- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: “I saw the ISS as a fast moving giant star and you could make out an irregular shape as the light was not even. A football field is not lit up. You can’t even see the moon when it is not lit up. The difference right there. Nothing to see here folks.”
Nothing to see here is right! Size does matter. If you can’t even come close to seeing it, by a few hundred miles, lighting it up won’t help. If it were lit up it still would be too small to see. Lighting something up does make it appear larger only brighter. In order to see it when it is lit up you FIRST have to be able to SEE it.
If it’s dark you can’t see it but when it’s lit up you can. That is for visable objects. Lighting does not make an object grow bigger. If you can’t see it at all then lighting it up will not make it visible.
I enjoyed the the video of the monster destroying the actornauts. I hope you enjoyed the one from the movie “Rocketman”. It’s a funny movie all the way thru although very childish. But that’s ok for a comedy.
Nothing to see here is right! Size does matter. If you can’t even come close to seeing it, by a few hundred miles, lighting it up won’t help. If it were lit up it still would be too small to see. Lighting something up does make it appear larger only brighter.
Boom. It makes it brighter. Big objects that are not lit adequately can be invisible to the naked eye.
Try to imagine a dark sky and a star. And then a sky during daylight and no stars apart from the sun of course.
T8, how do you know you saw the ISS? Were you able to make out the solar panels? The cupula? Did you see an astronaut doing a space walk? Isn’t it more truthful to say you saw a light in the sky and concluded it was the ISS in the absence of any verifiable evidence? After all, it could have just as easily been a high altitude plane, right? How would you know the difference?
Also, I was curious as to what you think of this photo I posted earlier…
That’s Los Angeles from over 100 miles away. More than a mile should be hidden behind curvature, but we can see where the beach meets the sea. With a regular camera, most of that would be a blue haze, like in your Ruapehu photo. But with an IR camera, we can not only see LA, but mountains that are another 70 miles behind LA. What do you make of that? I mean, you guys usually divert attention away from the fact that the very top of the distant object should be thousands of feet behind the curve by pointing out that the bottom of the object is obscured by hazy atmosphere, right? And you use that hazy atmosphere to inject the absurd idea that refraction is lifting the top of the object up over the curve of the ball earth, and setting it perfectly on the horizon so it only looks like we’re seeing the actual object, right? And you make this claim for photos taken in all kinds of different locations and in all kinds of different atmospheric conditions, right? You even go as far as calling it “standard refraction” – as if there is anything standard about it, right? And you make this claim without a shred of empirical scientific evidence to suggest that such a thing even could happen – let alone that it does happen exactly the same way on every photo we show of an object that should be hidden behind curvature, right?
So I was just wondering what atmospheric phenomenon you will use to explain away the fact we are seeing LA all the way to the ocean – when it should be a mile behind the curve of the earth.
T8, how do you know you saw the ISS?
- I see satellites all the time on a clear night. They look like stars, but move across the sky in minutes.
- This satelite like the others, moved across the sky quickly, but was way bigger, and looking more like a craft. The shape was blurred due to light, but there was a shape nevertheless, and uneven distribution of light I guess from rays reflecting in different directions off the craft.
- Thinking to myself it had to be the ISS, I looked up where the ISS was suppose to be and boom, it was above New Zealand.
This is what leads me to believe that I have seen the ISS with the naked eye. However, don’t take my word for it, you are suppose to be able to see it and there are videos of it on Youtube. I am guessing that the higher an object in the atmosphere is, the harder it will be to see due to distance, however on the contrary, the more possibility it will reflect light from the sun even though it is night.
So in other words, you don’t actually “know” that you’ve seen the ISS with the naked eye, right? You saw a light, and believed this light looked like a craft, right? Could it have been an airplane? Could it have been a secret military craft that doesn’t look like a regular airplane? Perhaps you saw what I accidentally photographed Saturday night? It’s only two minutes…
Could you have seen that thing – or another experimental craft like it?
Hey… so what about the IR photo of LA? Should be a mile behind curvature. Why can we see it… all the way to where the sand meets the sea? There are already dozens like it on YouTube – and thousands more will soon follow. I’m having my own P900 converted to IR once my P1000 arrives in September. What are you going to do when you or someone else shoots Ruapehu from Paekakariki Hill with IR, and we see both Ruapehu and the plateau all the way to the bottom?
I’m really curious about what you’re going to do when your “refraction” rescue device is taken away from you. Because after all, that is the only argument you had against the thousands of other photos showing objects that would be thousands of feet behind the curve if we truly lived on a ball, right? What will you do now that you no longer have that argument?
The city being 100 miles away or Ruapehu being 200 km away do not prove a Flat Earth.
You come up with these figures and think that is enough to dispel the huge body of evidence that the earth is a globe. That is reckless in my view.
Also, you asked about my statement regarding moisture in the atmosphere once, so to give a quick reply, this was mentioned in one of the Flat Earth calculators I used, although I don’t know which one. It said something like answer is based on zero moisture in the atmosphere.
So my argument is that you can indeed see beyond the horizon due to warmer air over a layer of cooler air bending light allowing you to see things that would not be visible otherwise. Sometimes other effects happen like image inversion, distorted image size, or a dancing or moving image. Another point that needs to be mentioned is if the Earth were flat, then you still need to explain why you can see these things sometimes, but not all the time even on clear days. Obviously it matters not what you believe, something is going on that leads to seeing things you cannot most of the time and the Flat Earth is not the explanation. It has to do with the nature of light, refraction, air temperature, and moisture in the atmosphere. Finally, there is at least some doubt that the calculations that Earth Curve Calculators use are only accurate for short distances, and that longer distances need much more complex calculations which are obviously harder to implement on a website.
