The flat earth conspiracy

a reply to: turbonium1

Week after week, lie after lie.

You have been given pages and pages of references, source material, quotes, videos, you name it, all containing exactly that. Explanations as to why Saturn is not actually spinning and wobbling like an out of control child's toy and how the atmosphere acts to cause that apparent motion.

To claim you haven't is a lie.

Your catastrophic failure to understand simple concepts is not our problem, and neither is your unwillingness to educate yourself. You don't have to trust anyone's word, you can just buy a ****ing telescope. Why on Earth should anyone trust the opinions of someone who is too lazy, or too scared, to actually put their roubles where their mouth is? You aren't prepared to put any effort in to prove your point, why should anyone believe you?

a reply to: turbonium1

Stop lying. Just stop. Every point you have made has been debunked. Stop damn lying.

a reply to: turbonium1

Moving goalposts again?

I guess you cannot handle direct evidence the earth is spherical.

As far as the earth rotating about its tilted axis.

You mean, like day and night? And why the amount of daylight changes day by day through the seasons each year. And why the Southern Hemisphere and northern hemisphere seasons are opposite of each other?

Anyway. This has been mentioned before. Here it is in greater detail.

When Flat Earthers Spent $20,000 Trying To Prove Earth Is Flat And Accidentally Proved It's Round
"What I just told you was confidential"

www.triplem.com.au...

One of those Flat Earthers is Bob Knodel, who hosts a YouTube channel entirely dedicated to the theory and who is one of the team relying on a $20,000 laser gyroscope to prove the Earth doesn't actually rotate.

Except... It does.

"What we found is, when we turned on that gyroscope, we found that we were picking up a drift," Knodel explains. "A 15-degree per hour drift.

Earth Rate Precession

Earth rate precession is caused by the rotation of the earth while the spin axis of the gyro remains aligned with a fixed point in space. Earth rate precession is divided into two components. The tendency of the spin axis to tilt up or down from the horizontal plane of the observer is called the vertical component. The tendency of the spin axis to drift around laterally; that is, to change in azimuth, is called the horizontal component. Generally, when earth rate is mentioned, it is the horizontal component that is referred to, since the vertical component is of little concern.

A gyro located at the North Pole, with its spin axis initially aligned with a meridian, appears to turn 15.04° per hour in the horizontal plane because the earth turns 15.04° per hour. [Figure 14-10] As shown in Figure 14-10A, the apparent relationship between the Greenwich meridian and the gyro spin axis changes by 90° in 6 hours, though the spin axis is still oriented to the same point in space. Thus, apparent precession at the pole equals the rate of earth rotation. At the equator, as shown in Figure 14-10B, no earth rate precession occurs in the horizontal plane if the gyro spin axis is still aligned with a meridian and is parallel to the earth’s spin axis.


www.flightliteracy.com...

So you have the earth’s rotation and how it impacts gyroscope instruments. Then something about weather patterns, and the magnetic field around earth from a spinning core.

Very nice video of Saturn



What does this amateur astronomer (you know, just some guy who was interested enough in the night sky to go out and buy a telescope) have to say about his video?

Planet "Saturn" through telescope "Celestron Nexstar 8SE". After rain when the skies become clear, that is the best time to photograph planets and other Celestial objects. The rain clears the dust and other air pollution. There is also less turbulence in Earth's atmosphere.

He has some other videos of Saturn, like this one:



Might want to check what the on screen text says at about 30 seconds (in case you're too terrified to look, it's that thing you say astronomers never say).

Ooh look, here's the great conjunction:



Notice how Jupiter and its moons also shimmers and wobbles at exactly the same time as Saturn? I doubt you will somehow.

telescopicwatch.com...

The best time to view Saturn is when it is high in the sky. At this time you are looking through the least amount of Earth’s atmosphere. Air pollution, dust, smoke, and moisture in the atmosphere scatter the light coming from Saturn. When we are describing the degree to which this scattering is happening we speak of the transparency of the atmosphere.

