[juner]

And yes, sometimes repeating a truth is necessary

Now you just need to learn what truth means and maybe you will realize your error.

, particularly when the audience has indicated that they are obviously too slow of mind to comprehend the statement.

Last warning, refrain from personal attacks. All it does it prove that you have a weak argument (or in this case, no argument). But that is apparent to anyone reading the thread.

Reported for abuse of moderator power.

Hi there. I am sorry you are having such a hard time following some very simple rules on how to post in the upper fora here. I am going to give you a few days off to review the rules. Please try to follow them if and when you return. If you need help finding the rules, just ask.

[Nirmala]

I wrote some more about how perspective cannot make an object disappear behind the horizon on a youtube video. Here is what I said:

This is a misunderstanding of how perspective works. On a truly flat surface, there is no mechanism involving perspective that would ever cause an object in the sky to disappear behind the distant ground, just as there is no mechanism that allows the distant earth to be hidden behind the clouds in the sky. A line of sight is a straight line and so both the line of sight to the sun and to the distant surface of a flat earth continue infinitely. The "vanishing point" in perspective is a theoretical concept as a distant object will get smaller and smaller, but it never truly leaves our line of sight solely due to perspective. We may no longer be able to see it if it becomes so small that our eye can no longer distinguish it from the surroundings, but at that point a telescope will bring it back into view by magnifying it to the point that our eye can distinguish it once again.

An object as large and bright as the sun would have to be a very great distance away from our eye for our eye to no longer be able to distinguish it from the surroundings, and again, a telescope would then bring it back into view. This does not happen with a setting sun as once the sun has set, we cannot bring it back into view with a telescope.

In fact the sun would have to be as far away as a mid sized star that our naked eye cannot see in order for it to appear to "vanish", but once again, in that case a telescope could bring it back into view.

The sun can only disappear behind the earth if the earth is blocking our line of sight to the sun. On a supposed flat earth, this never happens, and no amount of "perspective" will cause it to happen. The earth's surface may rise up to eye level, and similarly a distant object in the sky will drop down to eye level, but neither one will ever rise up or drop down enough to hide the other. The surface of the earth never rises above eye level, and the distant object in the sky never drops down below eye level, so again neither one can hide the other. One or the other would have to rise or drop more than the other and this does not happen due to perspective alone.

[Poseidon]

So, JUNKER, when you have no valid argument, go ahead and abuse the Moderator power. Smooth move, Dude. Truly makes you look mature.

[juner]

So, JUNKER, when you have no valid argument, go ahead and abuse the Moderator power. Smooth move, Dude. Truly makes you look mature.

No, pOSEIDON, I simply enforce the rules of the fora. It seems you did not bother to read those rules during your time off, as you are still complaining about moderation in a thread where you were already warned/banned for that. I really don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. I would suggest that you stay on topic, and use the methods available if you have a complaint. This is the only warning I will give you. Next one is a week ban.

[totallackey]

I have a feeling that if enough supposedly flat water collected in the tip of Lake Michigan to hide 2/3 or more of a skyscraper, then quite a few people would have drowned.

We're is your proof?  How much is "greater" amounts?  By my calculation you have to have about 280 feet greater.  I'm not going to believe you until you can prove it.

So, you are now claiming the water in Lake Michigan remains flat?

While the ocean experiences waves of larger magnitude of course, I can assure you the water in Lake Michigan regularly experiences swells and waves of oceanic proportions.

Your calculations are wrong.

[Nirmala]

I have a feeling that if enough supposedly flat water collected in the tip of Lake Michigan to hide 2/3 or more of a skyscraper, then quite a few people would have drowned.

We're is your proof?  How much is "greater" amounts?  By my calculation you have to have about 280 feet greater.  I'm not going to believe you until you can prove it.

So, you are now claiming the water in Lake Michigan remains flat?

While the ocean experiences waves of larger magnitude of course, I can assure you the water in Lake Michigan regularly experiences swells and waves of oceanic proportions.

Your calculations are wrong.

Wow, a flat earther that claims that water is not always flat! Any rise in the water at that end of the lake caused by overall wind patterns would be relatively level, or it is not water we are talking about (remember that level is not the same thing as flat: level refers to the distance from the center of the earth which would remain constant on the surface of a body of water). Any tide-like surge caused by steady winds would affect all of the water in the area equally. Any waves would not be large enough to hide 2/3 to 3/4 of a sky scraper. Besides, the pictures were taken from a boat which at times would have been on top of the waves, so any hiding of the skyline by wave action would come and go as the boat itself rose and fell on the waves. Here is the original video:
 

The water was relatively calm that day with what appears to be a 1-2 foot swell which would have a negligible effect on the view of the skyline.

There is no question that he could still see the skyline, but the only explanation for why a larger and larger portion of it was hidden as he got farther away is that the earth itself is curved and so the average surface of the water is curved also.

