Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: FinallyAwake
a reply to: turbonium1

Here's MORE undeniable proof that the earth is a globe.

I know you won't watch it, but here's the proof you won't accept lol

*FLAT EARTHER CONVERTS TO GLOBER*


youtu.be...

How many people once thought Earth was a ball, but realize now, by proof, that Earth is actually flat?

That's what you're arguing about here, is it not?

We all first thought, were told, were taught, that the Earth was a ball, right?

More than that, we were told people once believed Earth was flat, because they were ignorant, so only a fool would believe it was flat, today, yes?

There are many people, like myself, who once believed Earth was round, because we didn't know any better at the time.

We changed our minds after seeing that all the evidence supports the flat Earth, not a ball Earth. That's why many people have realized the truth was hidden, covered by their endless lies.


You're only helping my own argument, actually...

Hahaha - and you such are a closed minded bigot.

You get supplied irrefutable evidence that proves otherwise, and you're too scared to watch it because you are desperately trying to save face.

Oh and you are 100% predictable, I bet that kinda sucks for you ☹️

a reply to: turbonium1

What do not understand.

Flat earthers have debunked themselves.


And again...

You do understand there is a documentary “Behind the Curve” about flat earthers. It’s not hostile in anyway. It just lets flat earthers do their thing.

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion the earth does not rotate with their own ring laser gyroscope.

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion The earth does not curve with their own laser pointer experiment over water.


Flat earth is the lie.

a reply to: turbonium1

And that you blatantly lie...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You.

Caught like a rat in a trap.

A ship sails beyond the horizon, 3 miles off the shore. At another point, to the left of the first point, 1.5 miles up, the ship is still seen, and there is NO 'curvature' at all. Do you dispute this? I hope you know better than that, because you'd look foolish if you DID dispute it.

This alone proves 'curvature' is complete lie, so why don't you address this for once?

NONE of you have addressed this yet. You consider your ball Earth so well proven, yet hide like rats when I've proven it right here, to be a lie?

The below is from this thread.....

originally posted by: elevatedone

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

And that you blatantly lie...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You.

Caught like a rat in a trap.

A ship sails beyond the horizon, 3 miles off the shore. At another point, to the left of the first point, 1.5 miles up, the ship is still seen, and there is NO 'curvature' at all. Do you dispute this? I hope you know better than that, because you'd look foolish if you DID dispute it.

This alone proves 'curvature' is complete lie, so why don't you address this for once?

NONE of you have addressed this yet. You consider your ball Earth so well proven, yet hide like rats when I've proven it right here, to be a lie?

The below is from this thread.....

originally posted by: elevatedone

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A second position halfway up from this position, perpendicular to it, would show there is NO 'curvature' at all, that's my point here.

That's how your side always tries to portray 'curvature' - a single viewpoint, a single horizon, and that's all. You deliberately ignore a SECOND viewpoint, a SECOND horizon, which is perpendicular to the first viewpoint.


Now what do you think we'd see from a second position here? The poles suddenly dip over a 'curve'? Water dips into a 'curve' around this point, maybe?

No, it's always flat, when the poles 'appear to dip down' around that point. No dipping poles, however you wish for it.

If a parallel set of poles were there, why would they appear to CONVERGE in the distance? How is this possible?

Is it 'curvature', once again, that makes them 'converge'? No, it is NOT.


How do you explain poles that seem to be 'converging' in the distance? I'd like to know what your answer is.....

Again, with a second position halfway up from the first point, we will find that the poles do NOT 'converge' at all, they remain parallel throughout. Same way a second position confirms there was NO 'curvature' either.


Both are due to 'perspective, where objects in the distance cannot be seen, or appear distorted, even though they are the exact same throughout.

That's why I'm bringing up poles which appear to converge, because you cannot dismiss it as some magical 'curvature'....

