1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars
« on: October 06, 2016, 01:59:46 PM »
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/health/hurricane-matthew-skull-trnd/
This image is clearly fake, it has been taken by a "satellite"!
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.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/health/hurricane-matthew-skull-trnd/
Why would they document their own fraud? They've been at this a while. It stands to reason they're good at keeping it all a secret.
Personally I think if you really did see what you claimed you made a mistake and you were not looking at the beach at Light House Park 23 miles away, but somewhere between Fort Ord Dunes and Monterey Beach Parks about 4 miles away. It would also explain how you were able to place the telescope only 20" above the water. Since on that side of Lover's Point there is a small beach. Unlike the side that would give you a view of the Light House Park which has a steep rocky drop off of at least 4 feet.
Rounder, I am a Southern hemispherer, and yes the Southern Cross is clearly visible and rotating clockwise around the South Star, Cygma Octantus as I type this here in South Africa. Intikam will never believe anything from anyone in the Southern Hemisphere since we are all brainwashed!
You are saying lie. There is nothing as Southern Cross and South star.
Chemistry: Try diluting a solute by adding water to it. As long as you keep adding water, the concentration will approach zero, but will never actually reach it.
This is actually quite a relevant comparison. The angle with the horizon is related to the height:distance ratio of the object. For the angle to be zero, the ratio of height to distance has to be zero.
In both examples, you are trying to make a ratio approach zero by adding to one side. In the chemistry example, you are trying to make the ratio of solute to solvent go to zero by adding solvent. The ratio will continually get smaller, but will never actually reach zero since you aren't actually removing any solute. In the perspective example, you are trying to make the ratio of height to distance go to zero by adding distance. It will continually get smaller, but will never actually reach zero since the height isn't actually decreasing.
It could equally be argued that when you replace 100% of a chemical solution with water, the resulting concoction will be 100% water. Your example tells us nothing about what is actually occurring with perspective.QuoteCounter challenge: Draw a right triangle that has a non-zero height and width and one of the angles is zero. This is what you are implying is happening during sunset on a flat earth. Good luck!
The premise here is that the ancient math of the greeks is fallable, so of course their math fails on that point.
You should probably address Tom's assertion, in reply 79, that since we do not see perspective lines crossover in reality, it is illogical to assume they should. Otherwise he will just behave as if he has the higher ground.
Since there is a decent chance he will miss the point, I will clarify:
"Two lines angled towards each other must touch" is no more logical than "two lines angled towards each other must cross". I think both are illogical. Therefore, he is only left with the argument "the lines are seen to touch, therefore they touch", which assumes his eyes are perfect. Which is just silly.
When the sun is overhead at noontime the sun is at 90 degrees and at sunset the sun is at 0 degrees. There are your angles for the sun. It's quite simple.
What you've just said is also exactly what your FE opponents have been saying. You both are using science, scientific explanation, empirical data, tests, etc.....
You do know that as you traverse along the trajectory of the perspective line that two points that appeared to meet are revealed as not actually having met? You can test this by standing on some train tracks and having a friend go to the point you see as having intersected. They will report back that indeed you are mistaken. Don't trust me though, try it yourself!
Yes, we have several as :
- The duration of plane flight in southern hemisphere
- The observation of satellites/ISS in the night sky
- Satellite TV
- Behavior of earthquake waves
- Photos of Earth from space
- Moon showing the same pattern of craters for anyone on Earth
- Sun showing the same patterns of sunspots for anyone on Earth
- The angular speed or the elevation of the sun through the day
- Photos of cities half hidden by lake/seas
- The fact that scientists are not liars, because you can use everyday lot of technologies (numerous of them could not work if the earth was flat as GPS), why would they lie only for anything related to the Earth shape.
- The South celestial pole
Is that enough or do you need some more? But whatever the proofs, you are blinded by your beliefs...
For truth seekers, all these topics have also been discussed and argued by FEs, and their claims/propositions with supporting scientific facts are appears to be also valid, but not all are well argued, just like those of GEs.
The signals are deployed through an assortment of terrestrial methods, such as ground based antennas and stratellite dirigibles.
A contracting company building a rocket for NASA isn't evidence of anything. The rockets used are real.
The point of all this: those of you proposing optical effects to explain the difference between observed sun and moon locations and where those bodies should be above your flat earth? THIS is what your optical effect must achieve.
BEFORE YOU SAY THAT THE CAD PRESENTATION IS "DEAD WRONG", BETTER PRESENT SOMETHING CONCRETE AND VERIFIABLE DATA. YOUR JUDGEMENT IS HASTILY DONE, IMPAIRED! ARE GLOBE EARTHERS OR SUPPORTERS LIKE THAT? WHEN RUNNING OUT OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT, THEY WOULD JUST RESORT INTO SWEEPING AND HASTE CONCLUSION THAT SOMETHING, THOUGH HOW CLEARLY PRESENTED TO PROVE SOMETHING, IS "DEAD WRONG", JUST LIKE THAT? O C'MMON, WHO WILL BELIEVE AND LIKE YOU, MAN? NO ONE I GUESS..
OK, SHOW YOUR COREL, AND LET THIS TECHSIE GUY OR ENGINEER REBUT YOUR ACCUSATIONS AND ALLEGATIONS. WELL, LET THE BALL GO ROLLING. LET'S SEE WHAT'S THE OUTCOME. I JUST HOPE EVERYTHING WOULD TURN INTO BENEFITS FOR TRUTH SEEKERS.
MEANWHILE, REFRAIN FROM HASTY CONCLUSION, YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED OR PROVED ANYTHING YET. IF I WERE YOU, BETTER GET MOVING YOUR ASS AND PRESENT SOMETHING IN YOUTUBE FOR OTHERS TO SEE YOUR STUFF.
GOOD LUCK, MAN!
[...]
AND DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONFUSED AND DECEIVED BY SOME PEOPLE HERE TRYING TO USE GRAPHS AND LINES, BUT WITH INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, EMPIRICAL DATA AND LOGICAL REASONING/EXPLANATION.
[...]
[...]
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRAW OR ANALYZE IT YOURSELF IN KNOWING IF THE SUN IS 93M AWAY FROM EARTH OR IF IT IS THAT BIG (AND ALSO NOT MOVING? ) ANYWAY, JUST WATCH THIS VIDEO
[...]