The Biggest Lie of All - (Videos)

a reply to: theMediator

I'm sorry...are you preaching at me?

'Cause that's not going to fly.

I have a supremely open mind, but I don't do stupidity.

Giving credence - of any kind - to stupidity only sets people backwards. It's how witches got burned, it's how religious fundamentalism operates and it relies on people being gullible.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: theMediator

I'm sorry...are you preaching at me?

'Cause that's not going to fly.

I have a supremely open mind, but I don't do stupidity.

Giving credence - of any kind - to stupidity only sets people backwards. It's how witches got burned, it's how religious fundamentalism operates and it relies on people being gullible.

You are the gullible one for accepting, having faith, in something you can't prove yourself. Witches got burned EXACTLY because people we're like you, accepted only one side of the argument and we're sure that they we're right. Regligious fundamentalists act EXACTLY the way you do.

I can't preach at you because your ego is larger than yourself. You think you are open minded but your opinion tells me the contrary.

The only way you could win this argument is to erase my post, do it, just like you would burn the books that don't "fly" with you...for the sake of what you consider intelligence and what I consider fear and ignorance.

a reply to: theMediator

If you stand at Earth's north pole, Polaris is directly above you. If you stand at the equator, Polaris is on the horizon. If you are at a location between the north pole and the equator, Polaris occupies an intermediate position above the horizon. In other words, Polaris is a useful marker to help you determine where north is, and at what latitude you are located. Your latitudinal position is equal to the elevation above the horizon. At the north pole (90 degrees latitude ) Polaris is overhead at an altitude of 90 degrees. At the equator (zero degrees latitude) Polaris is at an altitude of zero degrees. The same is true for any location on Earth. For example, Cleveland, Ohio, is at a latitude of about 42 degrees north of the equator; Polaris can be observed at an altitude 42 degrees above the horizon.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Why does the altitude of Polaris correspond to one's latitude in the northern hemisphere? How could this be if the Earth is flat?

For an observer at the north pole Polaris is overhead. Straight up. Observers at the equator have a horizontal/level line of sight to Polaris. That means they would be looking towards the observer at the north pole and Polaris simultaneously if the Earth were flat. How could that be?

a reply to: theMediator

If earth is flat why does the sun appear at different altitudes from different latitudes along a single longitude at a single point in time? If it's because of parallax and the sun is relatively close to the flat earth (some few thousand miles away) then answer this; why does the sun maintain what is effectively a constant width from rising, to transiting the local meridian, to setting? It should change in apparent width dramatically if it's only a few thousand miles above a flat earth. With that single simple proof I know for a fact that the earth is round, not flat.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Yes, good argument!

The only way I can think of that this scenario would be possible in a flat world would be if Polaris wasn't really that far...at 111 km, if Polaris is directly over the physical north pole of the earth, it would be 1 degree above the horizon at the ecuador. Logically, even on the ocean, everything under 5~ degrees of the horizon would be hard to see even with a telescope. From this link, telescope aren't used under 15 degrees because of many factors...

So even at 5 degrees, Polaris would need to be about 555~ km up from the north pole for it to not be seen from most of the southern hemisphere. Some flat earth thories say that the sun much closer because the sky would be a screen, an illusion of some sort.

I'm playing devils advocate here, the north star is one of the strongest points of the globe theory.

a reply to: theMediator

Sorry, but what you've posted is laughable.

You're trying to turn the tables on accepted science fact by suggesting it's to do with my ego, while at the same time preaching an extreme minority viewpoint at the world.

You also tried to obfuscate further by taking a contrived dig at the fact that I'm a moderator.

And that's the key to all of these flat earth BS arguments. Deny science, obfuscate issues to endless degrees and try and make out that people who don't support the stupidity are somehow lacking in the capability to think for themselves.

a reply to: theMediator
Thank you for the reply.

Now let's move to 45 deg N lat. The distance to the north pole is about 3117 miles. Polaris would now be at about 3117 miles above the Earth.

Also, what about diametrically opposed observers at the equator? They're looking at each other and an observer at the pole while all three have their scopes aimed at Polaris in a flat Earth scenario.

I can't consider the flat Earth 'theory' to be rational or plausible.

a reply to: ngchunter

Great argument too!

