a reply to: wildespace
Ok, let's first get the miscellaneous irrelevant stuff out of the way.
Just for the record, these are the Rif mountains, the highest point of which is almost 2.5 km tall: en.wikipedia.org...
Show me where this 2500 m high peak is. It is not on the elevation map of Marrokko, at least it is not among the mountains we can see in the pics.
Even if there is one such peak, it does not matter because we can clearly identify the specific peaks we are looking at, in GE. They are not higher
than 2000 m.
Why are you using straw man arguments?
You were able to identify some of the (ultimately irrelevant) mistakes in the post you responded to, so you have been looking at the situation on GE,
you used the calculator, the problems have been explained thorroughly in the last few pages, and still you think you can actually debunk this post,
and somehow don't see the irrelevance of your arguments here.
How can you still not see that the bigger picture doesn't work here, despite your corrections?
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Like your "how gravity really works" thread in which you think you explained gravity by making a drawing. Laughable stuff.
Can't even be called pseudo science.
I can see the mountains from that approximate position in Google Earth just fine:
It is true that the GE pic from that comment was taken from a wrong angle, and therefore didn't show the mountains. But, like you said, you took a GE
pic from the "approximate" position.
Why don't you take it from the actual eyeheight position, which is not more than 30 m as established in GE. Like this,
As you can see, according to GE, the mountains should be cut in half, like the formula says. Compare to reality,
I'll agree that the visiblity of mountains in my photo might be greater than it usually is, but I'll attribute that to the fact that the mountains
become visible on days when there is cool wind blowing from the North. Cooler wind has greater density than warmer air, and denser air creates
I am going to show that this pic does not show the mountains being less obscured from the bottom up, compared to the other pic, at all, despite being
taken from a higher elevation.
To the contrary actually.
So as a sidenote, even if the bottom part is being obscured from a lower elevated viewpoint, while not being obscured from a higher elevated
viewpoint, it would not be supported by ball Earth logic alone.
As shown by other, untouched, posts in this thread, there is clear evidence that atmospheric effects actually cause a cut off from the bottom. It is
the only way you can explain the Walney observations, since the curvature doesn't even come close to explaining those.
If this effect occurs when looking directly across the surface, going higher up in elevation would change your viewing angle and the effect would
dissapear, or diminish, or appear at a greater distance.
No non existant curvature needed.
First of all, sorry for not getting back to this thread sooner. I usually hang around the Space Exploration forum, and rarely visit any other ATS
You didn't see the activity on your MyATS? Let me guess, you never click on it.....whatever.
Just wanted to share this video, where rationalists/debunkers discuss the Flat Earth beliefs and believers:
Why, to fill the void of not touching the other posts? Why would you post a random video of random skeptics discussing random Flat Earth stuff when
there was a very specific discussion going on.
Posting this vid is a straw man argument.
Looking to Joe Blow Rogan and Mick West for help? I won't even go into to Joke Rogan, but the fact that Mick West of Metabunk sits there defending a
dying model is hilarious.
After all, he is the man who created the Metabunk curve calculator that keeps blowing the curvature out of the water.......
edit on 12-6-2017 by CalmeEarth because: (no reason given)