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: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: totallackey

No, I have a problem with your interpretation of it, actually. I don't have any problem with the paper itself.

You think that you can't get a 90 degree FOV out of a plane window? Really? So when you're looking out a plane window, you can't see this?



Wow, that's news to pretty much every who has ever flown on a plane. Pilots have the best view of anyone. They have to have 180 degrees at least, so that they can see oncoming aircraft from any forward angle, or even slightly behind them if they crane around.


Like I said, don't know. But there are multiple windows, right, in a commercial airliner cockpit. It seems the illustration you provide allows for something more on the order of a military application with less windows or even a single window.

Planeparallel windows like those on most aircraft will not render a flat horizon curved, but a curved window or canopy will

Reports of curvature from high mountains and commercial jets are often supported with photographs showing the putative curvature [5].Such photographs are suspect, as Figs. 3 and 4 show. H


Better yet, take a photo of the field of view, offered in a cockpit. Seems you have a lot of connections. Can you get that done?
E2A: The author clearly states the detection of the curvature requires measurements of photographs. Please read the summary. Please make note of the words SEEMS and MEASURED. No ambiguity there. And none of the other planes have a field of vision offered like a B-57.
edit on 27-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

Multiple windows is irrelevant. They allow a wide FOV through them.

You can find many of them online easily enough. Here are three, just looking out the front windows. There are also at least two side windows beside the pilots. It's impossible to get the full FOV because of the window placement, but this gives you an idea of how good the view is.

Boeing 787:



Boeing 777:



Boeing 747 (Simulator, but it's still accurate to what you'd see in the real plane):



This is out the window in the cabin of different aircraft.

Airbus A380:



Boeing 737:



All the windows have more than a 90 degree FOV looking out them.
edit on 3/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: totallackey

Multiple windows is irrelevant. They allow a wide FOV through them.

You can find many of them online easily enough. Here are three, just looking out the front windows. There are also at least two side windows beside the pilots. It's impossible to get the full FOV because of the window placement, but this gives you an idea of how good the view is.

Boeing 787:



Boeing 777:



Boeing 747 (Simulator, but it's still accurate to what you'd see in the real plane):



This is out the window in the cabin of different aircraft.

Airbus A380:



Boeing 737:



All the windows have more than a 90 degree FOV looking out them.

You are claiming a 90 FOV out of each individual window? Ok. Does not seem that apparent to me. You made the claim though.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

If you were to take the previous image that I put in, with the 90 degree FOV, and place that over the view out the windows, you would see well over 100 degrees, easily on every single one of those views. Take a piece of string or something, and line it up with the earlier 90 degree image, and then place that same angle over those pictures, and tell me that you can't see a 90 degree FOV.

Of course, it also helps if you actually understand what a 90 degree FOV actually IS.

edit on 3/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MasterAtArms
Can you please explain how gravity works, as it does how we experience it everyday, on a flat earth?

Yeah. I asked the question yesterday (and never got an answer) wondering how does the gravity of a flat disk allow for satellites, such as the International Space Station, to orbit?

I can understand how the gravity of a sphere allows a satellite to orbit around it, but I'm not sure how the orbital trajectories of those satellites that we all can observe works with the gravity of a flat disk.


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



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: totallackey

No, I have a problem with your interpretation of it, actually. I don't have any problem with the paper itself.

You think that you can't get a 90 degree FOV out of a plane window? Really? So when you're looking out a plane window, you can't see this?



Wow, that's news to pretty much every who has ever flown on a plane. Pilots have the best view of anyone. They have to have 180 degrees at least, so that they can see oncoming aircraft from any forward angle, or even slightly behind them if they crane around.


Like I said, don't know. But there are multiple windows, right, in a commercial airliner cockpit. It seems the illustration you provide allows for something more on the order of a military application with less windows or even a single window.

Planeparallel windows like those on most aircraft will not render a flat horizon curved, but a curved window or canopy will

Reports of curvature from high mountains and commercial jets are often supported with photographs showing the putative curvature [5].Such photographs are suspect, as Figs. 3 and 4 show. H


Better yet, take a photo of the field of view, offered in a cockpit. Seems you have a lot of connections. Can you get that done?
E2A: The author clearly states the detection of the curvature requires measurements of photographs. Please read the summary. Please make note of the words SEEMS and MEASURED. No ambiguity there. And none of the other planes have a field of vision offered like a B-57.


You have never been on a plane? You have never seen a picture of a cockpit?

What a waste of time asking for Zaphod to get you those pictures. Or are you just having fun, making him do things for you?
edit on 27-3-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey

E2A: The author clearly states the detection of the curvature requires measurements of photographs. Please read the summary. Please make note of the words SEEMS and MEASURED. No ambiguity there. And none of the other planes have a field of vision offered like a B-57.


You're kidding right? The pilot of the B-57 (and it was RB or WB-57) wore a full pressure suit so that he had a FOV that was restricted similar to what is seen out the windscreen of a normal aircraft. The pilots of U-2s wear a similar suit, which is why they have to have another pilot in a car drive along behind them talking them down on to the runway. They can't look down, or to either side because of the limitations imposed by the suit, so the other pilot tells them their altitude above the runway, until they touch down.