The percieved size of the sun as a lot to do with the atmosphere. In theory, the closer it is to the horizon, the bigger it becomes. So the sun might be farther but the angle would make it appear bigger. So during the day, our perception of the size of the sun could stay close to 1/1.

Again, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate!

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: theMediator
Thank you for the reply.

Now let's move to 45 deg N lat. The distance to the north pole is about 3117 miles. Polaris would now be at about 3117 miles above the Earth.

Could you futher explain the idea?

In a flat earth idea where polaris would be 111 km up, I counted that differences in latitude would relate to the degrees so I don't understand that part hehe

a reply to: neformore

I never once argumented against you on the flat earth idea, I argumented on :

originally posted by: neformore
The only thing I'm scared of is my kids growing up in a world where idiots peddle stupidity.

That's when I defended the point that having different ideas and theories isn't a bad thing while you act like the ones that burned the books that didn't agree with them.

I defended the ideology of freedom of expression, I never with you debated the flat earth theory and now you attack me for things I didn't even say and never 100% believed in.

Yes, I get the point that your a moderator on a conspiracy forum that feels like things just shouldn't be discussed yet, I don't know why you feel so inclined on attacking me for what I didn't debate with you at all.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: theMediator
Thank you for the reply.

Now let's move to 45 deg N lat. The distance to the north pole is about 3117 miles. Polaris would now be at about 3117 miles above the Earth.

Could you futher explain the idea?

In a flat earth idea where polaris would be 111 km up, I counted that differences in latitude would relate to the degrees so I don't understand that part hehe

The legs of an isoceles right triangle are equal. In a FE scenario, observing from 45* N, Polaris' height above the pole would be equal to the observer's distance from the pole which is about 3117 miles. Hence Polaris would need to be about 3117 miles above the pole.

originally posted by: theMediator
You are the gullible one for accepting, having faith, in something you can't prove yourself. Witches got burned EXACTLY because people we're like you, accepted only one side of the argument and we're sure that they we're right. Regligious fundamentalists act EXACTLY the way you do.

I think the people who use their own critical thinking skills and their own observational skills to be able to understand and recognize that the earth actually is a sphere are the same people who would have likely been against the burning of witches.

It is more likely to be the people who are handcuffed by dogma (such as religious fundamentalists) who choose to ignore all of the evidence that the Earth is a sphere that could be found by critical thinking and observation, and instead believe that the earth is flat because some guy on a Youtube video says so, and they don't bother doing a check on that Youtuber's facts and methodology.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I am unaware of how much or little you are aware of your own knowledge or lack there of .

Let me help you with that. In the vid you posted from "Jeranism", he mocks the scientific explanation of a superior mirage. I'll tell you what, if that explanation is incorrect for why Chicago was seen across the lake from that distance and it's really because the Earth is flat, then such an observation should be possible routinely. As in every #ing day. You got that?

There's a little about what I know and am aware of.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: theMediator
Thank you for the reply.

Now let's move to 45 deg N lat. The distance to the north pole is about 3117 miles. Polaris would now be at about 3117 miles above the Earth.

Could you futher explain the idea?

In a flat earth idea where polaris would be 111 km up, I counted that differences in latitude would relate to the degrees so I don't understand that part hehe

The legs of an isoceles right triangle are equal. In a FE scenario, observing from 45* N, Polaris' height above the pole would be equal to the observer's distance from the pole which is about 3117 miles. Hence Polaris would need to be about 3117 miles above the pole.

I don't see the way you see it...
Here's are my windows paint talents to explain how I calculated the theorical height of polaris in a flat earth model, considering that it isn't viewable from the southern hemisphere...



Edit, dang it's small to read...CTRL on keyboard + mouse wheel to zoom in/out for people that don't know!

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: theMediator
You are the gullible one for accepting, having faith, in something you can't prove yourself. Witches got burned EXACTLY because people we're like you, accepted only one side of the argument and we're sure that they we're right. Regligious fundamentalists act EXACTLY the way you do.

I think the people who use their own critical thinking skills and their own observational skills to be able to understand and recognize that the earth actually is a sphere are the same people who would have likely been against the burning of witches.

It is more likely to be the people who are handcuffed by dogma (such as religious fundamentalists) who choose to ignore all of the evidence that the Earth is a sphere that could be found by critical thinking and observation, and instead believe that the earth is flat because some guy on a Youtube video says so, and they don't bother doing a check on that Youtuber's facts and methodology.

