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.

Topics - Max_Almond

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
« on: February 03, 2019, 12:17:54 PM »
Theodolite? Water level? Spirit level?

I want to do an eye level test but I want it FE-approved.

Cheers. :)

Here are some nice pictures of mountains in California taken from Point Dume:

The actual visible amounts align pretty much perfectly with those predicted on a spherical earth, while the flat earth predicts between 2,200 and 6,100 feet more should be seen, depending on distance.

More details can be found here.

Flat Earth Investigations / Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: December 26, 2018, 12:24:37 PM »
Here's a picture of some mountains in Washington and Oregon taken from the summit of South Sister at ~10,360 feet:


Forgetting about the complete and total incompatibility of the apparent heights of the mountains with the flat earth model for a moment, please answer this simple question:

If the earth is flat, where is eye level?


In this thread, I'm not here to debunk, or pick apart, or provide counter-evidence for the claim, and I'd like it if others did the same.

What I'm looking for is the best piece of evidence that "the horizon is always at eye level".

I have looked in the wiki, but there aren't any photos or videos there, just words.

Photos or videos is what I need.

It's for an upcoming discussion with a flat earther. I've asked him to bring his best evidence, but I'm worried it won't be the best possible evidence. So I thought I'd try and find some for him.

My only responses will be something along the lines of: "thank you"; or "have you got anything from a higher altitude?"; or "have you get anything with any indicators or measurements in it?" And I'd like it if other debunkers stuck to this sort of thing - i.e., do what they can to help me find a good piece of flat earth evidence to support this claim, rather than dissecting the not so good ones.

Cheers. :)

Flat Earth Theory / Drone footage across a lake: flat earth explanation?
« on: December 15, 2018, 04:06:28 AM »
Here's footage of a drone rising from lake level to about 400 feet, shooting across about 24-30 miles of water:

The 'round earth' explanation is obvious: as altitude increases, so does the distance to the horizon, as well as the viewable amount of distant landmarks.

But what's the flat earth explanation for what we see here?

Flat Earth Theory / Question about Mount Everest
« on: December 01, 2018, 01:09:45 PM »
The sun is higher than Mount Everest.
Mount Everest is higher than the mountains that surround it.
The sun is higher than the mountains around Mount Everest.

So, flat earthers, in this video, how do think a shadow gets cast onto Mount Everest?

This is a photo of the Toronto skyline taken from Olcott, New York (elevation around 30 feet above the lake) about 39 miles away.

Question is: where is eye level?

If you can, please draw a line in paint or photoshop and repost the picture.

PS You may want to bear in mind the following:

1. When pictures are posted showing that the horizon appears to be below eye level, flat earthers tend to state that the horizon is obscured by haze, and that the horizon would actually be at eye level - ie, level with the horizontal red line in the picture below - but we just can't see it.

2. When pictures are posted of distant skylines obscured by water, such as this one:

flat earthers tend to state that it's actually waves or haze that's obscuring the bottoms of the buildings.

The interesting thing about this, though, is that #1 puts the actual flat earth horizon above the horizon in the photo, and #2 puts the actual flat earth horizon below the horizon in the photo.

(To explain #2: the photographer was 30 feet above the lake. The lower 600 feet of the CN Tower is hidden. Therefore 30 feet above the lake on the Toronto side - which must also be at the same level as the photographer - ie, "eye level" - is quite some distance below the horizon in the picture.)

"Eye level" - and therefore "the actual horizon" - can't be both below and above the horizon we see in the photo at the same time.

This is especially obvious if we imagine a photo which both includes a way to measure eye level and a view across water to a distant skyline.

Something like this:

So, given that "eye level" is not that difficult to calculate, discover, and draw, where is eye level in this pic?

Flat Earth Theory / What is the current flat earth model?
« on: June 07, 2018, 10:51:22 AM »
It seems like lately all attempts to investigate any proposed flat earth model on here don't really progress because there isn't any model.

I mean, there used to be - the good old Gleason's map with the dome over it, and the sun and moon circling around 3000 miles high, moving in between the Tropics - but now that thinking flat earthers have accepted the impossibility of all that, the whole thing appears out the window.

So what do TFES's flat earthers believe about their model? And I'm talking basics here.

1. It's flat. We've got that much, right? It's like a giant version of Kansas. Not a sphere. A flat plane.

2. Does it have a dome over it? Many people seem to believe that. Though I don't suppose it matters.

3. Where is the sun? We can all see it, and we can all measure certain things about it. But how high is it? And where is it in relation to the Earth?

