Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« on: November 27, 2015, 05:21:32 AM »
If the earth was flat, you could see Great Britain from New York with a powerful enough  telescope with the right equipment. The old flat earth response of the the "dense -quote- "atmoplane" - unquote - could even be de-bunked with the use of infra-red film and filters in common use by amateur and professional photographers. Electronic telescopes could even be used to eliminate the -quote-"atmoplanic"-unquote- conditions.

Survivors of the Titanic disaster reported seeing stars rising and setting on the horizon.

And they were in lifeboats at practically sea level and looking through the thickest layer of the atmosphere at the stars -many of them distances in the light years away.

I used the words "atmoplane" and "atmoplanic". They are "red underlined" by "spell check" because  they are not real words. You see them only used by flat earthers instead of "atmosphere" and "atmospheric. " One more flaw in the flat earth fallacy. 
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2015, 06:59:48 AM »
The reflector telescope has been used by Mrs. Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn from Grimsby to prove that the Earth is flat.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61856.msg1624868#msg1624868 (Oshawa seen from Grimsby, 97 km distance)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616955#msg1616955 (Toronto seen from Grimsby, 55 km distance)



Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2015, 06:30:03 PM »
Thanks , sandokhan. I just posted this to see what the flat earthers would come up with next. It is a great source of entertainment. From viewers like us. Thank You !

But the plain fact that you can't see Great Britain from New York is simple. You can deny all facts and reality all you want but the earth is a globe and that is the reason you can't see Great Britain from New York.  We are speaking of several thousand miles. If you can see across a flat earth at some smaller distance, you should surely see across the ocean from any distance if the earth was flat. If the earth WAS flat, that is. Granted, after all, this is The Flat Earth Society Forum
website. ;D

If you really want to prove your point show us some pictures of Great Britain taken from New York....Sea level to sea level , that is.  Or vice-versa from Great Britain to New York.

Waiting on those pictures.  ::)

Back to the Titanic. If the earth was flat those survivors in the life boats would have seen the lights of   Carpathia much earlier than they did. And the lookouts on Carpathia would have seen the lights on those life boats, too. They were only about 58 miles apart when the distress signals were first received on Carpathia.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 06:55:05 PM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2015, 06:33:31 AM »
You posed a question: can one see Great Britain from New York?

Why not increase the difficulty of the problem: can Tunguska be seen from London?

Of course it can.




JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.


Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.



A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.



The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska):  this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Tunguska file:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)


Tesla - Tunguska:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2015, 10:42:00 PM »
I am not familiar with Tunguska, but if you will show me some pictures of Big Ben taken from Tunguska, I will be a believer. Of course there might be a few areas of obstruction in between, such as mountains, etc.

Even some pictures of the Eiffel Tower taken from London or pictures of Big Ben taken from Paris will do. This should be much easier. But I have never seen any pictures.

Or the shores of Lands Ends in the UK taken from the shores of Sandy Hook in the USA will do. This should present no problems if the earth WAS flat. There are no obstructions on a clear day - there is nothing between Sandy Hook and Lands End except the flat (?) ocean...maybe a few ships in the line of sight. With the advancement in optics , filters and other devices this would present no problems if the earth WAS flat. I should think that it should be the  concern and responsibility of The Flat Earth Society to look into this matter and supply evidence to prove that the earth WAS flat.  Flat earth answers as to why this has not been done would be interesting. This would be something for the tourist attractions at Lands End and/or Sandy Hook to look into the possibilities of installing telescopes for tourists to see  America from England and/or England from America. It should be a great tourist attraction.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 04:23:18 AM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2015, 01:01:29 AM »
You posed a question: can one see Great Britain from New York?

Why not increase the difficulty of the problem: can Tunguska be seen from London?

Of course it can.




JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.


Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.



A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.



The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska):  this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Tunguska file:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)


Tesla - Tunguska:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.

Your example of the Tunguska incident is based on one rare instance of atmospheric conditions. Has this ever been duplicated ?

Your example of Tunguska to or from London would be an impossibility even if the earth was flat.
The elevation of London is approximately 115 feet above sea level. The elevation at Tunguska is approximately 1082 feet above sea level. If there were no obstructions in between you would be able to see them.
But in between are the Ural Mountains with an elevation of approximately 6000 feet above sea level. You would have to see over the mountains.

My example of Sandy Hook to Lands End would be more realistic. They are both at about the same level - at sea level - and there are no obstructions between them but the "flat" sea. Therefore, if the earth was flat and you had the proper equipment you should be able to see across the Atlantic Ocean. If this is so, why are there no reports of this or photographic evidence of this ? In the first place, flat earth places no trust in photographs.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 05:18:39 AM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2015, 01:35:52 AM »
You posed a question: can one see Great Britain from New York?

Why not increase the difficulty of the problem: can Tunguska be seen from London?

Of course it can.




JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.


Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.



A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.



The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska):  this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Tunguska file:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)


Tesla - Tunguska:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.

