It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Debunking this photo and effectively throwing a "curve-ball" at the Globe Earth myth.

page: 1
7
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:18 PM
*Update on next page! This is a discussion after all*
Any links I provide are for educational use and are imperative to support my overall conclusion.

Now that's settled, I want to bring up a subject that may rub a few the wrong way but nonetheless is of utmost importance.

Late last evening I stumbled across a picture that struck me as odd. This eventually led me down the trail of truth and I'd like some input on my findings.
The picture in question can be found here and is only one of many I found.
Chicago skyline from St Joseph MI

In this picture is a clearly visible Chicago skyline from the shores of lake Michigan in St. Joseph.

The reason I claim this picture is odd is based simply on the fact that the distance between St. Joseph and Chicago's prominent feature, Willis/Sears tower, is 97 KM or 60 Mi. Verified by google maps ruler feature.

In order for me to claim that this picture is not possible, I have to use information that a majority of people agree with.
Let's go ahead and choose the billion dollar money pit you all know as NASA.

So Nasa says that the earth is 40,000 KM or 25,000 Mi in circumference.
NASA

I mean, after all, these guys are ROCKET SCIENTISTS. So their info should be solid right? We should be able to observe your theories and "Facts" in reality, right? Isn't that science? repeatable experimentation to back a theory pertaining to our physical world?

I hope you're all following because this is where it gets crazy...

With that info, we can build an equation to calculate curvature of the earth.
Earth Curve Calculator

So when we plug in our photographer with our compiled data, we should expect that what NASA says is observable and true.

WRONG!

Let's say the observer is 6 feet tall.
Standing at the shore 97 KM away
earth curve calculation dictates that a horizontal line of sight from a fixed point at 6 feet base height will have a horizon line at just SNIP shy of 3 miles.
In other words, everything past 3 Mi from the vantage point is subject to being below the "curve."
Wait a second... How can we see Willis tower 60 MILES away, let alone most of the surrounding structures standing at a fraction of the height?!
It's not possible... according to the numbers.

We are talking about high rises though, so we'll delve deeper to give them a chance.
So according to NASA, Just how tall would a structure have to be for a 6 foot observer to witness 60 miles away?

The Answer: For a 6 foot observer to see a structure 97 KM or 60 Mi away while standing on earth, the structure would have to be NO SHORTER than 666 M or 2187 Ft.

How tall is Willis Tower........?
442 M or 1450 Ft....

So, according to NASA, the TALLEST building in Chicago should be more than 200 meters under the horizon and effectively impossible to view from our photo's vantage point.

Ask yourself, are all these amateur tourist photos spanning Lake Michigan utter fakes, or is something not quite right with NASA's data.
Remember, NASA also says that gravity pulls evenly at any point on earth towards the core. No matter what body of water, it should be subject to these same alleged rules.

MY conclusion: NASA=Not Always Scientifically Accurate.
Observation beats dogma and numbers on a screen in my book all day any day.

What do YOU think??

edit on 9/5/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: Remove inappropriate content

edit on 5-9-2015 by GanjaGuy because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:21 PM
It's a mirage. Source.

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:22 PM

NASA faked the moon landing. What more can you expect from them? You just can't take them seriously.

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:29 PM

That's so cool!

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:32 PM

Your link calls it a Superior Mirage, Which I'm sure was scientifically sounding enough to deter you from further investigation but is still untrue.

A mirage looks just like that, a mirage.
Often resulting in a mix of both inverted and right-side-up visuals in the image. Leaving it looking something like this...Mirage

Also a mirage constantly changes shape and morphs due to inconsistent conditions.

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:32 PM
But . but ,but ,oh look a squirrel in 3 2 1 :>)

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:35 PM
Yes, I have been fooled by the large words, "Superior Mirage". The fact is, this happened months ago, and most people on the site will understand the science behind the mirage effect on the lake, as spelled out in the video by this kindly weatherman in high school science terms.

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:41 PM

originally posted by: Atsbhct
It's a mirage. Source.