But no, it doesn't make sense...People handcuffed by dogma, would of believe that the witches would of need to be burnt because that's what the authority said and asked...just like the people in power claim the earth is a globe now.

A random guy on YouTube back then could be compared to an heretic because he is speaking against the dogma.

You can't compare the idea that back then, everyone used to believe that the earth was flat to the idea that of now, everyone believes the earth is a sphere while the norm has been reversed. They burned witches because it was against the norm to be one but now it's flat earthers that are against the norm.

So I really don't see what you are trying to explain, you seem to be comparing apple and oranges.

originally posted by: theMediator
That's when I defended the point that having different ideas and theories isn't a bad thing while you act like the ones that burned the books that didn't agree with them.

If you choose to judge me on one issue then that is your problem. I think you'd find that in the 10 years I've been around ATS I've been very balanced on most esoteric subjects.

The flat earth rubbish is not one of them.

I defended the ideology of freedom of expression, I never with you debated the flat earth theory and now you attack me for things I didn't even say and never 100% believed in.

You do realise that other people can read this page, and your comments, and the fact that you are arguing the case for the theory in some other posts at the same time as you are saying this, don't you?

Yes, I get the point that your a moderator on a conspiracy forum that feels like things just shouldn't be discussed yet, I don't know why you feel so inclined on attacking me for what I didn't debate with you at all.

Yes. I'm a moderator on a conspiracy forum - and....?

I expressed my personal opinion on the subject - and are we not discussing it now?

Has the discussion of the subject continued over 10 pages here?

Has it stopped?

Maybe someone could help with my calculations here...

I might be wrong, but I counted in a sphere earth, everytime someone would go from north to south 111km, he would also to downwards about 32~ km...

The earth is about 40 075km in circumference which would translate 111km~ per degree, 40 075/360 = 111, 32 km
The height of the earth is 6371 km, there are 180 degree per sides of the earth, so 1 degree would equal 35~ km.

So, traingulating the distances, traveling 1 degree south from the north pole, you would be going 111km in earth distance, 35km down from the top and 105~km perpendicularly from the north pole...all approximative, that's why I need help.

I've been in planes a lot and I'm pretty sure I've seen distances up to 111 km, yet anyone would notice if there was a 32 km drop...of course, human perception, atmosphere, gravity bending light and surely other factors make this a bit hard to base on our own observational skills.

So, I'm thinking my calculation must be wrong because if they are right, or at least somewhat, then how come the curvature of the earth isn't easily seen from a plane?

originally posted by: neformore
You do realise that other people can read this page, and your comments, and the fact that you are arguing the case for the theory in some other posts at the same time as you are saying this, don't you?

I thought I was clear on my opinion that I'm 60% in favor of the spherical earth theory? Yes, a couple of posts asked me to "defend" the flat earth theory and I've clearly said that I was playing a devil's advocate. My name, theMediator is what I am. I know people can't follow particular members but that's usually the way I post and debate. I like so stand in the middle...even my signature says it : "The truth lies somewhere in the middle... ".

originally posted by: neformore
Yes. I'm a moderator on a conspiracy forum - and....?

I expressed my personal opinion on the subject - and are we not discussing it now?

Has the discussion of the subject continued over 10 pages here?

Has it stopped?

No and thank you for not stoping it, but it's still seems that your grounded opinion is that you wouldn't want people to discuss in what you consider rubish...something which I consider food for thought.

a reply to: theMediator

Because you have to go high enough to see it. It's seen quite easily from high altitude. At low altitude you're too close to the horizon to see it.

originally posted by: theMediator
a reply to: ngchunter

Great argument too!

The percieved size of the sun as a lot to do with the atmosphere. In theory, the closer it is to the horizon, the bigger it becomes.

Wrong. Increasing atmospheric density with decreasing altitude is non-linear and results in greater refraction away from the horizon at lower altitudes causing the lower limb of the sun to be refracted by a significantly greater amount than the upper limb. The end result is that the sun's image is vertically compressed, not expanded. The sun is actually vertically smaller on the horizon than high in the sky (but the width is essentially constant). The "perception" that it is larger is purely an optical illusion. I am talking about the apparent size, which is a measured value, not your personal perception and it is not larger due to the atmosphere.

Again, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate!

No, you're playing an ignorant person who knows nothing about astronomy or the planet you live on.