[totallackey]

Wow, a flat earther that claims that water is not always flat! Any rise in the water at that end of the lake caused by overall wind patterns would be relatively level, or it is not water we are talking about (remember that level is not the same thing as flat: level refers to the distance from the center of the earth which would remain constant on the surface of a body of water). Any tide-like surge caused by steady winds would affect all of the water in the area equally.

Assumption.

Any waves would not be large enough to hide 2/3 to 3/4 of a sky scraper.

Thinks conditions on a lake the size of Michigan are consistent across the board.

Besides, the pictures were taken from a boat which at times would have been on top of the waves, so any hiding of the skyline by wave action would come and go as the boat itself rose and fell on the waves. Here is the original video:
 

The water was relatively calm that day with what appears to be a 1-2 foot swell which would have a negligible effect on the view of the skyline.

Thinks swells are consistent across the board.

There is no question that he could still see the skyline, but the only explanation for why a larger and larger portion of it was hidden as he got farther away is that the earth itself is curved and so the average surface of the water is curved also.

Incorrect.

From the pic insert, it is clear to see there are atmospheric conditions already present, possible hindrance  to ideal viewing.

[Nirmala]

Yes, I do assume that water remains roughly level, with exceptions for tide (negligible on the Great Lakes), wind or storm surges which can only affect fairly large areas at any particular point in time due to the fact that water remains roughly level, and waves, which were also negligible that day. The waves were fairly consistent through out the boat trip on a clear day, so yes, I am also assuming there were no giant waves between the boat and Chicago at any point during their short trip across the lake. In addition, any wind caused surge of water would have lifted the boat up higher which would have given them an easier time seeing more of the skyline than normal. If you truly think that a wind caused surge was high enough and somehow magically localized enough to hide the skyline, you would still need to explain why there was not large scale flooding as a result...unless the wind somehow created a giant hill of water in the middle of the lake....which is ridiculous. With average wave heights of 1-2 feet during their entire trip, and little or no apparent whitecaps, I would guess that the wind speed was under 15 mph for the entire trip, which again is not enough to cause much of a surge.

Please explain what atmospheric conditions would hide the lower 3/4 of a building 40 miles away, but allow the top 1/4 to remain visible. The building is not that high that there would be a significant difference in the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the bottom of the building versus the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the top of the building, so any atmospheric effects would be equivalent for all parts of the building. Remember, both top and bottom of the buildings are 42.6 miles away at the time the most distant image was recorded, so the amount of atmosphere involved is almost completely equivalent.

[Flatout]

I have a feeling that if enough supposedly flat water collected in the tip of Lake Michigan to hide 2/3 or more of a skyscraper, then quite a few people would have drowned.

We're is your proof?  How much is "greater" amounts?  By my calculation you have to have about 280 feet greater.  I'm not going to believe you until you can prove it.

So, you are now claiming the water in Lake Michigan remains flat?

While the ocean experiences waves of larger magnitude of course, I can assure you the water in Lake Michigan regularly experiences swells and waves of oceanic proportions.

Your calculations are wrong.

So, you must have done some calculations yourself then to determine that mine are wrong.  How high do you propose the water swell was to obscure that much of the Chicago skyline?  Use the 42 statue mile location and skyline view at the start of their journey.

[totallackey]

Yes, I do assume that water remains roughly level, with exceptions for tide (negligible on the Great Lakes), wind or storm surges which can only affect fairly large areas at any particular point in time due to the fact that water remains roughly level, and waves, which were also negligible that day. The waves were fairly consistent through out the boat trip on a clear day, so yes, I am also assuming there were no giant waves between the boat and Chicago at any point during their short trip across the lake. In addition, any wind caused surge of water would have lifted the boat up higher which would have given them an easier time seeing more of the skyline than normal. If you truly think that a wind caused surge was high enough and somehow magically localized enough to hide the skyline, you would still need to explain why there was not large scale flooding as a result...unless the wind somehow created a giant hill of water in the middle of the lake....which is ridiculous. With average wave heights of 1-2 feet during their entire trip, and little or no apparent whitecaps, I would guess that the wind speed was under 15 mph for the entire trip, which again is not enough to cause much of a surge.

Please explain what atmospheric conditions would hide the lower 3/4 of a building 40 miles away, but allow the top 1/4 to remain visible. The building is not that high that there would be a significant difference in the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the bottom of the building versus the amount of atmosphere between the viewer and the top of the building, so any atmospheric effects would be equivalent for all parts of the building. Remember, both top and bottom of the buildings are 42.6 miles away at the time the most distant image was recorded, so the amount of atmosphere involved is almost completely equivalent.

Wow.

How about fog?

How about smog?

Choose one.

Here is one of LA.





EDIT: was going to change/decrease image size,changes reverted
- junker

[phayes9891]

Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?

The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.

Flat earthers simply have no factual information of a flat earth.

