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.

 

Flat earth theory?

page: 74
14
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

It should be noted that the rocketeers' use of a fisheye lens probably was not in order to make a Flat Earth look curved, but rather they were just trying to get a maximum angle of view.


I should clarify that in my post above, I wasn't saying the Earth is flat. I'm just saying that I don't think the reason the rocketeer's used the fisheye lens had anything whatsoever to do with the Flat Earth argument.



If they meant to show the maximum angle of view, with the lens, why wouldn't they mention that, or indicate why it looked like that?

How do you know it's not meant to show Earth as a sphere, just like many other images have tried to fool people, before now?



Because the video was just a collection of people who sent rockets into the air with cameras. I don't think neither the original rocket people nor the people who edited together the video cared about the "shape of the Earth" argument.

They're just launching rockets and enjoying the view from above because it's cool, fun, and exciting. That's why rocket hobbyists do it, not because they are part of a secret world cabal conspiracy to spread disinformation that Earth is a sphere and hide its true flatness.

edit on 2/23/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

It should be noted that the rocketeers' use of a fisheye lens probably was not in order to make a Flat Earth look curved, but rather they were just trying to get a maximum angle of view.


I should clarify that in my post above, I wasn't saying the Earth is flat. I'm just saying that I don't think the reason the rocketeer's used the fisheye lens had anything whatsoever to do with the Flat Earth argument.




If they meant to show the maximum angle of view, with the lens, why wouldn't they mention that, or indicate why it looked like that?

How do you know it's not meant to show Earth as a sphere, just like many other images have tried to fool people, before now?



Because the video was just a collection of people who sent rockets into the air with cameras. I don't think neither the original rocket people nor the people who edited together the video cared about the "shape of the Earth" argument.

They're just launching rockets and enjoying the view from above because it's cool, fun, and exciting. That's why rocket hobbyists do it, not because they are part of a secret world cabal conspiracy to spread disinformation that Earth is a sphere and hide its true flatness.


Sure, they might have used a fish-eye lens, for an effect, but forgot, or didn't care, to mention it. But if they had no intentions beyond 'a cool view', why use a lens that DISTORTS the magnificent view? It's the last thing you'd do, in fact.

But let's assume they wanted to see a distorted view of Earth, instead of the real view, for some reason - 'it's cool, fun, and exciting' to do such things. Why didn't they even mention how they got the 'cool' image of Earth, since they'd already gone to the trouble of changing lens, on their camera, which they attached to their rocket, which was about to be launched upward, to very high altitudes, where the camera would take images of Earth?

That's a lot of work, and money, and time, if all you want is some distorted images of Earth, in the first place. But, of course, we assume they were morons, taking only distorted images of Earth, saying 'it's so cool, dude!'.

And they showed their great images of Earth, and never said anything about those images, which they had worked so hard for, spent time and money on, and were so proud to show us all....

That's what you believe, right?


I have a hard time believing anyone would go to all that effort, time, and money, just to take distorted images of Earth, from a rocket. If someone really did that, because 'it's sick, bro', why not mention it was all an effect, from a lens, and say that's what they wanted to do, from the start?

I'm sure they were aware of how people are discussing whether or not Earth's 'curvature' is seen, when high above the surface.


They obviously knew fish-eye lenses would give Earth a 'faux-curvature'.


I'm sure they didn't care about the curvature effect, which results from their special lens, too!!






It could also be intentionally done, to show that the Earth is, indeed, spherical, when viewed at such altitudes reached by rockets.




posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




since they'd already gone to the trouble of changing lens, on their camera


They used go-pros.


GoPro cameras are famous for their wide‐angle look. ... However, in some situations you might want to reduce the FOV that you get when shooting in one of the camera's wide modes. This can be done two ways - either through changing the FOV on the camera, or by removing the fisheye effect in GoPro Studio.


Why use a go -pro- because there are contest prizes from go pro.

So you see they didn't change any lense. You would have know that if you had done any search on the matter before making false statements on here.



posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 04:29 AM
link   
They used the camera with a fish-eye lens, instead of a camera with a fish-eye lens on it, then.

