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.

 

Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

page: 42
9
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Just so you know, there are many "childrens" explanations on the holy YouTube...

Since i believe you are an adult, even though you have the mentality of a child... i'll even help you out




originally posted by: turbonium1
It doesn't explain the case I'm referring to, only pretends to be, like usual.

The problem is when the sun and moon are both seen directly above Earth, at the very same time, in daylight, while the moon is half blocked out....

What can block the moon, here?
Here's a screenshot from the above video showing the "sun" as the light and the "moon" as a white ball, where both are visible from the "Earth" (observer's head), and the "moon" is half blocked. The half facing the "sun" is lit and the half facing the earth is blocked by the moon itself. This is the "new moon":



If this daylight moon is what you mean:

www.universetoday.com...


Notice you can't see the sun in the frame. You can have almost a 180 degree field of view depending on your location and the sun and the moon can be in different parts of the sky. This is also shown in the demo video.


Notice the "moon" is over to the left, and the sun is over to the right. Both are within a 180 degree field of view, and seeing this only requires 90 degrees of angular separation, so you can see many more phases of the moon than this within the 180 degrees.




posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 01:29 AM
link   
There are also many pieces of astronomy software that demonstrate the moon's behaviour perfectly, all of which use the heliocentric globe Earth as the foundation of their model.

Back to the bottom of the barrel for you turbonium, you need to do some more scraping.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarriorMH
Go pay and take the flight, take it up to 50+ thousand kms, pay the cash and see it for yourself, why is that so hard?

keep going up until you see it then you go down and see it go flat, your eyes will tell you


I've repeatedly asked for your side to account for 1800 feet of missing curvature, why is that so hard?[.b]

A curved surface cannot be flown at the same altitude through a 6 hour flight unless it is in a CONSTANT RATE OF DESCENT, throughout the flight. Being a LEVEL flight throughout, at the same altitude, which is measured by the instruments on the plane, are completely impossible, on a curved surface.

That's what's 'so hard to explain', for your side. And that's why you don't even try to explain it.


Anyone can go on a plane and film the surface, and if I showed a film that didn't show a curve, you'd say it was edited that way, or something. And I'd say it wasn't.

Saying I should go on a plane to prove my argument is a total cop-out, and you know it. It's just a lame excuse, that you hold up as if it's all up to me, and I 'avoid' it.

Stop ducking the question I've asked you endlessly to answer for, or else, you've obviously lost the argument.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Those who don't, or rarely do, care to discuss the ACTUAL ISSUES of this thread...because they prefer to go on and on, mocking, and insulting, anyone, who 'dares' to claim anything else .... are absolute trolls


Im trying dude... really


And if you think the issue is settled, why are you still here?


Well... because you're confused by conspiracy

I work with very confused people, so it comes natural to try to help...

even though in this case its more comedy then remedy


Now, could you please tell me exactly when the 1800 feet of 'missing curvature' were 'settled'? I don't recall anyone accounting for it, do you?


Though again you're tossing numbers when you haven't considered half of the factors in the equation...

You keep saying something can't fly over a sphere without pointing the nose down... as if... IF one attempts to fly on a "sphere" they would automatically smash into the ground... and of course gravity is absent from your theory because according to you, it doesn't actually exist!!

Like i've said... we aren't discussing issues... You're making up #... and tossing it out as fact! With NOTHING to back it but your words and the Holy Tube

Honestly at this point i don't see why you question people making fun of you...

but again... im trying man...




posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: WarriorMH
Go pay and take the flight, take it up to 50+ thousand kms, pay the cash and see it for yourself, why is that so hard?

keep going up until you see it then you go down and see it go flat, your eyes will tell you


I've repeatedly asked for your side to account for 1800 feet of missing curvature, why is that so hard?[.b]

A curved surface cannot be flown at the same altitude through a 6 hour flight unless it is in a CONSTANT RATE OF DESCENT, throughout the flight. Being a LEVEL flight throughout, at the same altitude, which is measured by the instruments on the plane, are completely impossible, on a curved surface.

That's what's 'so hard to explain', for your side. And that's why you don't even try to explain it.


Anyone can go on a plane and film the surface, and if I showed a film that didn't show a curve, you'd say it was edited that way, or something. And I'd say it wasn't.

Saying I should go on a plane to prove my argument is a total cop-out, and you know it. It's just a lame excuse, that you hold up as if it's all up to me, and I 'avoid' it.

Stop ducking the question I've asked you endlessly to answer for, or else, you've obviously lost the argument.


Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..
Go take the trip..


Are you afraid of taking the trip? You're looking for excuses and dumb stuff that doesn't matter if you go take the trip.

So go the take trip, are you going to take the trip and tell us? I took the trip, are you afraid of taking the trip?

Trip, Trip, Trip, Trip, Trip, Trip

Go up look it up for yourself then go down and tell us, other wise it's only noise and useless reasoning.

Trip
edit on 3-6-2018 by WarriorMH because: Edited because 'Trip'



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

Just so you know, there are many "childrens" explanations on the holy YouTube...

Since i believe you are an adult, even though you have the mentality of a child... i'll even help you out




originally posted by: turbonium1
It doesn't explain the case I'm referring to, only pretends to be, like usual.

The problem is when the sun and moon are both seen directly above Earth, at the very same time, in daylight, while the moon is half blocked out....

What can block the moon, here?
Here's a screenshot from the above video showing the "sun" as the light and the "moon" as a white ball, where both are visible from the "Earth" (observer's head), and the "moon" is half blocked. The half facing the "sun" is lit and the half facing the earth is blocked by the moon itself. This is the "new moon":



If this daylight moon is what you mean:

www.universetoday.com...


