It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

a point by point demolition of the flat earth claims

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey




First, provide everyone here, for our edification and enlightenment, all the claims I have made here. Go ahead, make our day.


Sure, no problem

From Page 6


According to MATHEMATICS (remember, you want us to deny our eyes and rely on the numbers) the curvature would not be visible at any altitude occupied by commercial airliners...what is your point?


And a follow up claim, with no proof


I am just asking you to accept the one indicating how high up we humans must be in altitude prior to actually seeing curvature...Really...Just print that one...and then explain why I have a picture of the Chicago skyline on my crappy smartphone camera from over 20 miles distant in NW Indiana...do not let the door hit you in your arse on the way out.


And again, on the same point, page 7


I actively avoided addressing the point of windows of an airplane because it is not necessary to the true point. The true point is NO curvature of the Earth can be ascertained at commercial airline altitude. Anyone who claims they can see the Earth's curvature at that level of altitude is a lying asshat according to the math.


Another similar claim, again no proof offered


I am aware of inversions; however, I assure you, this is not the case. The Chicago Skyline is visible a vast majority of the time from my vantage point and, according to the math, should not be visible at all. Period. End of sentence. End of argument.


Claiming that every space image ever of a spherical earth is rubbish


The images from NASA and all other space agencies are CONSTRUCTS/COMPOSITES/PHOTOSHOPPED CRAP...And the asshats are caught in their own words...


And here, with no explanation whatsoever, from page 8



Conclusion of impossibility - Wrong.

Conclusion of impossibility - Wrong.

Explained.


And here you go, dismissing a very well respected scientist, with absolutely no evidence to support the statement, other than an inability to comprehend it


Except for the fact it is double speak and virtually meaningless


Again, more claims of false images, with no evidence to support your argument


Dude, your first demonstration is nowhere near a freaking pear.

And your other images from NASA are photoshopped or otherwise altered. All NASA images are either:

Photoshopped;
Composites; or,
Artist renditions.


Quite unsubstantiated, and no evidence offered


Even the ones taken in the 60s and 70s using fim cameras?

Especially those. We just started to blow out Ray Harryhausen and Kubrick was especially happy to do it


More claims of your own evidence from page 9. Why don't you post them with your coordinates so they can be verified?


I took a thirty second video yesterday with my phone, along with eight pictures or so. Today, I am going back up there to the same spot. I will take some more photos to see if the skyline is visible. I want to capture the skyline in as many different conditions as possible.


So you say you make no claims, but in reality you do.




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

edit on 27-3-2016 by totallackey because: poor formatting



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I've seen evidence of a spherical Earth by looking at the tops of the building of Toronto across 30 miles of Lake Ontario.

Sure -- my eye were an inch above lake level, I wouldn't see very far over the lake horizon, which would only be a few feet. However,a six-foot tall person can see a water horizon to about 3 miles away.

Granted, 3 miles is not 30 miles. like when I cab see Toronto across the lake. HOWEVER, I never claimed to be able to see all of Toronto -- just the tops of the tall buildings. Just like a 6-foot tall person can see a farther horizon than a person with their eyes only an inch from the water level, the line of sight from the tall buildings of Toronto can see much farther -- and conversely, can be seen from much farther.

For every 10 feet of height, another 1 mile or so of visibility is added to the line of sight (that's a very rough approximation, but close). So for 750-foot tall building should be just visible above the horizon from 70-ish miles away from a 6-foot tall person standing at the shoreline. Form 30 miles away, that person should be able to see more than the top half of that building....

...BUT THEY WONT SEE THE BOTTOM HALF, because that have is below the curvature of the spherical Earth.

If I wanted to see even more of Toronto (say the bottom parts of the buildings) from across the lake, I would just need to get myself higher. If I were on a 300-foot high cliff instead of just 6 feet above the lake level (a 6-foot tall person standing at the shore), I should just be able to see 30 miles across the lake, and maybe just make out the base of those buildings, because my higher elevation would allow me to see farther over the curvature of the earth.