4. Does the north pole exist? I.e., is there a point in the centre of everything to which all compasses point?

5. Where is the north star? 90% of us can see it, and we can measure certain things about it. But no one seems to know where it is.

6. Where is the moon? How high? Where in relation to the plane? And how does it get in front of the sun to cause eclipses?

7. What about a map? Given how much we all move about on the surface of the planet, and how little difficulty we have doing that these days, why is there no flat earth map? Or even, it seems, the vaguest notion of where countries and cities are? Can the location of any single place on the flat earth be stated with any degree of confidence? Like: how far is LA from the north pole? From Seattle? From San Diego? Are those questions impossible to answer too?

These are the basics. They really ought to have answers by now.

They say the Earth is an oblate spheroid. They say satellites like the Himawari-8 are up there beaming down practically live high resolution images anyone can access and scrutinize.

If this were true, we'd be able to see this oblateness in these images, right?

And we can:

Simple demo of the above anyone can do at home.

Flat Earth Investigations / How to Prove Satellite Images are Real
« on: June 05, 2018, 01:49:08 PM »

The above image was taken by the GOES-15 (West) satellite at 11AM (PDT), June 5th, 2017. At least that's what NASA would have you believe. But we don't have to take their word for it, we can check for yourself.

Verifying that satellite images are real is done by comparing them against the "ground truth" - i.e., the actual situation on the ground. Here I'm going to focus on the GOES satellites, particularly GOES-East and GOES-West. The process is:
  • Pick a Satellite with the best view of your region
  • Find out when it will take full-disk photos
  • Pick a day when there's some interesting clouds or contrails in the sky
  • At that time go outside and take lots of photos in every direction (over five minutes or so)
  • Wait for the full disk photo to be downloaded from the satellite and appear on the web site (about 35 to 40 minutes for GOES images)
  • Compare your photos with the satellite image.
#1 - Pick a satellite.  Here's a variety of satellites that give high resolution full-disk images:
Since I'm in California I'm going to use the GOES-West satellite, and get the images from the "Raw West" link, which goes to: (I've shortened the link, as it's an FTP site, the direct link is: This gives a list of files like:

The latest file should be at the bottom. The filenames are in the date format YYMMDDHHMM then G15 for GOES-15 and I01 for the image type (visible). So 1706051800 is 2017-June-05 1800 UTC. Where 18:00 UTC is the time in UTC, and you will want to convert it to your local time. I use google for this, like:

(Note both times say Monday, UTC might be a day ahead or behind the local date, depending on what time it is)

So, I took lots of images at around 11AM, then waited and download the 1800 UTC image. This is a TIF file, and not all programs can open it, so try different ones. Then you will probably want to increase the brightness if you can.

There's a variety of things you can compare, but probably the simplest is the cloud cover - and more specifically the airplane contrails that appear in the image. Here's a closer look at a region of California with some landmarks identified. This is simply a part of the above image.

You can see there's a a few contrails there. Notably there's four that form a trapezoid shape around my location. Here I've color coded them:

If you are lucky you will also be able to get a MODIS image from about the same time. This can be helpful in interpreting what you are seeing, but is not strictly necessary:,MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2017-06-05&z=3&v=-122.90918176234946,37.48960532127974,-118.69043176234946,39.81650961815474

Then we just need to compare against the photos. It's best to use a wide angle lens, or if not, you can use the panorama mode on your camera/phone. Ideally you would capture a high resolution 360 degree image of the sky.

This is one I took, unfortunately a few minutes early:

This makes the contrails look curved, but they are actually straight

Here's the view looking west at 17:56. I've indicated the blue and yellow contrails:

The images being a few minutes off means the contrails have moved. This shows the importance of getting the images as close as possible to the actual imaging time of the satellite.

Here's the satellite image from January 21st, 2018, showing a brief large scale set of row clouds that allowed me to match up the GOES-16 image with what I saw over my house:

And here's an image from the Suomi NPP satellite, taken a few days ago over Guatemala:

(Note: when I say "me" or "my house" or "I" what I actually mean is: "some other person" or "their house" or "them".)

Flat Earth Projects / Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
« on: June 03, 2018, 07:30:04 AM »
In the Wiki entry for The Bishop Experiment it states that "there should be a bulge of water 350 feet tall obscuring the view."

This is incorrect: the bulge at 23 miles is 88 feet.