The argument is about using a fish-eye lens, and not mentioning it afterwards. The specific camera they used is not at all relevant to the issue.

They didn't mention it was a distorted view of Earth, which is either an honest mistake, or intentional.

They could have used a normal camera, with a normal lens, or something that doesn't distort their images of Earth, but they chose a camera that distorts their images, which is one thing. Perhaps it is possible they wanted to have distorted images of Earth, for some reason or other, which seems very unlikely, but still possible.

The fact they never mentioned the images were distorted by a lens, further indicates it is deliberate deception, and not a mere oversight



posted on Feb, 24 2019 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

They used a go pro they come the way they are.

They mentioned nothing about flat earth or round earth. I doubt they even considered flat earthers when making the video. Why would they?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:44 AM
link   
any flat earth proponents care to comment :

flat earth proponent spends 20K on an experiment to " prove " the earth is flat - does not get the " correct result "

absolutley priceless




text article

obligitory summary :

science you retards



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   
You can't be serious.

There's no references included in your clip, what they did, or didn't try to do, what instruments they did, or didn't use, where they 'found' it didn't work, etc - and yet, you try and hold it up like it's proof of curvature!!?!?

You really think this guy is 'disproving' the flat Earth, after no 'scientists' have 'proven' the Earth is a sphere, and claim this is 'science' on display??!?




Talk about 'retards', that's rather ironic, isn't it?


Airplanes have instruments on board, which measure altitude, and level flight, for each and every flight. Are you aware of that? If not, it's easy to find, so please try and read about it, because you don't have a clue so far....


The beautiful thing about planes is that they measure everything during their flights, and nothing can be disputed, about those instruments. Once you know that, you'll probably make every excuse in the book, to dismiss the reality.


How do planes measure altitude, and measure for level flight? With instruments, on board the planes, right?

Do you know how a plane measures level flight, within air? Or, put it another way - if air was not directional, itself, how would planes be able to fly level, at all? They wouldn't.

Why is that important? Because planes could not fly level in air, unless air itself was level, in order to measure for level flight.

Anyone knows what happens to a plane, or any other object, in air, when it is not flying level in air...right?

There is resistance when it is not level.

How come? If air had no specific directional flow, or was essentially directionless, or was in various directions, all at random, then it would be impossible for planes to measure the air for a level flight.

So air is obviously flowing level, or we couldn't measure air, to find out where level is, within flights...

Planes fly level in air, by measuring the air, which is level, in itself, therefore.


If two planes cruised at 40,000 feet altitude, on a 6 hour flight - one of the planes flew over a curved Earth, while the other plane flew over a flat Earth.....any idea?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




How do planes measure altitude, and measure for level flight?





posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
What is your point, if any?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


The horizon is variable, the Earth is variable,
What? The Earth moves? It changes shape? Lines of latitude are not equal? What is it you are trying to say? Can you draw a picture?


And your side claimed Polaris was 121 million light years further away from Earth, until 20 years ago.
So what?


Nice try.
So, you can't explain. I thought not.

edit on 3/1/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Show images of what you are saying here, if possible, because there's no way to argue for what is supposedly seen, at various latitudes, in vague sketches.

I'm not even sure what variables you have assumed, for your argument, much less anything else, for that matter. It is a vague argument, without any evidence, as it stands now.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Proof of the flat Earth is from examining airplane instruments - as valid MEASUREMENTS are indisputable evidence, no matter how you try to ignore it over and over again.

When a plane is cruising altitude, it essentially remains this same altitude for several hours, during flight.

Some minor adjustments may occur on flights, which have nothing to do with so-called 'curvature', anyway, these minor adjustments have to do with a changing environment, or so forth, along each flight, if required.


Airplanes NEVER account for, and NEVER make adjustments for, 'curvature'....


That proves the Earth is flat, by just this one fact, alone. But it goes far beyond that...


On a 6 hour flight, for example, they would have to account for about 1800 feet of curvature. Not exactly a minor adjustment, that's for sure!

Indeed, every flight would need to account for curvature, before liftoff occurs. Planes would always fly in a constant rate of descent, to remain at altitude, or try to, anyway. Flying over a curve is always a curved path, no matter how close to level...

