[QED]

The daily changing nature of the effect was proof that an illusion was occuring.

Your excuse of "it's curvature of the earth + illusion" is not evidence. It is an assertion, and a baseless one.

I am not sure I understand how a changing phenomena is proof the phenomena is an illusion. For example, the moon’s phases change, but that is not evidence that the moon or the illumination of it is an illusion. What am I missing here?

[ChrisTP]

The daily changing nature of the effect was proof that an illusion was occuring.

Your excuse of "it's curvature of the earth + illusion" is not evidence. It is an assertion, and a baseless one.

Says the person that also says light curves upwards.

"Your excuse of "it's curvature of the light +illusion" is not evidence. It's an assertion, and a baseless one." - Round Earth TomB

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Apparently, some people need to brush up on what atmospheric refraction can and cannot do. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

If atmospheric refraction can affect electromagnetic waves, then an electromagnetic force is not going to cause light to bend upwards.

Atmospheric refraction and its effects are well documented and accounted for. Their effects can be mitigated with certain apparati and techniques. (This also led me to the atmospheric diffraction page, which started me thinking on the whole FE concept of the atmolayer or dome, and how the concept claims that the dome is hiding the true size of the sun and it is merely a projection that we are seeing. Yet, when you account for diffraction, you get a consistent size of the sun, no matter what). Hmm

[pb1985]

There are a few, probably insurmountable problems with this right off the bat, including but not limited to:

1) If FE were true, any subversive truth is going to be swarmed with disinfo and disinfo agents, so taking one's word on an internet forum is out the window.
2) There's no way to verify the camera is not slightly pointing upward (even unintentionally), which would elevate the center line of the perspective field. Neither is there any way to verify it wasn't cropped and the photo bottom cut off disproportionately to the top, even unwittingly.
3) We've seen footage from far higher where the horizon line was momentarily revealed, and it appeared to be at eye level (e.g. the Baumgartner footage)

[Bastian Baasch]

There are a few, probably insurmountable problems with this right off the bat, including but not limited to:

1) If FE were true, any subversive truth is going to be swarmed with disinfo and disinfo agents, so taking one's word on an internet forum is out the window.

Lol, are you implying there is an organized effort to subvert FE? And some users are disinfo agents? Do you think we live in a Hollywood movie or something?

[pb1985]

'Do you think we live in a Hollywood movie?'   'You actually think disinformation exists?'

The UK was caught putting on entire call center-like operations of shills posting on internet forums, and such work could easily be contracted out, and repeatedly has been shown to be for political campaigns, ballot items, etc. You couldn't be more naïve, or look more uneducated, and you're not convincing/fooling anyone.

[Bastian Baasch]

'Do you think we live in a Hollywood movie?'   'You actually think disinformation exists?'

The UK was caught putting on entire call center-like operations of shills posting on internet forums, and such work could easily be contracted out, and repeatedly has been shown to be for political campaigns, ballot items, etc. You couldn't be more naïve, or look more uneducated, and you're not convincing/fooling anyone.

You're forgetting one essential fact: this is a flat earth forum. Why would any government have any interest in that? No one stands to benefit from posting
stuff here. The shape of the earth doesn't directly affect your life, politics does to some extent.

For some reason, I feel like you'd be the kind of person to take this shitpost seriously.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13757.msg184956#msg184956

[pb1985]

If you think Earth and universe models don't matter in politics or social engineering, you're just dumb, to be frank, or are a shill. Either way, not worth spending much time on.

[Bastian Baasch]

If you think Earth and universe models don't matter in politics or social engineering, you're just dumb, to be frank, or are a shill. Either way, not worth spending much time on.

Hah! I was wondering how long it would take you to say I was a shill! Just saying, based on your statement, I guess that means everyone here but you, flat earther and round earther, is a shill, because, I quote "There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort. There is a Space Travel Conspiracy." Right from the tfes wiki, https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

[WellRoundedIndividual]

pb1985, how do we know that you aren't a communist shill trying to undermine the minds of young people?

I mean, do you really want to go down the rabbit hole of making wild accusations and conspiracies? What if you are actually an RE proponent disguising yourself as a FEer and trying to undermine the FE movement by making wild accusations? Or maybe you are an FEer disguising yourself as an REer disguised as an FEer, so then you are trying to undermine the REers by accusing them of being planted shills?