So if you actually read the letter to the London Times, it clearly states that they saw a light in the sky. It was caused by  a possible explosion in the sky. How could this possibly answer or even attempt to answer whether Tunguska can be seen from London?

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2015, 05:05:55 AM »
Here is an easy one.

If the earth was flat could you see the shore line and the Casino at Avalon on Santa Catalina Island from the shore line on the California coast ? Santa Catalina Island is only 22 miles southwest of Los Angeles .

I have only seen one photograph of Santa Catalina Island taken from the California Coast and it only shows the tops of the peaks of Santa Catalina Island. Certainly not the shore line or the Casino.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catalina_Island,_California#/media/File:Catalinasil.jpg

Another example would be : If the earth was flat you should be able to see Diamond Head at Honolulu, Hawaii from any point on the California Coast. As explained on another thread, there are ample means to do this and ample means and methods to eliminate any difficulties from atmospheric conditions....haze, smog, fog etc. If the earth was flat why have no photographs showing this having ever been taken ?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 05:54:54 AM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2015, 05:40:56 AM »
You posed a question: can one see Great Britain from New York?

Why not increase the difficulty of the problem: can Tunguska be seen from London?

Of course it can.




JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.


Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.



A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.



The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska):  this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Tunguska file:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)


Tesla - Tunguska:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.

So if you actually read the letter to the London Times, it clearly states that they saw a light in the sky. It was caused by  a possible explosion in the sky. How could this possibly answer or even attempt to answer whether Tunguska can be seen from London?

Another one. Moscow is even closer than Tunguska. Why can't you see Moscow from London ?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 05:43:11 AM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2015, 06:42:28 AM »
Because you need the ball lightning technology employed by Tesla in order to create the energy needed to view such an object at very large distances.


The very fact that the explosion was seen from London, where newspapers could be read at midnight without the need of street lighting, while at the same time the light from the Sun could not be seen at all (due to the curvature of the Earth, say the RE) means one thing: there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.


Moreover, we have the eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and other villages which did see the explosion (and described it in great detail), an event which could not possibly have taken place on a spherical Earth, given the precise calculations involving curvature.


As if this wasn't enough, the very trajectory of the ball lightning object was seen from London (the letter sent to the London Times on July 1, 1908), having occurred between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (7:00 am - 7:15 am Tunguska time), exactly the FIFTEEN MINUTES calculated for the object to go from Khezma to Preobrazhenka and then back to Tunguska.


Let us read again the words of Dr. Felix Zigel,  aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation: "no natural object is capable of such a feat".



Let us remember that the explosion took place at some 7 km in the atmosphere, that is why it could be seen over great distances on the flat earth.


https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/582x643q90/203/l6sl.jpg


The explosion was seen all over Europe and Asia: newspapers could be read in Stockholm without street lighting (not to mention Berlin and Antwerp).


And we also have very detailed data showing that the lights could be seen (at a lower intensity) for three days PRIOR to the explosion: confirming the fact that Tesla was carefully preparing the experiment for it to take place on June 30, 1908 (that is, he was sending only one scalar wave in the region of Tunguska).
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 06:58:39 AM by sandokhan »

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2015, 10:17:03 PM »
You keep bringing up the Tunguska incident. And I keep bringing up the question of why I can't even see the Casino and the shore line at Santa Catalina Island - only the peaks of the mountains-from the California coast.
I suppose you have your reasons. I have only the fact that the earth is a globe and you can't see the shore line and the Casino because of the curvature of the earth.

Do you agree that I should be able to see the entire island of Santa Catalina from the coast of California if the earth was flat ? The distance  is only about 20 to 25 miles. If you don't believe me ask some California natives. I did. And they said they could not see the Casino from the Santa Monica Pier.

The distance from Point Fermin Point Park to Avalon is 25.4 miles.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 10:38:37 PM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2015, 12:27:07 AM »
You posed a question: can one see Great Britain from New York?

Why not increase the difficulty of the problem: can Tunguska be seen from London?

Of course it can.




JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.


Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.



A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.



The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska):  this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Tunguska file:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)


Tesla - Tunguska:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.

So if you actually read the letter to the London Times, it clearly states that they saw a light in the sky. It was caused by  a possible explosion in the sky. How could this possibly answer or even attempt to answer whether Tunguska can be seen from London?

A light was seen in the sky in London. But nothing of Tunguska itself was seen. What was seen from Tunguska? Big Ben ?
If Tunguska could be seen from London surely London could have been seen from Tunguska. Repeat - Quote - "How could this possibly answer or even attempt to answer whether Tunguska can be seen from London ? "- Unquote.

sandokan, if you wish to prove the earth is flat show some evidence of seeing objects beyond the horizon...those objects from ground up, that is. The distance from the observer to the horizon can be easily calculated. If the earth was flat, the distance would always be infinite. Prove otherwise if you can. 
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 05:12:14 AM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2015, 12:54:43 AM »
On the local scene, Reunion Tower in Dallas , Texas, USA is 561 feet tall.
The observation deck is 470 feet above ground level.
The calculated distance to the horizon is 29 miles.