I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and doing some searching on the forum. Aside from that, your post is completely irrelevant and off topic. I am not sure what it will take to get you to follow very simple rules, but it seems that you refuse. Have a couple week vacation to review the rules.

I agree with Poseidon, Gecko's comment definitely was relevant. Certainly more relevant than your comments Junker...
There is no scientific evidence that supports a flat earth. The only thing you guys have going for you are the conspiracy theorists that think everything is a lie. No matter how much evidence and proof there is for a globe, it's still all some huge hoax. There isn't even a logical reason to hide the shape of the world...

[juner]

I agree with Poseidon, Gecko's comment definitely was relevant. Certainly more relevant than your comments Junker...

That is fantastic that you have an opinion. It is totally irrelevant and off-topic, but it is yours nonetheless. So, consider this a warning for off-topic posting.

There is no scientific evidence that supports a flat earth.

Do you have evidence to support your outlandish claim?

The only thing you guys have going for you are the conspiracy theorists that think everything is a lie.

False.

No matter how much evidence and proof there is for a globe, it's still all some huge hoax. There isn't even a logical reason to hide the shape of the world...

You have a nice strawman going so far, but I would suggest maybe actually sticking to arguments people are actually making in the thread if you are going to participate.



On another note, I want to thank round earthers for literally proving my point I made all the way back on the first page:

The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.

Several of you have literally behaved in the exact way I described. Well done.

[inquisitive]

I agree with Poseidon, Gecko's comment definitely was relevant. Certainly more relevant than your comments Junker...

That is fantastic that you have an opinion. It is totally irrelevant and off-topic, but it is yours nonetheless. So, consider this a warning for off-topic posting.

There is no scientific evidence that supports a flat earth.

Do you have evidence to support your outlandish claim?

The only thing you guys have going for you are the conspiracy theorists that think everything is a lie.

False.

No matter how much evidence and proof there is for a globe, it's still all some huge hoax. There isn't even a logical reason to hide the shape of the world...

You have a nice strawman going so far, but I would suggest maybe actually sticking to arguments people are actually making in the thread if you are going to participate.



On another note, I want to thank round earthers for literally proving my point I made all the way back on the first page:

The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.

Several of you have literally behaved in the exact way I described. Well done.

There are enough measurements of distances, angle of the sun, satellite operation, verified maps etc. to prove a round earth.

[juner]

There are enough measurements of distances, angle of the sun, satellite operation, verified maps etc. to prove a round earth.

These are fantastic claims. Tremendous claims. You should provide evidence for them if you want to use them to support your position.

[inquisitive]

There are enough measurements of distances, angle of the sun, satellite operation, verified maps etc. to prove a round earth.

These are fantastic claims. Tremendous claims. You should provide evidence for them if you want to use them to support your position.

The evidence is available, as you know.  Please provide details of any published information you believe to be untrue.  eg. Satellite TV reception and how you believe it works.  Also any incorrect measured distances.

[juner]

The evidence is available, as you know.  Please provide details of any published information you believe to be untrue.
eg. Satellite TV reception and how you believe it works.  Also any incorrect measured distances.

Sorry, friend, that is not how the burden of proof works. You are the one making the claim. It isn't on me to 'prove you wrong'^TM

[inquisitive]

The evidence is available, as you know.  Please provide details of any published information you believe to be untrue.
eg. Satellite TV reception and how you believe it works.  Also any incorrect measured distances.

Sorry, friend, that is not how the burden of proof works. You are the one making the claim. It isn't on me to 'prove you wrong'^TM

You are disagreeing with known accepted information.  eg. do you disagree with the accepted map and measurements of Australia?

If you disagree with measured distances of Australia then 'you' need to provide your version.  It's easy to say 'prove it' yet you have not provided your measurements.

Similarly the operation of satellites with dish angles proves a transmitter over the equator, see the various angle calculators and check their maths.

[juner]

You are disagreeing with known accepted information. 

Where did I do that?

If you disagree with measured distances of Australia then 'you' need to provide your version.  It's easy to say 'prove it' yet you have not provided your measurements.

Similarly the operation of satellites with dish angles proves a transmitter over the equator, see the various angle calculators and check their maths.

Was this supposed to be relevant? In the amount of time you have spent posting, it seems you could have just provided evidence for your claims.

[andruszkow]

Rules or not and whether you follow them yourself, junker, you are being intentionally obnoxious. Even to a point that reignites the plausibility of this site and its developers/admins/owner(s) being massive trolls.

[juner]

Rules or not and whether you follow them yourself, junker, you are being intentionally obnoxious. Even to a point that reignites the plausibility of this site and its developers/admins/owner(s) being massive trolls.

I am not sure if you just don't know how the rules work, or don't understand what transpired in the thread thus far, but there is a place where you can post suggestions or concerns. If you need help finding it, please just ask. I will ask that you please refrain from off-topic and low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.