So in other words, you don’t actually “know” that you’ve seen the ISS with the naked eye, right?
So in other words, you don’t actually “know” that you’ve seen the Flat Earth right?
Way more chance that what I saw was the ISS, than you seeing a Flat Earth right?
And I am not the only person to have seen it.
It is a silly argument you make. It goes like this:
There is no ISS. If you saw the ISS, then it is not there because it is too high for you to see, thus there is no ISS.
I don’t see a lot of science here Mike.
Conclusion:
There is no ISS.
But people claim to have seen it.
It is too high to see, so you can’t say it is ISS, so there is no ISS.
So by the pure fact that the ISS is high in the atmosphere, this is proof that it doesn’t exist.
You’re one of the great scientific thinkers of our age right?
T8: …if the Earth were flat, then you still need to explain why you can see these things sometimes, but not all the time even on clear days.
Ah… but you’ll be able to see them every day with IR. And you’ll see them all the way to the bottom. You’ll see through the haze that obscures the bottom of these objects in the visible spectrum. But let’s talk specifically about that LA photo. It should be a mile hidden behind curve. It’s not. What is going on there, in your opinion? Is moisture in the air somehow projecting the entire city of LA an entire mile up and over the curve, and placing it perfectly on the horizon with no distortion or miraging?
T8: Way more chance that what I saw was the ISS, than you seeing a Flat Earth right?
I see the flat earth in that IR photo of LA. And in the skyline of Chicago photo. And in thousands of other photos that are easily accessible on the web and YouTube. Now, tell me again how you know you saw the ISS. 🙂
T8: Conclusion:
There is no ISS.
But people claim to have seen it.
It is too high to see, so you can’t say it is ISS, so there is no ISS.
So by the pure fact that the ISS is high in the atmosphere, this is proof that it doesn’t exist.
You’re one of the great scientific thinkers of our age right?
Well, we could add the fact that they say the aluminum ISS orbits in the thermosphere – where we’re told “temperatures range from 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C(3,632° F) or higher“. Now put your great scientific thinker cap on and Google the temperature at which aluminum melts. Please let us know what you find out, okay?
Keep in mind that all those aluminum satellites you keep seeing are said to orbit there too.
So tell us again how exactly you know you’ve seen the orbiting ISS and orbiting satellites. Could you have really just been seeing planes, and metal satellites being carried aloft on balloons – like the one shown at the 4 minute mark of this video…
If you watch the whole video, you’ll see me show images of real satellites, and compare them to artists’ renditions of the imaginary ones they say are flying around in an atmospheric zone that would melt them three times over.
And I’m still waiting for your explanation of how moisture catapulted a perfect image of LA more than a mile up over the curve of the earth. Naturally, I’ll be expecting observational empirical scientific data to back up whatever explanation you offer.
Speck: I see the flat earth in that IR photo of LA.
Mountain: I see the globe earth in from the video feed taken from satelites.
As for the IR.photos to come, I can’t wait to see telescopic photos taken from Alaska of New Zealand and other such photos. Or Australia from New Zealand. This will be a game changer.
I already told you. I cannot tell you exactly, but there are a number of candidates.
- Flat Earth calculators are possibly not accurate for long distances, but good enough for street surveyors. Thus, under the right conditions, you can see these distances anyway. NOTE: The most ironic thing of all is these pictures actually prove the Globe Earth because the bottom is cut off. Notice you only see the tops of the city skylines.
- Light refracts, bends, reflects, etc. All kinds of possibilities here. Case in hand. A supernova was viewed twice from earth centuries apart because some light took a different and longer route to Earth.
These rare photos vs satellite photography and video? No contest.
You know what would prove this debate? Send up a craft of some kind and live stream a video of what it sees.
Wait up…..
Hi Mike
I showed you by Scriptures that there’s NO doom over your flat earth. But you still go on with this non- scene, can you rember what page that was on?
Anyways Brain Cox takes care of this flat Earth conspiracy.
Prof Cox said: “There is absolutely no basis at all for thinking the world is flat.
“Nobody in human history, as far as I know, has thought the world was flat.”
He gave a clever rebuke to people who question why we don’t fall-off the Earth if it is round and spinning, explaining this is down to the Coriolis force.
The scientist added: “So when you see those beautiful pictures of storms spinning around and rotating, the reason for that is that we live on a spinning planet.” K simple no more no less, but you won’t simple believe this or me showing you scriptures that proves that there no doom over your flat earth. Look in to Brain Cox . Goggle it. You probably have already but neglect to show it in your posting. Mike let’s face it,( your blind) your mind is close it’s almost in possible for you to have a open mind. You could think about repenting, of your ways. Ask the Father to draw you to His only begotten Son the Lord Jesus Christ. Anthony
T8: “You know what would prove this debate? Send up a craft of some kind and live stream a video of what it sees. Wait up…..”
Do you mean like this?
You know what’s interesting, in your video with the guy that said he measured a few degrees below the horizon at around 1,000 feet, how far would you think the horizon would be below eye level at 120,000 feet? Not much at all according to this video. In fact it seems to come to eye level even at that height!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