Heck -- if you include thermal inversions (mirages), the I might be able to see the tops of the Toronto skyline from 100 miles away -- especially if I were on a higher piece of ground, say a couple hundred feet above the water level.

Thermal inversions are a real thing. In fact, when you see the sun set over the horizon, it had already set (astronomically speaking) a minute or so earlier, but due to mirages created by thermal inversions, the sun appears to be above the horizon when really it isn't.


[disclaimer: not my own images. Image sources here and here]

edit on 3/27/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.




The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.


Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Here is the bottom line.

I have stated my current opinion on the OP. That is all it is. My opinion based on current understanding.

I have stated my opinion on follow up posts made by other members here. That is all that is.

I apologize for my strong language in response to a couple of these posts.

I will post my own thread with my own photos after I gather a series of photographs, along with times and dates.

edit on 27-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.




The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.


Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.




Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...
edit on 27-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

Curvature was visible from the Concorde, several types of business jets that fly around 50,000 feet, U-2 and SR-71 pilots (when they were flying) on every flight. It's usually not from the average commercial plane, but those aren't the only things flying, are they.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

it takes a special class of scientiffic illiteracy to post a cite that actually refutes your own claim :


5. Summary and Conclusions
In view of the agreement between the visual observations,
measurements of the photographs, and the
theoretical curvatures, it seems well established that
the curvature of the Earth is reasonably well understood
and can be measured from photographs. The
threshold elevation for detecting curvature would
seem to be somewhat less than 35; 000 ft but not
as low as 14; 000 ft. Photographically, curvature may
be measurable as low as 20; 000 ft

edit on 27-3-2016 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: totallackey

it takes a special class of scientiffic illiteracy to post a cite that actually refutes your own claim :



One final message and reply. Here is the quoted external text again...

5. Summary and Conclusions In view of the agreement between the visual observations, measurements of the photographs, and the theoretical curvatures, it seems [emphasis mine)well established that the curvature of the Earth is reasonably well understood and can be measured (emphasis mine)from photographs. The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35; 000 ft but not as low as 14; 000 ft. Photographically, curvature may be measurable as low as 20; 000 ft

Notice the words: SEEMS! And MEASURED!

In other words- Not seen, SEEMS! And even then MEASURED!

And that is up for debate as far as I am concerned. Simply because it is imperceptible, remember...according to you guys...

E2A: Lackey really out...
edit on 27-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey
As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.


Maybe Tyson is a douche and maybe he isn't (I don't know because I never met the guy). However, even if he is a douche, his level of douchebaggery does not change the fact that an apt metaphor describing something that is fatter on the bottom than it is on the top is indeed "pear".

I realize that the "pear-ness" may be too subtle to see with your eyes because the measured difference between the fat part and the other diameters is only 0.0035% of a difference. So no, it does not really look like a pear if your were looking at it.

BUT Neil DeGrasse Tyson even SAYS HIMSELF that you wouldn't be able to see it by just looking at it. So I don't understand the problem. It is in fact something that can be described as "pear shaped" (fatter around the bottom than around the top), even if you need to take precise measurements to notice the pear shape.

That would be still true even if Tyson is a douche.


edit on 3/27/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

Hang on a frikkin minute.

YOU posted it as YOUR evidence! Now because you've been called out on it is now longer evidence?

Goalposts
Moved
Again



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Goalposts
Moved
Again


As they always are whenever believers run out of things to tie into their FE / Nibiru / EU nonsense
edit on 27-3-2016 by MasterAtArms because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MasterAtArms

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: totallackey

Goalposts
Moved
Again


As they always are whenever believers run out of things to tie into their FE / Nibiru / EU nonsense


Only EU I know is the European Union. Unless it means something else?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MasterAtArms

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: totallackey

Goalposts
Moved
Again


As they always are whenever believers run out of things to tie into their FE / Nibiru / EU nonsense


Only EU I know is the European Union. Unless it means something else?