I know that you are desperate, alone and caught like a rat in a rat in a trap, but please stop lying.

a reply to: turbonium1

You are deranged. These two pictures show exactly what you want. The only difference is it’s power line structures, not boats.

originally posted by: elevatedone

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your caught like a rat in a trap, and your trolling does not let you see that.

And your caught in a blatant lie.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Again, with a second position halfway up from the first point, we will find that the poles do NOT 'converge' at all, they remain parallel throughout. Same way a second position confirms there was NO 'curvature' either.


Both are due to 'perspective, where objects in the distance cannot be seen, or appear distorted, even though they are the exact same throughout.

That's why I'm bringing up poles which appear to converge, because you cannot dismiss it as some magical 'curvature'....

The bases are physical blocked from view by the horizon. And amount blocked from view grows more on each structure beyond the horizon which would be physically impossible on a flat earth.

So. Your caught like a rat in a trap. Your pride will not let you see that. And your lying and pride do nothing to glorify your little g god. Your god that can only make a fishbowl of a world. The only thing your here for is your pride, and to glorify yourself.

And ignore the truth of the universe.

a reply to: neutronflux

CGI

a reply to: turbonium1

And you still have this...

You do understand there is a documentary “Behind the Curve” about flat earthers. It’s not hostile in anyway. It just lets flat earthers do their thing.

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion the earth does not rotate with their own ring laser gyroscope.

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion The earth does not curve with their own laser pointer experiment over water.


Flat earth is the lie.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: neutronflux

CGI

Using turbo logic...

I think turbo is a bot. Have we any video of turbo to prove turbo is a person?

But...

A troll by any other name is still a troll.

A second position halfway up from this position, perpendicular to it, would show there is NO 'curvature' at all, that's my point here.

That's how your side always tries to portray 'curvature' - a single viewpoint, a single horizon, and that's all. You deliberately ignore a SECOND viewpoint, a SECOND horizon, which is perpendicular to the first viewpoint.


Now what do you think we'd see from a second position here? The poles suddenly dip over a 'curve'? Water dips into a 'curve' around this point, maybe?

No, it's always flat, when the poles 'appear to dip down' around that point. No dipping poles, however you wish for it.

If a parallel set of poles were there, why would they appear to CONVERGE in the distance? How is this possible?

Is it 'curvature', once again, that makes them 'converge'? No, it is NOT.


How do you explain poles that seem to be 'converging' in the distance? I'd like to know what your answer is.....

Your words are meaningless.

If a person was standing in the midst of the ocean on a very small island in calm seas. That person would seem to their prospective to be at the highest point on a spherical earth in the context the horizon would curve away from them in all directions.



Now

The curvature of the earth is vey gentle due to the size of the earth. So, why would the power line tower tops not seem parallel for a short distance in a photo for say the first mile?



Now. What your flat earth delusion has no explanation for. Why on a flat earth would the bases of the power line towers be blocked by the horizon at all. And why is there an increasing amount of base being obscured by the horizon the father the towers stretch into the distance. Why do the top of the towers curve down and away as they stretch beyond the horizon. Like the earth was curved.

Remember this?

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion The earth does not curve with their own laser pointer experiment over water.


Flat earth is the lie.

Sorry no!
you see the edge of the cloud lit up.
not the Under side.

why is the sky red just befor sun set/rise?
not the clouds in the sky. still thinking on that.

you get read light from a prisum effect !
not from just going through the atmosphere?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You are deranged. These two pictures show exactly what you want. The only difference is it’s power line structures, not boats.

originally posted by: elevatedone

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your caught like a rat in a trap, and your trolling does not let you see that.

And your caught in a blatant lie.

Your side lies about everything, uses tricks to sell their tales, which I've shown you are tricks, like saying this image of power poles that appear to simulate roller coaster drops out of nowhere, would somehow support the claim of 'curvature'.

Any clue that this curve looks like a roller coaster drop, when you require absolute consistency in a curve, to support your fairy tale? Not a clue about it, sadly.


Look where your 'curve' starts here, and plummets like a roller coaster....not exactly a GENTLE curvature, is it? Anything BUT a gentle, smooth curve is shown here. You cannot be blind to that, it's blatantly obvious to see.