[pb1985]

I don't expect you to assume any of that, that I'm not a communist shill, RE spy, etc. But don't expect me to believe unverifiable, not so easily repeatable evidence. Each of us can look at the vast totality of the evidence for and against FE, and make our own judgments. Regardless of shill/disinfo questions, points 2 and 3 stand:

2) There's no way to verify the camera is not slightly pointing upward (even unintentionally), which would elevate the center line of the perspective field. Neither is there any way to verify it wasn't cropped and the photo bottom cut off disproportionately to the top, even unwittingly.
3) We've seen footage from far higher where the horizon line was momentarily revealed, and it appeared to be at eye level (e.g. the Baumgartner footage)

As for Bastian's point that it's just a [manned] space travel conspiracy and not about the shape of the Earth, why fake the satellite photos, which they've provably done repeatedly (e.g. in the Blue Marble 2012 series, among many others)?

[Max_Almond]

2) There's no way to verify the camera is not slightly pointing upward (even unintentionally), which would elevate the center line of the perspective field. Neither is there any way to verify it wasn't cropped and the photo bottom cut off disproportionately to the top, even unwittingly.

I've heard a lot of people say this sort of thing, when looking at these sorts of photos, so I can see where you're coming from. But if you test it for yourself, you'll see that neither camera tilt nor cropping can have any effect on the apparent height order of mountains or any other object.

3) We've seen footage from far higher where the horizon line was momentarily revealed, and it appeared to be at eye level (e.g. the Baumgartner footage)

Even the flat earthers here will agree that there's no evidence that the horizon rises to eye level, and that there's plenty to show that it doesn't.

As for Bastian's point that it's just a [manned] space travel conspiracy and not about the shape of the Earth, why fake the satellite photos, which they've provably done repeatedly (e.g. in the Blue Marble 2012 series, among many others)?

Blue Marble 2012 was a composite, not a fake. There are literally hundreds of thousands of images of the earth from space. But I suppose they're all 'fake' too?

Can I suggest you up your game a little? Research some more? Your comment reads like something from 2016: things have moved on a bit from then.

If I was a flat earther I'd be saying exactly the same thing.

[Tumeni]

2) There's no way to verify the camera is not slightly pointing upward (even unintentionally), which would elevate the center line of the perspective field. Neither is there any way to verify it wasn't cropped and the photo bottom cut off disproportionately to the top, even unwittingly.

Tilting the camera makes no difference to the alignment of elements in the frame, regardless of where you think the "center line of the perspective field" is ....

At top


Centre



Bottom

[Max_Almond]

That's a very nice demonstration of something a lot of people still struggle with.

Here are all your images overlayed in a gif:

[wmr]

Trick question.  All of the "HEIGHTS" given are relative to sea level, which is not shown in photo.  For instance, Mt. Saint Helens has a PROMINENCE of only 4606 feet.  The Mount Jefferson's PROMINENCE is 5707 feet We would need the PROMINENCE numbers of all the peaks to calculate a proper eye level calculation.  The earth is FLAT, but nobody is saying it is LEVEL!

[Tumeni]

Trick question.  All of the "HEIGHTS" given are relative to sea level, which is not shown in photo. 

Why would it need to be shown?

For instance, Mt. Saint Helens has a PROMINENCE of only 4606 feet.  The Mount Jefferson's PROMINENCE is 5707 feet We would need the PROMINENCE numbers of all the peaks to calculate a proper eye level calculation.  The earth is FLAT, but nobody is saying it is LEVEL!

Why would you need these? What would they indicate?

[Tumeni]

The UK was caught putting on entire call center-like operations of shills posting on internet forums ...

"The UK" as in ... whom?

The Government?
The public?
Someone else?

[Bikini Polaris]

Trick question.  All of the "HEIGHTS" given are relative to sea level, which is not shown in photo.  For instance, Mt. Saint Helens has a PROMINENCE of only 4606 feet.  The Mount Jefferson's PROMINENCE is 5707 feet We would need the PROMINENCE numbers of all the peaks to calculate a proper eye level calculation.  The earth is FLAT, but nobody is saying it is LEVEL!

Water is level. Actually, it should be called "flat water" rather than flat earth. Each mount height is taken from the water level.