Sciences are so cool explaining things that make us go "what". Fata Morgana (mirage)

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:43 PM

There is so much you forgot first where you aware Chicago is 583 ft above sea level. Add the heights of the sky line to that. And the photo said 37 miles probably a boat. So how high out of the water was the photo taken. You really can't look at a picture like that and estimate anything without knowing all the details was it the second deck. Did they clime a mast?

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:44 PM

Ooooooh, cool! So I'll throw my suit on, go to tv and say a bunch of stuff that I just happen to know, call my self a weatherman and you'll just have to guess that the news channel fact checked any of what I said.

My point being that he called it a superior mirage when it wouldn't really make sense as far as that kind of mirage is defined.

A bunch of teachers told me a bunch of # my whole life in nice easy to understand high school terms. Doesn't mean they weren't fed lies as well just to perpetuate the madness.

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:44 PM

Thank you!

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:45 PM

originally posted by: GanjaGuy

Your link calls it a Superior Mirage, Which I'm sure was scientifically sounding enough to deter you from further investigation but is still untrue.

A mirage looks just like that, a mirage.
Often resulting in a mix of both inverted and right-side-up visuals in the image. Leaving it looking something like this...Mirage

Also a mirage constantly changes shape and morphs due to inconsistent conditions.

If the explanation is unsatisfactory, this photo op should be available everyday, no? Or is the Earth only flat, sometimes?

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:47 PM

originally posted by: Atsbhct

Thank you!

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:48 PM
The explanation is unsatisfactory.
The Earth is, indeed, flat. It's obvious, why is it that recently, so many have the need to convince us of that?

edit on 9/5/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:49 PM
I live on Lake Michigan and it's at least twice a week you can see Chicago if the weather is just right. Probably a Josh Nowicki photo I didn't bother to look. See it all the time.

Weko Beach or Warren Dunes campgrounds if you would like to see it yourself.

edit on 5-9-2015 by mikell because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:53 PM
Yeah.... It is a mirage, natural smoke and mirrors,a convenient illusion. Proven fact!

Not the picture that is real. The illusion is the scientific belief system that we have all been indoctrinated with. Funny how for ages things like knowledge, books, literacy, were kept from the populous, unless they wanted people to have access. Now, it is for everybody! Why then would secretsocieties and the like even exist anymore? What is the big secret? No way would they just give up power not without benefit. We still are only given what they want us to know,and can only take on it's truth as a belief, as in it is un provable for the common man. We could never afford or even be allowed to test the theories we are given as truths, we have only belief that what we are taught is truth.

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:55 PM

throwing a "curve-ball" at the Globe Earth myth.

....mmm

A new signature. Thank you ats my life complete.

edit on 5-9-2015 by nonjudgementalist because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:55 PM

Don't get sucked into the flat earth theories. Do a little study, and you'll see it's all BS. The earth isn't flat, and the universe isn't geocentric.

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:56 PM
Did you account for altitude. it's relative to sea level. The buildings or the picture might be below/above sea level enough to account for the gap you say exists. (And you know large areas of the continent can have common (topographic?) features, like a rise or fall in elevation.)

I do not know enough about the science to prove anything here, but I'm confident the stars, for example, present us a 3d projection. It's not a mere 2d texturemap like in an old game. So if the earth is indeed flat or whatever, space itself appears to be 3d. Why would space be 3d and the earth not? And far as I know we can observe the other planets rotating on their axis and they look like full bodied 3d ellipsoids. Why this trickery? You can see it in a telescope. NASA can't control what you see in your backyard. Make persistent observation and you'll see it's true.
edit on 9/5/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:57 PM
I see this effect all the time driving to work. I work in a city that is on the most western shore of Lake ontario, Hamilton ON.
I need to drive over a large bridge to get to work and I can see Toronto on a nice clear day, and sometimes I can see large lake tankers on the horizon, sometimes they look MASSIVE even at that distance, I figured it was just some sort of optics or what have you, but I've even seen half a tanker on the horizon, it's pretty cool.

7