Not if you are deliberately in denial, so what is your choice here - see the truth, or remain in denial of it?

It makes no difference to being the truth, of course.

a reply to: turbonium1

LEARN. TO. SPELL. It's 'you're' not 'your'.
If you can't even get that right then you are never going to convince anyone.
Not that you have a leg to stand on with this nonsense anyway.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

not exactly a GENTLE

This has been explained. I can quote that it has been explained.

I’ll take it step farther.

Say the towers were only 35 feet tall off the water. They are probably more like 50 feet.

35 feet is 420 inches. 1 inch is .24 inches of height. For the eight inches of height change for the curve would only be 1.9 percent change in height. Something not going to be notice by eye in real life, much less by the perspective of a camera in this photo.



But....

I have three documented things that should be impossible on your flat earth fantasy.

Now. Stop moving goalposts and explain:
The horizon in the power line tower photo should not obscure the bases of any of the towers. Yet, they disappear below the horizon. Then at a point the towers are blocked by an increasing amount as parts of the towers go below the horizon, blocked by the horizon. And zooming in on the photo does not bring the portions of the towers blocked by the horizon back into view.



Then...

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion the earth does not rotate with their own ring laser gyroscope.

Flat earthers literally debunk themselves in the notion The earth does not curve with their own laser pointer experiment over water.


Flat earth is the lie.


———-

Yes. Your the one caught like a rat in a trap. Caught into telling lies

Flat earth is the lie.

a reply to: turbonium1

You changed you argument

Look where your 'curve' starts here, and plummets like a roller coaster....not exactly a GENTLE curvature, is it? Anything BUT a gentle, smooth curve is shown here. You cannot be blind to that, it's blatantly obvious to see.

I see what your posting now. You gone from no curve, to too much curve.


So. Is this false. Looking to the horizon, is it false the calculated figure is an 8” drop for the first mile.

If a person stays stationary. The first mile drop is eight inches. Since the earth is curved, from your stationary point, the apparent drop of the earth at the second mile is more like 16 inches, then staying in the same spot. The apparent drop of the cure at three miles away is 32” inches. See how the drop increase exponentially. Which would be expected for a spherical earth.

Let’s put this in perspective. We’ll just use diameter of the earth. 7,917.5 miles. Or something like 501,652,800 inches. 32” drop is only something like .0000006% of the earths diameter. So. For a earth 501,652,800 inches in diameter. The curve which you stated is roller coaster like is actually very gently.

a reply to: neutronflux

Oh no your going to cause him to hurt himself moving those goalposts is hard work. It hasn't even occurred to him to explain too much curve on a lake. Without gravity be hard to imagine huh?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You changed you argument

Look where your 'curve' starts here, and plummets like a roller coaster....not exactly a GENTLE curvature, is it? Anything BUT a gentle, smooth curve is shown here. You cannot be blind to that, it's blatantly obvious to see.

I see what your posting now. You gone from no curve, to too much curve.


So. Is this false. Looking to the horizon, is it false the calculated figure is an 8” drop for the first mile.

If a person stays stationary. The first mile drop is eight inches. Since the earth is curved, from your stationary point, the apparent drop of the earth at the second mile is more like 16 inches, then staying in the same spot. The apparent drop of the cure at three miles away is 32” inches. See how the drop increase exponentially. Which would be expected for a spherical earth.

Let’s put this in perspective. We’ll just use diameter of the earth. 7,917.5 miles. Or something like 501,652,800 inches. 32” drop is only something like .0000006% of the earths diameter. So. For a earth 501,652,800 inches in diameter. The curve which you stated is roller coaster like is actually very gently.

Since you posted this in two different threads, I'll answer it in both threads, because I want you to answer my question at the bottom of it....I've put it in bold for you, so we'll all find out who the real rat is, won't we?

We all know that from ground/sea level, the horizon is about 3 miles out, so assuming the same for the horizon in your photo....

