no idea the speed planes fly. As such, any argument made using flight times can't show that planes fly at the same speed all over, much less that the speeds are correct." Paraphrasing a little bit, but that was the general idea.I think there was then some silliness after the infamous "the distance from Paris to New York is unknown" comment when it was pointed out that transatlantic cables are laid so clearly they need to know how much cable they need. It then descended into crazy claims denying that. The bending over backwards he does to avoid budging a single inch on any topic is ridiculous.
I do wonder if he's just a troll.
Flight times and the 24 hour Antarctic sun both clearly show that the model as shown in the Wiki doesn't work.
I recently posted some quotes showing that there was 15% surplus cable laid on the transatlantic route. See my post history.
Those pictures are not legit. The sun does not orbit the earth in a way it can orbit Antarctic in that way. The Antarctic is lucky it even gets any light at all.The way the sun orbits the earth does not allow for the Antarctic to get the sun that the northern hemisphere does. Besides, after so long beyond the ice wall light is lost to perpetual darkness, because the sun only orbits the earth in a specific way.The difference is because the antartic does NOT get the sun that the center part of the earth (what others call the Northern Hemisphere).
hehehe
Try to tell that to all the people inside Antarctic Circle in December, including tourists.
And to all the people in Ushuaia and Punta Arenas while they watch Aurora Australis.
The summer solstice in Antarctica, December 21:
Exactly.
That is one more example where Flat model doesn't describe real life observations.