This is Chuck Yeager wearing the same pressure suit that the B-57 pilots wore. The pilot was only able to look pretty much straight ahead, with a limited side to side FOV.



He clearly said that the curvature of the earth was "relatively easy" to identify, VISUALLY at 35,000 feet. You should read more than just the summary.
edit on 3/27/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/28/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain


Yeah, its such a shame when the FE believers completely avoid the hard questions, like they don't even exist. I would absolutely love to hear the explanations for a FE gravity field.


One day, one day....



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: MasterAtArms



I would absolutely love to hear the explanations for a FE gravity field.


Flat feet I suppose...



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Why is a picture of the edge of the Earth impossible to find, but a picture of a sphere Earth from space simply fake?

Does this mean we have 0 pictures of our real Earth?

Also conviently, there is no 'universally' known way to get to the edge. If you start in one direction and continue you end up where you started. How do you get to the edge if 'when you're going straight you are actually going in a circle', then how the hell do you attempt to travel in a real circle?


Also assuming the Earth is flat AND we have the ability to go to space, why is there a dramatic lack of photos from space of a flat Earth? I understand the sphere Earth photos were easy to fake by the goverment, but then why aren't there even convincing flat Earth photos? To believe in flat Earth you almost have to believe we cannot even go into space.
edit on 28-3-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
Why is a picture of the edge of the Earth impossible to find, but a picture of a sphere Earth from space simply fake?

Does this mean we have 0 pictures of our real Earth?


No, it means it is impossible to produce a picture of a flat Earth because it isn't flat.



Also conviently, there is no 'universally' known way to get to the edge. If you start in one direction and continue you end up where you started. How do you get to the edge if 'when you're going straight you are actually going in a circle', then how the hell do you attempt to travel in a real circle?


This is because there is no edge.




Also assuming the Earth is flat AND we have the ability to go to space, why is there a dramatic lack of photos from space of a flat Earth? I understand the sphere Earth photos were easy to fake by the goverment, but then why aren't there even convincing flat Earth photos?


Which government? USA? USSR? China? Japan? India? There are no photographs of a flat Earth from space because the Earth is not flat.


To believe in flat Earth you almost have to believe we cannot even go into space.


Pretty much it. Both of them nonsensical propositions.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Every self-respecting Flat Earther is convinced that spaceflight is a myth, and thus any photos taken from space are fake.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: imjack

Every self-respecting Flat Earther is convinced that spaceflight is a myth, and thus any photos taken from space are fake.


As a 3d animator, im amazed by the amazing cgi they had in the 60s and 70s.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape
Can you imagine how fun it must have been at that
Up and coming PsyOps meeting ? Wait we are going to convince
people like Santos Bonacci who have studied Astro theology
to push a flat earth idea ? The benefit ? anyone looking into
9/11 or other false flags can be marginalized to a rank below
holocaust deniers ? brilliant...Now if we could just get UFO buffs to buy
into this we are done...



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Proving we've never been to space is pretty suspicious when we have telescopes and space stations and satellites...

Also does just every country believe their government can hide that together? More than one country has been to space....they're not exactly all cool with each other all the time...
edit on 28-3-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

originally posted by: totallackey

E2A: The author clearly states the detection of the curvature requires measurements of photographs. Please read the summary. Please make note of the words SEEMS and MEASURED. No ambiguity there. And none of the other planes have a field of vision offered like a B-57.



He clearly said that the curvature of the earth was "relatively easy" to identify, VISUALLY at 35,000 feet. You should read more than just the summary.


Wrong...

The author has also talked to many commercial pilots, and they report that from elevations around 35; 000 ft, they cannot see the curvature.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

And yet in the paper itself it's been ypointed out repeatedly that he said it. It's slight but he was able to see it under the right conditions. Commercial pilots aren't there to sightsee and look for things like the curve of the horizon. He was and stated he could see it visually.

Do I really have to quote it again?
edit on 3/28/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

only five points?







posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: reeferman

I love how they question geocentric with the same level of scruity. Oh wait they dont. Claiming Earth isn't round isn't as crazy as claiming it's flat off of less then what claims it's round...

So what if we DIG to the otherside? So far all these bogus flat Earth maps I've seen only have a SINGLE SIDE of the flat Earth. Even if it WAS a flat disk, it would have two #ing sides correct? If it was more flat than round digging to "china" would be substantially easier correct?
edit on 28-3-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: totallackey

So after being repeatedly asked for proof of a flat earth, you come back with......no proof.


Did you see where I stated I am going to take a series of photos over the next couple of weeks and do my own observations? What #ing part of that did you #ing misunderstand?

Proof of a flat earth is not the #ing title of the #ing thread is it? What the # is your #ing problem?

I don't want proof of a flat Earth. I want to know how this is possible under any flat earth model.

Show me a flat Earth map. Tell me how long it takes to go from Sydney to Santiago in an airplane on that map, how many miles is it.

Flat Earth is now impossible.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join