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.
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?
originally posted by: turbonium1
Fish-eye lenses make the world look round, this makes it a most popular tool of deception.
A very stupid tactic, obviously.
originally posted by: WarriorMH
originally posted by: WarriorMH
originally posted by: turbonium1
Fish-eye lenses make the world look round, this makes it a most popular tool of deception.
A very stupid tactic, obviously.
Fish eye lens have a mind of their own, they know when to go full "fish eye" and when not to
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
originally posted by: WarriorMH
Click on the link above (that you posted)and look straight away at the image at the beginning - notice how the earth appears to be concave behind the plane. Look at the lines on the ground along side the plane (left bottom corner) also - see how the 'straight lines' are not straight - they curve.
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1
Which means we would never see a half moon... or anything but a full moon in your theory
Im not even going to respond to your reply to me
Its just not worth it
The moon has nothing to block half of it out, although it is being blocked halfway.
There has to be another object blocking the moon, near enough to block the moon, and in the same cycle of the moon, while nobody dares speak of it, at least, in public.
What they say about the half-blocked moon is total nonsense. It cannot be replicated, with any actual models, or with even one, single, valid simulation.
Because there is nothing they can make to block out half the moon, with simulations, or with models, so obviously it's never done. Not possible to realistically support it.
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
originally posted by: WarriorMH
Click on the link above (that you posted)and look straight away at the image at the beginning - notice how the earth appears to be concave behind the plane. Look at the lines on the ground along side the plane (left bottom corner) also - see how the 'straight lines' are not straight - they curve.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1
Which means we would never see a half moon... or anything but a full moon in your theory
Im not even going to respond to your reply to me
Its just not worth it
The moon has nothing to block half of it out, although it is being blocked halfway.
There has to be another object blocking the moon, near enough to block the moon, and in the same cycle of the moon, while nobody dares speak of it, at least, in public.
What they say about the half-blocked moon is total nonsense. It cannot be replicated, with any actual models, or with even one, single, valid simulation.
Because there is nothing they can make to block out half the moon, with simulations, or with models, so obviously it's never done. Not possible to realistically support it.
(Hysterical laughter)
Oh, please keep trolling us all with lunacy like this. Gawd, I haven't laughed so hard in ages.
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
originally posted by: WarriorMH
Click on the link above (that you posted)and look straight away at the image at the beginning - notice how the earth appears to be concave behind the plane. Look at the lines on the ground along side the plane (left bottom corner) also - see how the 'straight lines' are not straight - they curve.
And even the runway looks to be very 'curved', which proves that all runways are actually 'curved', right?
I thought they were flat, until a video showed me otherwise!
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Yeah...
the last page and a half is a must read!!
shameless bump
originally posted by: WarriorMH
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
originally posted by: WarriorMH
Click on the link above (that you posted)and look straight away at the image at the beginning - notice how the earth appears to be concave behind the plane. Look at the lines on the ground along side the plane (left bottom corner) also - see how the 'straight lines' are not straight - they curve.
And even the runway looks to be very 'curved', which proves that all runways are actually 'curved', right?
I thought they were flat, until a video showed me otherwise!
It is a fish eye lense lmfao
Go take the trip and see for yourself, i don't get it, it is cheap!
If you take the trip and see a round earth and still don't believe it then you are lost forever if you can't trust your own eyes
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: WarriorMH
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
originally posted by: WarriorMH
Click on the link above (that you posted)and look straight away at the image at the beginning - notice how the earth appears to be concave behind the plane. Look at the lines on the ground along side the plane (left bottom corner) also - see how the 'straight lines' are not straight - they curve.
And even the runway looks to be very 'curved', which proves that all runways are actually 'curved', right?
I thought they were flat, until a video showed me otherwise!
It is a fish eye lense lmfao
Go take the trip and see for yourself, i don't get it, it is cheap!
If you take the trip and see a round earth and still don't believe it then you are lost forever if you can't trust your own eyes
When you are on a plane, and it stays in level flight, over the entire flight, and at the very same altitude throughout, which is also confirmed with instruments on the plane, do you trust what the instruments measure? I do, so should you.
Pilots trust their eyes, when they see the horizon, which they see as a flat, horizontal line, straight across Earth. No matter how high in altitude, the horizon goes straight across Earth. If the horizon can't be seen, there is also a 'simulated' horizon, shown on their instrument panel. It also has a straight horizontal line, to simulate the actual horizon.
So when all the instruments measure a level flight, at the same altitude, along X axis, and uses a flat, level line, straight across Earth, as the Y axis, what does that tell you about the 'curvature'.
It's rather odd that you can see a 'curve' on the Earth's horizon, when pilots see the horizon as a straight line. That's why all planes ALSO use a straight line to simulate the actual horizon.
I trust the instruments, and I trust my eyes, which all show, in every way, that the Earth is, indeed, flat.
I'll once again ask for you, or anyone else, to try and account for 1800 feet of curvature, over a 6 hour flight, because it's still 'missing'!!!
1800 feet doesn't vanish away with 'little adjustments, made along the way', obviously. And it would show a descent of 1800 feet over the 6 hour flight, which it doesn't. And it stays at the same altitude, throughout.
This, in a nutshell, is your inexplicable dilemma
Have fun trying to resolve it...
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1
Sorry brother
We actually aren't discussing issues of every day individuals
These are "your" issues... specifically
Which in actuality are settled.... and i've even given you a demonstration of said issues which you can test for yourself
So who is the troll here?