The poles are 50 feet high, according to you, so let's go with that. And you also say 'curvature' at 3 miles out is about 32 inches...so that would make for 64 inches of 'curvature' at 4 miles out, as well..

The poles 'drop down' and 'vanish' no further out than 4 miles, but let's be overly generous, and say they 'vanish' SIX miles out, just for fun.

5 miles of 'curvature' would be about 128 inches, and 6 miles would be 256 inches, then.

The poles are 50 feet high, or 600 inches high.

Do you get the problem now?

The poles are completely visible for the first 2-3 miles, but completely vanish in the next 1 or 2 miles, at most, which proves 'curvature' doesn't exist. It is - once again - caused by PERSPECTIVE, where objects in the distance seem to 'vanish', while still there, where parallel poles seem to CONVERGE in the distance, while still parallel.

You keep ignoring the fact that parallel poles appear to CONVERGE in the distance, because it is the SAME REASON objects seem to 'vanish' in the distance, beyond a horizon - PERSPECTIVE!

And we can prove these poles in your image do NOT plummet down 'curvature', by viewing them at a SECOND point, perpendicular to this viewpoint, about 1.5 miles up from it.

These liars NEVER SHOW YOU THAT VIEW, NEVER EVEN MENTION IT, because they KNOW it proves they are complete liars, and frauds.

By your argument, you would also believe that if we looked at these poles from a second viewpoint, perpendicular to this point, 1.5 miles up from it, we would see a magical 'curve' in the lake, right at the 3 mile point!

I've told you it's just a ruse, and anyone can look ACROSS this SAME horizon, which extends about 3 miles, the SAME 3 miles it is see outward from you. Look closely at the entire length of a horizon, 3 miles across, and see how perfectly STRAIGHT and FLAT it is, the entire 3 mile length. THAT is the same thing YOU are looking at OUT to the horizon, but you are unable to SEE that it is perfectly straight and flat the entire 3 mile length, because of PERSPECTIVE.

Once again, imagine these same poles going ACROSS the horizon, instead of OUT to it. Pretend the poles are just under the horizon, or atop it, while still entirely visible.

Tell me what you would see? Would you see the poles 'curve' up and down the 3 mile long flat horizon, or would they be flat and straight, like the straight and flat horizon is?

What do you think we'd see? I'd like to know your answer to this simple question, even a child could answer.... so go ahead...


How does it feel, to be a rat, who gets caught in his OWN trap?

Why can't anyone prove there are 'dark spots' on Saturn, which rotate once every 10 hours, 15 minutes, 19 seconds?

You use this as 'proof' that Saturn rotates once every 10 h,16 m, 19 s, so you surely have PROOF of such 'dark spots' on Saturn, right?

You don't just buy whatever they SAY is on Saturn, is true, without some kind of valid PROOF for it, do you? No, that would be really stupid to do, wouldn't it? So show me the 'dark spots' on Saturn, because I can't find ANY proof for them existing.....

I can't even find any NASA sites which claim there are 'dark spots' on Saturn, which is very odd. They DO claim there is a 'white spot' of some sort, which is another problem entirely, so let's focus on finding where these 'dark spots' are, first of all.

I'm sure you won't find any valid proof for these 'dark spots' either, because they were all made up, by a complete liar, and all you do is make up BS excuses for these liars, and pretend they didn't lie, it's just a mistake, they didn't realize it was 'an atmospheric effect', or some other BS excuse.

Your excuses are not going to save these rotten liars, the RATS who've now been caught in a trap. In fact, there will be more and more of these rats, who made up BS lies, years ago, and got away with it, because nobody else could see if it was ever TRUE or not.

In the meantime, try to defend this liar who claimed to see 'dark spots' on Saturn, and used his lie to make ANOTHER lie, that Saturn was rotating once every 10h, 16m, 19s!

hat's a very 'precise measurement' to come up with, isn't it? Sure, who would EVER make up something like THAT?