Notice you can't see the sun in the frame. You can have almost a 180 degree field of view depending on your location and the sun and the moon can be in different parts of the sky. This is also shown in the demo video.


Notice the "moon" is over to the left, and the sun is over to the right. Both are within a 180 degree field of view, and seeing this only requires 90 degrees of angular separation, so you can see many more phases of the moon than this within the 180 degrees.


It doesn't work.

The moon is IN FRONT of the blue sky, since it is COVERING part of the blue sky. That's obvious to see.

And the sun is not 83 million miles away, either. At that distance, it would be far beyond the moon. What would the direction of sunlight be, from the sun to the moon? The side we don't see on Earth, right? Sunlight should hit the moon and Earth on the sides that are FACING the sun. And the opposite side of the moon and Earth, not facing the sun, should be dark, yes?

On Earth, that's what happens. The side facing the Sun is in sunlight, the other side is dark.

But not on the moon. The side facing Earth is in light, and the other side, facing the sun, is in darkness.

This is the case if the sun is directly in line with the moon and Earth, however.

But in the case of the Sun and moon above Earth, in daylight, they are at a distance from each other, as we see it on Earth.

When the moon is full, it is impossible to be seen on Earth as full. The sun would have to be between Earth, and the moon, to hit the side WE see as fully lit.

If the sunlight is hitting the moon from that distance, and the moon is in front of the Earth, from the sun's position, no matter what angle it is, the moon would not be seen full in sunlight, from Earth!

More to say, but it's getting late here. I'll continue asap.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I really wouldn't. I'd stop right there and pretend it never happened.

All these three models, models you seem to claim don't exist and don't work, prove what an absolute fool you're making of yourself and that you need to just stop.

stellarium.org...

celestia.space...

www.worldwidetelescope.org...

The Victorians had it figured out, why can't you?




posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I'm amazed people have not figured out your trolling them? Love the moon thing that's even better then the 1800 ft. drop when the only measurement of altitude is how far you are from the ground. But the moon having it's own light source priceless. Let me guess chemical reactions like fire flies. Or Is it like the light sticks you have to break the glass and shake.


🤔



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Those who don't, or rarely do, care to discuss the ACTUAL ISSUES of this thread...because they prefer to go on and on, mocking, and insulting, anyone, who 'dares' to claim anything else .... are absolute trolls.


Yes, just like this reply you have posted is a perfect example.

The poster you are replying too solved an issue or showed you how to personally solve it yourself at home with a youtube video they linked.

Your absolute sidestepping of this even when for a 2 pages you are going about how the moon cannot reflect light because its a sphere or whatnot and when shown you ignore and bring up other nonsense from 5 pages ago.




And if you think the issue is settled, why are you still here? Now, could you please tell me exactly when the 1800 feet of 'missing curvature' were 'settled'? I don't recall anyone accounting for it, do you?



again


read what you are replying too.


It was settled, did you try the experiment at home like the video shows you?

You changing what is the focus of the last few posts and saying its not settled is just another example of you scavenging for food.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




I'm amazed people have not figured out your trolling them?



Quite a few caught on a long time ago in the 9/11 forum.


Long before they found out the earth might be flat


The exact same technique used here as in many 9/11 threads.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

(Further hysterical laughter)
Please keep going. I really haven't laughed that hard in ages.
You are, sir, the Supreme High Troll. I bow before your skill.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


The Moon is in front of the blue sky?!!!!!

What level of stupid is this?

No, the Sun is indeed not 83 million miles away. It is more like around 93 million miles away.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


The moon is IN FRONT of the blue sky, since it is COVERING part of the blue sky. That's obvious to see.



Really how come when the flattards post a youtube video of a camera hanging from a weather ballon it apprears to be dark all around the Sun or Moon



Answers please in your best BS and using your crayon



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

haha brilliant... thats always the funny thing about claims of distortion. it is actually fairly easy to map what the distortion should look like and correct for it... but... obviously any need to do any manipulation ends up with child like cries of "Your editing it" followed by probably conspiracies that someone paid your computer to recognize if it was editing high altitude photos and to auto-insert a curve... or getting paid by some random black suit faceless man to keep quiet.

Also... turbo guy.... your trolling is getting as blatant as it is hilarious... i really hope at this state you are trolling and are not serious because if you are being serious, you have some very bad reasoning skills and almost zero knowledge of how anything actually works. Question... do rainbows amaze you?



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I think the person is ignorant, one of the huge number of people in society that are.



posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
I think the person is ignorant, one of the huge number of people in society that are.

No-one can possibly be that stupid and still type. Turbo's trolling us for the reactions. It's the only explanation.



posted on Jun, 8 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: turbonium1

I'm amazed people have not figured out your trolling them? Love the moon thing that's even better then the 1800 ft. drop when the only measurement of altitude is how far you are from the ground.


You suggest the surface of Earth is being measured along flights, for the altitude, then?

Are you serious?

What sources do you have to support your claim?

You'd never just make it all up, right?....


That would be dumb, to lie...


Altitude, afaik, is measured by taking sea level, or another base measurement, and uses that to measure altitude along the way.

The surface is not used to measure altitude, unless you can show otherwise....



posted on Jun, 8 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

How about comparing to standard atmospheric pressure and actual pressure. I suppose they could hang a really long tape measure out the window.



posted on Jun, 8 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Nothing to speak of 1800 feet of missing curvature, as always.

Deal with it, or just keep hiding from it, like usual.



posted on Jun, 8 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: turbonium1

How about comparing to standard atmospheric pressure and actual pressure. I suppose they could hang a really long tape measure out the window.


A plane flies level in air when not in ascent, nor descent....

1800 feet of curvature cannot vanish, however much you wish it ..




top topics



 
9
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join