Flat Earth Theory / Questions about a Rowbotham claim
« on: May 27, 2018, 02:29:05 PM »
In 'Earth Not a Globe' Rowbotham states:

"In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

I have some questions about that:

1. What was the altitude of the two summits?

2. Why does Rowbotham say the lamp "should have been 6600 feet below the line of sight"?

Even if the peaks were only 500 feet high, that means less than 3000 feet would have been below the line of sight.

Did Rowbotham make a mistake?

Similar to the ways we can calculate the altitude of the sun by measuring our viewing angle to it, it ought to be even easier to do the same to the north star, which doesn't orbit above us like the sun does.

For some reason, though, I've never seen an answer to this question.

Anybody know what it is?

A few years ago it used to be that they all went via the northern hemisphere.

Then, when this was shown to be a result of poor flight searching skills, it changed to fake speeds, unbookable flights, wormholes, special wind.

I know we know the flights are genuine, and easily provable. But what I'm wondering is what the current flat earth explanation is.

Flat Earth Theory / Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: May 24, 2018, 11:33:35 AM »
If the Earth is flat, Google Maps must be significantly incorrect. But we can check that very easily, and can even zoom in and see our own houses and trees in our street.

In southern hemisphere countries any discrepancies would be even more apparent.

So where is it wrong? Why has no one ever noticed a problem with the distances?

Surely the only answer is that it isn't inaccurate; that it fairly represents a spherical earth; and that the world isn't flat.

Flat Earth Theory / Parallel lines debunk the flat Earth theory
« on: May 23, 2018, 06:44:49 PM »
One thing we all seem able to agree on is that, in 2D images, parallel lines, when extended, appear to meet at the so-called 'vanishing point', and that the vanishing point corresponds to eye level.

A good way, therefore, to test whether eye level is at or above the horizon, is to gain some altitude, find some parallel lines, and use them to locate the vanishing point. Like this:

Or like this:

This is one very good way (of many) to find out for ourselves - using the zetetic method - whether eye level is at or above the horizon.

To do it yourself:

1. Find some parallel lines at least about 400 feet above a well defined horizon
2. Photograph them (in high resolution is better)
3. Draw along those lines sufficiently into the distance
4. See where they meet

Here are ten shots of Chicago from viewpoints ranging from 40 miles to 2 miles away:

New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)

Michigan City, IN (33 miles from skyline)

Beverly Shores, IN (30 miles from skyline)

Indiana Dunes, IN (28 miles from skyline)

Burns Harbor, IN (26 miles from skyline)

Gary, IN (21 miles from skyline)

Whiting, IN (15 miles from skyline)

Rainbow Park, IL (8 miles from skyline)

Harold Washington Park, IL (6 miles from skyline)

31st St Harbor, IL (2 miles from skyline)

Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?

Curvature? Perspective? Haze? Waves?

1. Use a professional theodolite. Eye level is where the crosshair is:

2. Download and properly calibrate a theodolite app. Eye level is where the crosshair is:

3. Make your own theodolite using a spirit level. Eye level is level with the top of the spirit level, when you're sighting along it:

4. Use parallel lines to find the vanishing point (which is always at eye level):

5. Take a picture of some actual eyes, with the camera at eye height, and see where the horizon is:

6. Use a homemade water level. Eye level is where the surfaces of the water are aligned:

At the minute, the Wiki states:

"A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see."

However, that's not quite right.

Can I suggest changing it to:

"A basic fact of perspective is that the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? It doesn't, but it seems that way because your eyes are naturally drawn to the horizon - there being little else to focus on - and because your brain is unable to detect minute changes in angle. This is a very basic aspect of human biology.

From an airplane or a mountain, however high you ascend, the horizon will always appear to rise to your eye level. But if you measure it, you will see that the horizon is actually somewhat below your eye level - about 3 degrees below, for example, from an airplane at 35,000 feet."

Here's a foolproof way to determine whether the Earth is a sphere or a plane:

1. Find a view of a mountain range which has: a) mountains of similar elevations; b) mountains of different elevations; c) mountains that are of varying distances from the observer

2. The observer should be at known elevation and position

3. A high resolution photo is best

Something like this:

Or this:

Or this:

4. Then notice things about the photograph. For example:

In picture 1, if the Earth was flat, how is it possible that the lookout tower is higher in the frame than both Graybeard and Pinnacle?

In picture 2, how is it possible that Maroon Peak appears significantly higher than Mount Shavano and Mount Harvard?

And in picture 3, how is it possible that the much higher Mounts Rainier and Adams appear lower in the photo than Mount Jefferson?

5. Do lots of complicated geometry to work out where the mountains hould appear in a photo if the world was: a) flat; b) a sphere (optional).

Pages: [1] 2  Next >