In addition, the atmosphere is always turbulent, which causes Saturn to drift in and out of focus. Think in terms of looking through a glass teapot of boiling water and trying to read a book that is located on the other side. We describe the degree to which turbulence is impacting our image of Saturn as the “seeing” conditions. Good seeing means the air is less turbulent. Bad seeing means it is very turbulent causing Saturn to drift in and out of focus.

The more you double down in this turbo, the more I will prove you to be absolutely and utterly wrong.

Remember, all you need to do is film Saturn from two different locations at exactly the same time and prove to me that they show absolutely identical 'movement'.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

You have been given pages and pages of references, source material, quotes, videos, you name it, all containing exactly that. Explanations as to why Saturn is not actually spinning and wobbling like an out of control child's toy and how the atmosphere acts to cause that apparent motion.

To claim you haven't is a lie.

To claim they've described any 'spinning/wobbling' AT ALL, as an effect of some type, or not, is the only lie here!

I've repeatedly asked you to show me sources that mention the specific 'spinning/wobbling' motion, of Saturn....PERIOD!

Everyone knows how they've always described stars as 'twinkling' due to atmospheric effect, over and over again, right?

And what have they always said about why 'planets' don't 'twinkle' like stars do? They say that 'planets' are much closer to Earth than the stars are, which means, 'planets' have much less atmosphere between them and the Earth, compared to stars and Earth!

None of them have ever mentioned 'spinning/wobbling' as an atmospheric effect, you made it all up, and lied about it, and still lie about it!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Very nice video of Saturn

What does this amateur astronomer (you know, just some guy who was interested enough in the night sky to go out and buy a telescope) have to say about his video?

Planet "Saturn" through telescope "Celestron Nexstar 8SE". After rain when the skies become clear, that is the best time to photograph planets and other Celestial objects. The rain clears the dust and other air pollution. There is also less turbulence in Earth's atmosphere.

He has some other videos of Saturn, like this one:

Might want to check what the on screen text says at about 30 seconds (in case you're too terrified to look, it's that thing you say astronomers never say).

Ooh look, here's the great conjunction:

Notice how Jupiter and its moons also shimmers and wobbles at exactly the same time as Saturn? I doubt you will somehow.

telescopicwatch.com...

The best time to view Saturn is when it is high in the sky. At this time you are looking through the least amount of Earth’s atmosphere. Air pollution, dust, smoke, and moisture in the atmosphere scatter the light coming from Saturn. When we are describing the degree to which this scattering is happening we speak of the transparency of the atmosphere.

In addition, the atmosphere is always turbulent, which causes Saturn to drift in and out of focus. Think in terms of looking through a glass teapot of boiling water and trying to read a book that is located on the other side. We describe the degree to which turbulence is impacting our image of Saturn as the “seeing” conditions. Good seeing means the air is less turbulent. Bad seeing means it is very turbulent causing Saturn to drift in and out of focus.

The more you double down in this turbo, the more I will prove you to be absolutely and utterly wrong.

Remember, all you need to do is film Saturn from two different locations at exactly the same time and prove to me that they show absolutely identical 'movement'.

They all show the same movement in the videos, get over it.

So I'm supposed to pretend there's a magical effect of atmosphere that you've made up, yet keep claiming it exists as a real effect, without any sources to support it as a real effect, and with no examples to show it could exist at all, as an effect of some kind.....and if I don't show you two 'identical' videos of spinning and wobbling, that means it is 'an effect of atmosphere'?!?

That's sort of delusional, sorry to say. Not close to reality.

a reply to: turbonium1

The earth is spherical.

Your caught like a rat in a trap…

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Spherical earth wins again through experimentation. No room for your “illusions”....

The Rainy Lake Experiment
Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 00:50 | Author: wabis | Topics: FlatEarth, Knowlegde, Science, Experiment

walter.bislins.ch...

Backs the flat earth experiment on

Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

BY ANDREW WHALEN ON 2/25/19 AT 5:04 PM EST



www.newsweek.com...

Campanella devises an experiment involving three posts of the same height and a high-powered laser. The idea is to set up three measuring posts over a nearly 4 mile length of equal elevation. Once the laser is activated at the first post, its height can be measured at the other two. If the laser is at eight feet on the first post, then five feet at the second, then it indicates the measuring posts are set upon the Earth's curvature.

In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

As backed by the Lake Pontchartrain power line towers, and no explanation by turbo why the bases of the towers are physically blocked from view at an increasing rate by the curvature of the earth.

a reply to: turbonium1

Flat earth is the lie…

Flat-earthers tried to prove the Earth was flat with a videotaped experiment and it did not go well

www.businessinsider.com...

In the clip, a flat-Earther named Jeran from a group known as Globebusters set up a simple experiment to prove that the Earth is flat. He used two boards, both with a hole at a height of 5.18 meters (17 feet) above water level, a camera, and another person by the name of Henrique holding a torch at the same height and aligned with the holes.

If the Earth was flat, no matter how far Henrique was, the light would come through the holes. But on a spherical Earth, there’s the curvature to consider. Given Henrique’s distance from the holes, he would have to position the light above his head (7 meters/23 feet above the water level) for it to be seen.

When the experiment began, the light didn’t appear on camera. A perplexed Jeran radioed Henrique to confirm the height of the light at 5.18 meters (17 feet) above sea level. On a flat Earth, he should be seeing the light. He then asked Henrique to lift the light above his head. Lo and behold, the light shined through.

“That’s interesting,” Jeran commented in the clip.

And you know what? It is interesting. This experimental set up has been a staple of flat-Earthers since 1836, when Samuel Birley Rowbotham first did it on the Old Bedford River. Time and time again, it has revealed the curvature of the Earth. Still, it is important to continue to repeat classic experiments as repetition is one of the cornerstones of science.

If you missed it…


“ the Earth was flat, no matter how far Henrique was, the light would come through the holes.”

“ When the experiment began, the light didn’t appear on camera.”


And it was all recorded in your favorite medium, video. With witnesses.

a reply to: turbonium1

Flat earth is the lie….

Bedford Level Experiment Confirmed the Curvature of the Earth

flatearth.ws...

Hampden was a disciple of Rowbotham, who was a significant influence on flat-Earth movement back in the day. Rowbotham had previously used the Bedford Canal to prove the non-existence of Earth’s curvature. He looked through a telescope from one end of the canal and was able to observe boats on the other end.

He ignored the effect of refraction and wrongly concluded that the Earth does not have curvature. Wallace designed a better experiment to minimize the effect of refraction:

He raised the entire experiment by 13 ft 3 in (4 m) above water. In contrast, Rowbotham did his experiment only 8 in (20 cm) above water.
He added a pole with two discs in the middle of the canal for observational aid. This way, if there’s a curvature, it would be easy to observe.
In the experiment, Wallace successfully proved the existence of Earth’s curvature. Unfortunately, Hampden was not an honest person. He didn’t allow Wallace to take the wager. Instead, he made various threats to Wallace and his friends over the years and as a result, was put in jail many times.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

You might have early stage Alzheimer's

Me? Your the one that cannot comprehend the earth is spherical, while you ignore the overwhelming evidence the earth is spherical, while you push the lie the earth is flat, while you use falsehoods to push the lie the earth is flat.

because you keep posting the same thing over and over and over again, in TWO different threads.

You mean my lists of facts, documentation, evidence, experiments that have grown through the threads? Proving the earth is spherical?

Because you use the same lie over and over.

You cannot be so dense, to not understand how PERSPECTIVE comes into play here, and it's not helping you out by playing dumb and ignorant about it, while posting the same crap again and again.

The above is a lie, and the false representation of the argument. The actual argument is why the earth’s curve physical blocks items from view. Like why the north star is blocked from view in the Southern Hemisphere.

Your lie is well called out and outlined by OneBigMonkeyToo

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No-one claims there is only one view of the horizon. No-one. What is being pointed out to you, if only you weren't being deliberately obtuse, is that ships disappearing in teh idstance are not actually getting smaller and can be brought back with telescopes (if only you had one), which is your ridiculous view of it. What is being pointed out ot you is that objects disappear below the horizon because the Earth curves. That curve does not suddenly start at the horizon. Raising your viewpoint moves the horizon further away, it does not stop the Earth curving, it just shows you more of it. It does not magically make the Earth flat. Nothing changes but your viewpoint.

One day you'll learn to think in three dimensions.

The below documented experiment in your favorite medium of video eliminates your “prospective argument” and is solely based on the fact the earth’s curve physically blocks items from view.

Flat-earthers tried to prove the Earth was flat with a videotaped experiment and it did not go well

www.businessinsider.com...

In the clip, a flat-Earther named Jeran from a group known as Globebusters set up a simple experiment to prove that the Earth is flat. He used two boards, both with a hole at a height of 5.18 meters (17 feet) above water level, a camera, and another person by the name of Henrique holding a torch at the same height and aligned with the holes.

If the Earth was flat, no matter how far Henrique was, the light would come through the holes. But on a spherical Earth, there’s the curvature to consider. Given Henrique’s distance from the holes, he would have to position the light above his head (7 meters/23 feet above the water level) for it to be seen.

When the experiment began, the light didn’t appear on camera. A perplexed Jeran radioed Henrique to confirm the height of the light at 5.18 meters (17 feet) above sea level. On a flat Earth, he should be seeing the light. He then asked Henrique to lift the light above his head. Lo and behold, the light shined through.

“That’s interesting,” Jeran commented in the clip.

And you know what? It is interesting. This experimental set up has been a staple of flat-Earthers since 1836, when Samuel Birley Rowbotham first did it on the Old Bedford River. Time and time again, it has revealed the curvature of the Earth. Still, it is important to continue to repeat classic experiments as repetition is one of the cornerstones of science.

The use of “ He used two boards, both with a hole at a height of 5.18 meters (17 feet) above water level, a camera, and another person by the name of Henrique holding a torch at the same height and aligned with the holes.” Eliminates any argument of prospective.

It highlights the fact the earth’s curvature physically blocks a light source from view.

Your caught like a rat in a trap. And all you have left is personal insults now your “prospective” argument is destroyed and documented on video with witnesses.

a reply to: turbonium1

No, he's just pointing out that your position is laughably stupid and that you lost the argument a very long time ago. You just can't see that simple basic fact.
Have you seen that shrink yet by the way?

You can't answer why the horizon rises as we rise above Earth, and we see it at the same level throughout, on the surface, and anywhere above the surface, and it always remains flat and straight across, on or above the surface.

This proves Earth is NOT a big ball, it is flat. If it was a ball, the horizon would NOT rise AT ALL, as we rise above the surface, because the surface is CURVED DOWNWARD, in all directions around your position above it, so the horizon can NOT rise any higher than it is on the surface, only reach further out, as you rise above that ball.

How do you not understand this?

Once again, I'm asking you - if you believe this is where we see a horizon at any altitude above Earth, within an airplane, then why don't you tell me where it would be seen from altitude, if the Earth WAS flat?

I've told you the horizon cannot rise as we rise above Earth, directly in our view from a plane window, if Earth was a ball, that's an absolute fact, obvious to anyone, whether you admit it or not, you all know it cannot rise as we rise above Earth, it can only reach further OUTWARD, if it was a ball, NOT KEEP RISING HIGHER AND HIGHER, as we rise above Earth.

I'm sure you know that the horizon is always visible from a plane window, if skies are clear, and the horizon remains unobstructed by mountains, or so forth, along the flight.

It's beyond dispute that we can always see horizons from airplane windows, at any altitude flown at.

We never have to look down, or up, to see them from airplane windows, they are directly in our view, out of the window, beside our seat.

A horizon is always in view from a plane window, at any altitude, in clear, perfect skies.. horizons are always in our direct line of sight out plane windows - nobody would dispute that fact.

And we all know that we NEVER have to look downward (or upward) from a plane window, to SEE a horizon - no matter what altitude. And it is always a straight, flat line across the Earth, at any altitude we see it from.

So how does the horizon rise as we rise to 50,000 feet, which we clearly see out of the plane's window, and it suddenly becomes this partial 'ball Earth', seen from 'space'? The horizon rises as we rise, up to 50,000 feet, it is never lower or higher, when viewed out of the plane window, which is an absolute fact, and it proves the Earth is flat, by rising as we rise above Earth, to the same level, as it is never lower or higher when viewing it, from the plane window, it is the same.

What is most intriguing about this, comes from what they claim happens AFTER that point, which is never seen, or confirmed, by us, it is entirely what THEY claim happens after that, which proves s*%*.

Where do they have videos of the horizon, before it drops out of sight, and we see part of this 'ball' Earth, from 'space'?

You should look at some of the videos you've posted, of these planes that reach altitudes above any commercial planes, and - of course - THAT'S where they can show us Earth's 'curvature'! Not anywhere we can see it from a plane, even when it's at 50,000 feet!

''Curvature' can only be seen when you are HIGHER than 50,000 feet above Earth, so we'll film it for all of you!'

These creeps make fake videos of a ball Earth seen from a rocket or plane, and didn't deal with the whole horizon problem!


The horizon proves Earth is flat, that's why they skipped past it, and showed us his a BALL in 'space', after that silly horizon part!

We know the horizon rises as we rise, to the same level we see it from the surface. The only change that occurs is that the horizon will appear further and further away, with greater and greater altitudes reached above the Earth. That fact, alone, proves that Earth is NOT a big ball, or a pudgy, slightly deflated sort of ball, or whatever they claim it is, later on..

The horizon is within view, and it is actually easy to determine where we see it, by what we see above and below the horizon. We never look downward to see a horizon, or upward, it is always in our normal sightline, straight and level across from us. And it always is seen in our normal sightline, straight and level across from us, above the Earth, at any altitude we see it from.

That cannot happen if Earth was ball-shaped. It doesn't matter how massive a ball, it must follow the very same principles.

Each and every person on a ball Earth, would always be on the highest point of that ball, and you claim that when we see a horizon from Earth's ball-shaped surface, you believe that is the point where the ball curves downward, below our view.

So when you rise above the ball, at that position, where would you see the horizon? It could not be seen any higher than it was seen from the surface, it would only be seen further away, than on the curved surface. How could it appear to rise when you rise above the curved surface below you? It could not, because it would continually curve DOWNWARD, so rising above it would only show more of the ball below you, it cannot rise at all, because it is constantly curving more and moore downward, in the opposite direction YOU are going, which is upward.


Remember that you are ALREADY on the TOP of a ball, when you're on the surface of it, right? If the horizon is the last point you can see on the ball, before it curves out of sight, what would you see when you go above the surface? More of the ball below you, continually curving downward, right? The horizon would be LOWER than it is on the surface, NOT higher, when you rise higher above the ball.


This cannot be difficult to grasp, surely?

a reply to: turbonium1

Stop, just stop. You're a laughing stock as it is. You obviously either have no idea of basic physics or you are trolling us all.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

can't answer why the horizon rises as we rise above Earth,

Your post is based on a lie.

It’s been explained.

Your lie is well called out and outlined by OneBigMonkeyToo

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No-one claims there is only one view of the horizon. No-one. What is being pointed out to you, if only you weren't being deliberately obtuse, is that ships disappearing in teh idstance are not actually getting smaller and can be brought back with telescopes (if only you had one), which is your ridiculous view of it. What is being pointed out ot you is that objects disappear below the horizon because the Earth curves. That curve does not suddenly start at the horizon. Raising your viewpoint moves the horizon further away, it does not stop the Earth curving, it just shows you more of it. It does not magically make the Earth flat. Nothing changes but your viewpoint.

One day you'll learn to think in three dimensions.

If you missed it by OneBigMonkeyToo, “That curve does not suddenly start at the horizon. Raising your viewpoint moves the horizon further away, it does not stop the Earth curving,”

You

How do you not understand this?

Good thing there are documented experiments that eliminate you concerns.

Again.

Because you use the same lie over and over.

You cannot be so dense, to not understand how PERSPECTIVE comes into play here, and it's not helping you out by playing dumb and ignorant about it, while posting the same crap again and again.

Again. Your falsely representing the argument. The actual argument is why the earth’s curve physical blocks items from view. Like why the north star is blocked from view in the Southern Hemisphere

The below documented experiment in your favorite medium of video eliminates your “prospective argument” and is solely based on the fact the earth’s curve physically blocks items from view.

Flat-earthers tried to prove the Earth was flat with a videotaped experiment and it did not go well

www.businessinsider.com...

In the clip, a flat-Earther named Jeran from a group known as Globebusters set up a simple experiment to prove that the Earth is flat. He used two boards, both with a hole at a height of 5.18 meters (17 feet) above water level, a camera, and another person by the name of Henrique holding a torch at the same height and aligned with the holes.

If the Earth was flat, no matter how far Henrique was, the light would come through the holes. But on a spherical Earth, there’s the curvature to consider. Given Henrique’s distance from the holes, he would have to position the light above his head (7 meters/23 feet above the water level) for it to be seen.

When the experiment began, the light didn’t appear on camera. A perplexed Jeran radioed Henrique to confirm the height of the light at 5.18 meters (17 feet) above sea level. On a flat Earth, he should be seeing the light. He then asked Henrique to lift the light above his head. Lo and behold, the light shined through.

“That’s interesting,” Jeran commented in the clip.

And you know what? It is interesting. This experimental set up has been a staple of flat-Earthers since 1836, when Samuel Birley Rowbotham first did it on the Old Bedford River. Time and time again, it has revealed the curvature of the Earth. Still, it is important to continue to repeat classic experiments as repetition is one of the cornerstones of science.

The use of “ He used two boards, both with a hole at a height of 5.18 meters (17 feet) above water level, a camera, and another person by the name of Henrique holding a torch at the same height and aligned with the holes.” Eliminates any argument of prospective.

It highlights the fact the earth’s curvature physically blocks a light source from view.

Your caught like a rat in a trap. And all you have left is personal insults now your “prospective” argument is destroyed and documented on video with witnesses.

a reply to: turbonium1

Another long post by you that is useless, clueless, and ignores the reality of the earth’s shape.

7 Ways Flat Earth Conspiracy Will Make You Look Silly

newcreeations.org...

Celestial Navigation

It wasn’t until clock-making technology increased enough in roughly the 1700’s that celestial navigation fully matured.

The British were the first to master shipboard clock technology. It gave them a significant advantage in both war and trade, and therefore contributed to the rapid growth of their empire. I’ve been to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, and have seen some of these early shipboard clocks first hand.

The only way the math required for accurate celestial navigation positions works out the way we calculate it is because the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat like some believe, celestial navigation would be based on plane trigonometry instead of spherical trigonometry. And if that were the case, I would be explaining to you that the earth must be flat. But it’s not. It’s a sphere.

Math does not lie.

Therefore, the fact that the spherical trigonometry based math required for celestial navigation produces accurate determinations of one’s position on the earth is definitive proof that the earth is spherical.

If you missed it, “ the fact that the spherical trigonometry based math required for celestial navigation produces accurate determinations of one’s position on the earth is definitive proof that the earth is spherical.”

a reply to: turbonium1

And evidently you look the silliest……

a reply to: turbonium1

You going to keep posting to just prove your ignorance, and keep killing your integrity.

Everything you posted has soundly been refuted and debunked. As citing past posts proves.

Now the crux of the matter.

If the earth is flat, why are these windmills blocked at an increasing amount as the distance increases.

Why are portions physically blocked from view by an increasing amount with distance.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: turbonium1

Far greater minds than mine have tried to convince you that the earth is spherical or an ellipsoid with rather compelling proof and evidence.
But hell, I'll give it another shot.

Please explain this picture of Thorntonbank Wind Farm off the Belgium coast.

And could you also please explain for me why during a lunar eclipse we don't see a flat shadow of the earth across the moon's surface but in fact see a round shadow?
What are the mechanics of a lunar eclipse according to the flat earth model?

a reply to: turbonium1

Now. Explain again why the north star is physically blocked from view in the Southern Hemisphere by the earth’s curvature.

Ooops, looks like I already did.