Electric Universe



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MasterAtArms

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MasterAtArms

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: totallackey

Goalposts
Moved
Again


As they always are whenever believers run out of things to tie into their FE / Nibiru / EU nonsense


Only EU I know is the European Union. Unless it means something else?


Electric Universe


Ah. Brain fart



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.




The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.


Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.




Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...



I don't understand. You just posted a link to a source that proves you are wrong. It says that the curvature was visible from the Concorde.



And name calling? Tyson a douchbag....super lame my friend.
edit on 27-3-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: totallackey

Well it is about demolishing the claims of flat earth.

You are a flat earth believer. Where's your proof? I mean, you must have some to believe it over a spherical earth, right? You wouldn't just believe something without....what's the word.... Oh yeah....proof?


Do you normally leap to unfounded conclusions in this fashion?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.




The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.


Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.




Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...



I don't understand. You just posted a link to a source that proves you are wrong. It says that the curvature was visible from the Concorde.



And name calling? Tyson a douchbag....super lame my friend.


I was confused about that one too, thinking I misread his post when he wrote:

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...
...because the very thing that he supposedly posted in order to show that the curvature cannot be seen from a plane clearly states that the curvature can if fact be seen from a plane.


Excerpts from his link:

high-altitude physicist and experienced sky observer David Gutierrez reported that as his B-57 ascends, the curvature of the horizon does not become readily sensible until about 50,000 ft and that at 60,000 ft the curvature is obvious.
and

Passengers on the Concorde (60,000ft)routinely marveled at the curvature of the Earth.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: totallackey

Well it is about demolishing the claims of flat earth.

You are a flat earth believer. Where's your proof? I mean, you must have some to believe it over a spherical earth, right? You wouldn't just believe something without....what's the word.... Oh yeah....proof?


Do you normally leap to unfounded conclusions in this fashion?

Is it that you have presented any proof? Nope, that's a fact.

Is it that you're a flat earthers (or more inclined to that thinking)? Nope, you've proved that you are.

So what unfounded conclusions?

Also, where's your proof the world is flat?



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
a reply to: totallackey


You need to work on your post, you are quoting yourself in may places instead of (presumably) responding to my statements on your quotes.


You asked me to show me where you made any claims. I did so. If you have a problem with people calling your bluff I suggest you move to other forums.




The other statements I have made need no further justification. They stand, unassailable.


Says nobody except you. This is the space forum, not skunkworks. In the space forum evidence to support claims is required. And not just meaningless words or youtube links, actual, verifiable evidence that can be examined and confirmed by others. You have presented none whatsoever. And your descent into a swearing rage a few posts ago proves that you have absolutely nothing of merit.




Thanks for the advice.

Curvature? Visible? From Planes? I do not think so...

As far as Tyson? He is a douchebag...My opinion of the guy, despite his degrees. Just how I personally find him.

Besides that, take a pear and scale it up to a size of the Earth. Then tell us: "How do we mistake that for a sphere?"

His statement and the images do not jive. You can think so if you like.

E2A: Lackey out...



I don't understand. You just posted a link to a source that proves you are wrong. It says that the curvature was visible from the Concorde.



And name calling? Tyson a douchbag....super lame my friend.


Tyson is a douchebag...my opinion.

And yep...at 60,000 feet, people reportedly to be, "routinely marveled," at the curvature...So yeah, my mistake...Concorde was a plane.

Is Concorde still flying? Did I miss something? What type of windows were on the Concorde? Did they offer over a 90 degree view? I do not think so, but I do not know... Do regular passenger planes fly at the height of the Concorde? Or did Concorde operate regularly at 40,000 feet? The paper states 60,000...

Further reading from the previously cited paper,

Reports of curvature from high mountains and commercial jets are often supported with photographs showing the putative curvature [5].Such photographs are suspect,

edit on 27-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join