Obviously, the instruments would measure for that descent, on all flights.



Every plane proves the Earth is flat, beyond any doubt.

Accepting the truth is still a big problem, however.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh dear, are we back on plane altimeters again? Tell me something, do you really think that you're achieving anything, or are you still trolling us for the lolz?



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
avionic instruments - have been beaten beyond the " dead horse " stage

turbo troll - has runaway from actually addressing polaris - like a scallded cat

so - lets beat polaris some more

simple trig :[ on an alledged flat earth " ]

h [ the height of polaris ]

d [ distance of observer from true north pole ] - we can measure this

x [ angle ] [ the obesrved decination of polaris ]

we can measure x and d .

so h= tanx * d

why does every combination of distance and declination give a different height ?????

flat earth delusion fals flat - again



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Next we will have, there is no such thing as gravity because birds.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

There's no such thing as trigonometry.

And don't forget "the Earth is variable."

edit on 3/2/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

" the earth is VARIABLE " ?????????????????//

what the utter fook ??????????????

the entire canard of the flat earth delusion = " earth = flat "

this thread is truely dead

latutude works in mid ocean - think about this

flat earth cultists ad - hoc hand waving has reached new lows of idiocy

ETA :

if any flat earth proponent claims " trig doesnt work " - this thread should be nuked
edit on 2-3-2019 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

"There's no such thing as gravity" isn't good enough?



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

birds can fly... as proof gravity doesn't exist may beat that




posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh dear, are we back on plane altimeters again? Tell me something, do you really think that you're achieving anything, or are you still trolling us for the lolz?


Nobody is trolling here but a few people that call others trolls, instead of acting halfway maturely.

The plane instruments - as I've explained, repeatedly - are valid proof of the flat Earth. Level flight is measured, altitude is measured, on each and every flight. That is the evidence, beyond debate.

Your side has tried to argue that level flight is not really level at all, it means 'level to the Earth's surface, which is curved'. That's how desperate your argument has become, to claim level flight means 'level to Earth's curvature'!!

It is easily found that level flight is - indeed - flying a level trajectory in air. Level flight is achieved by measuring atmospheric pressure, during flight, to adjust for level flight. Air - itself - is the medium used by the instruments to measure for level flight. Which means, air flows level, and that's used to measure for level flight.

Altitude is also measured, during a flight, and at cruising altitude, say, for 6 hours, it remains the same.

The plane took off at sea level, which is 0 feet altitude, and eventually reached cruising altitude, say 35,000 feet. The plane then attained level flight, at that altitude, and remained level, at altitude, for 6 hours.

At that point, the plane began to descend, as it neared the destination airport, which was also at sea level.


The instruments measured the descent, of course. And the altimeter measured it as a descent, at the same time. Both instruments measured the level flight, and the descent, which should be obvious, but it's still not getting through to you.

The altimeter goes from 35,000 feet, down to 0 feet, at landing.

So where did the 1800 feet of 'curvature' go missing? A 6 hour flight at cruising speed would cover about 1800 feet of 'curvature', if it existed. Luckily, curvature is a myth, and that's why airplanes don't need to account for it, and why many pilots don't know the measurements given for Earth's curvature, because they didn't have to understand 'curvature' of the Earth in flight schools!

Wouldn't you teach the very people who are learning how to fly above curvature day after day, that curvature is rather important to understand? It certainly WOULD be important to know, if it existed.


Anyone who thinks 'gravity' exists, and can grab planes in air, just because gravity wants to make planes follow Earth's curvature, at 35,000 feet....it's time for a reality check.

Especially if you believe gravity makes planes read level flight, when it's not level at all, too! No, it's 'level to Earth's curvature'. Just forget that level flight has nothing to do with measuring the ground 35,000 feet below a plane, and start believing that instruments on planes measure level flight as Earth's curvature, and that's all you need!!

If anyone of you wants to reply to the points I've made, once again, that's great. I've had enough of the infantile replies, it's a waste of everyone's time, and behaving like a bunch of idiots only gives the forum a bad name, or makes it seem so, to outsiders.


Anyone who wants to actually address those points, I'll be glad to respond.




top topics



 
14
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join