Quote-"How far can you see from Reunion Tower ?
On a clear day, you can see Fort Worth, 32 miles to the west. And with the GeO-Deck’s new Dallas Landmarks feature, you can get a really close up look at spots all over Dallas."-Unqoute
http://www.ntdsc.org/gallery/reuniontower/

If the earth was flat, why can't I see any farther than this ?
I should be able to see San Antonio, Houston, Oklahoma City, etc ?.......
If the earth was flat  ?.....
Is Reunion  Tower a part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy ?.....
Something in the glass in the observation deck to mask out anything farther than the calculated "Round Earth Distance To The Horizon" ?
Which is a lie ?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 02:09:33 AM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2015, 06:51:12 AM »
The entire view of Catalina island can be seen from San Pedro easily, there are many photographs taken from Point Fermin (as an example) which do show this. Details like the shoreline need to be viewed with a reflector telescope, so far nobody has done this (with the exception of lake Ontario, where Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn did see the shoreline of Toronto from a distance of 55 km).

Dallas - San Antonio distance: 410 km

Dallas - Houston distance: 380 km

Certainly you are not going to see anything from Reunion Tower over such a great distance.


We do know that the County courthouse (40 meters) from Racine can be seen from 128 km distance (Holland, lake Michigan), a fact which is absolutely impossible on a round earth.


You have at your disposal the very best proof that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, yet you choose to ignore it.

Newspapers could be read in London at the very instant of the explosion in Tunguska.

The trajectory of the ball lightning object was observed for 15 minutes prior to the explosion, a fact which was uncovered decades later, yet the letter sent on July 1, 1908, states this fact very clearly.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2015, 07:55:50 PM »
We do know that these facts are known.
1 The earth is a globe and not a flat disc.
2.The horizon is a distinct line where earth (or sea) meet the sky and not some blur that fades in the distance.
3.We do know that the distance an observer can see is limited by the distance to the horizon  which is limited by the height of the observer.
4.We do know that this distance to the horizon can be easily calculated, knowing the height of the observer : The higher the observer the farther to the horizon.
5.We do know that whole flat earth fantasy is a fallacy after fallacy, has neither proof nor evidence  and has been de-bunked time after time. Period

My service in the US Navy was only 4 years. But if you wish to call all members of the Navy are liars because they know from experience that the earth is a globe and not a flat disc, this is something that would be expected from someone who claims the earth is a flat disc. I doubt that you would change your mind set even if you talked to some expert in the US Navy - or any other Navy in the world and asked them if the earth is not a globe. I doubt you will ever acknowledge reality. But that is one reason this website is a great source of entertainment. Of course everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, whether they be true or false.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 08:06:11 PM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5865
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2015, 08:17:47 PM »

We do know that these facts are known.
1 The earth is a globe and not a flat disc.
2.The horizon is a distinct line where earth (or sea) meet the sky and not some blur that fades in the distance.
3.We do know that the distance an observer can see is limited by the distance to the horizon  which is limited by the height of the observer.
4.We do know that this distance to the horizon can be easily calculated, knowing the height of the observer : The higher the observer the farther to the horizon.
5.We do know that whole flat earth fantasy is a fallacy after fallacy, has neither proof nor evidence  and has been de-bunked time after time. Period

My service in the US Navy was only 4 years. But if you wish to call all members of the Navy are liars because they know from experience that the earth is a globe and not a flat disc, this is something that would be expected from someone who claims the earth is a flat disc. I doubt that you would change your mind set even if you talked to some expert in the US Navy - or any other Navy in the world and asked them if the earth is not a globe. I doubt you will ever acknowledge reality. But that is one reason this website is a great source of entertainment. Of course everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, whether they be true or false.

1) False
2) Perspective
3) False
4) False
5) False

The rest of your soapboxing is irrelevant.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2015, 10:17:56 PM »
I'm getting out of here. If someone else wants to take it up, good luck. But you need to talk to some people out in California about Santa Catalina.See if anyone has ever seen the Casino from the coast, barring any mirages or unusual atmospheric conditions.

If you don't believe the Navy, tell it to the Marines. LOL


 














































 
« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 10:43:24 PM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5865
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2015, 10:50:00 PM »
I see you're admitting defeat. Another quality victory for FE.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2015, 10:57:52 PM »
Some of us so-called "Round Earthers" enjoy "soap boxing" just for the fun and nonsense of trying to engage in an intelligent discussion with a so-called "Flat Earther". LOL. Deleted. Covered on later post.










« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 12:41:16 AM by geckothegeek »
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

Offline geckothegeek

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 1166
    • View Profile
Re: Why can't you see Great Britain from New York on a flat earth
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2015, 11:01:10 PM »
Reality has no place on this website. Have a good day.
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !