- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: 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.
What you call “Speck” I call observational evidence that anyone with a zoom camera, telescope, or binoculars can see for themselves. What you call “Mountain” I call ignorance and blind faith on your part. For example, you linked two videos above. The first is from Himawari, which takes local weather data and places it on a ball. In other words, their software stitches together strips of data into one fake ball earth – the same way NASA graphic artist Rob Simmons admitted that he created the famous “Blue Marble” image. His own words… “It is Photoshopped – but it has to be.” This is also the way the Earth Nullschool site works – the one that removed the AE map from their list of choices because too many flat earthers were making videos about how the weather, temperature, ocean, and other data made no sense on any map other than the AE. Remember?
It’s the same balloon-powered weather satellite data, overlaid on two different maps via a software program. Which one makes more sense? Of course… which is why they had to eliminate the AE map from their site. Anyway, what you think is actual video of a ball earth is actually strips of weather satellite data mapped onto a ball. You can find the software online, and many flat earthers have done videos using it to wrap frying pans, sections of pavement, and other items around a ball – making them look like weird planets. This is also the way NASA creates the CGI images of their never-ending list of “new planets that could harbor life”. 🙂
The second video you linked is no different than the one D4T linked. The footage in both videos is from high altitude balloons. The only thing making the earth look like a ball in your link is the fisheye lens on the camera. Put a regular lens on that balloon-powered satellite and it will look exactly like the footage D4T linked. You can see how this works if you look at videos of the Felix Baumgartner Red Bull high altitude balloon jump. Notice the curvature of the earth when he jumps. Now realize that the entire curved “earth” you’re seeing is only the state of New Mexico in the USA. That’s what fisheye lenses do. You can see the same curve before his balloon even leaves the ground. And you can prove this by looking at the footage out the window before he jumps, as the camera inside the capsule did not have a fisheye lens. From that camera, all you see is a perfectly straight horizon that rises to eye level – something that could never happen on a ball. Because on a ball, the horizon would start dropping away from you the moment you began your ascent.
Auguste Piccard, the first man who ascended to the stratosphere in a capsule attached to a balloon, said the earth “seemed a flat disk with upturned edge”. Shortly after, a couple of Russians did the same, and reported that they tried very hard to detect the curvature they truly believed was there, but couldn’t.
The only earth curvature anyone has ever seen has been from CGI and fisheye lenses.
Look, the concept is really quite simple…
- IF the earth was a ball, I could not possibly see LA from over 100 miles away, because it would be a mile under the horizon.
- I CAN clearly see LA from over 100 miles away.
- Therefore, the earth is not a ball.
It’s really not much harder than that.
T8: 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.
Our eyes cannot see infinitely far, T8. And telescopic lenses also have their limits. I’m in the middle of a moon-fade time lapse as I write this. If it turns out good, I’ll post it for you. Then you can tell me why my ability to see the moon ended long before it got close to the horizon.
T8: I already told you. I cannot tell you exactly, but there are a number of candidates.
So on one hand, we have observational evidence of Chicago from 65 miles away and LA from 100+ miles away, etc. And on the other hand, we have you with your claim that these objects are mirages – but with no empirical evidence to back up your claim. T8, is it possible that the actual observational evidence is the truth of the matter? If not, why not?
T8: 1. 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.
Here’s the earth curve chart – based solely on the Pythagorean Theorem and trigonometry…
Pick a distance, do the 8 inches per mile squared formula yourself, and compare your results to the chart. You’ll see that it is almost perfect up to about 300 miles – which is a farther distance than what we’re dealing with anyway. You’ll also see that as the distances get larger, the 8 inches per mile squared formula gives you LESS curvature than the official math. For example, 500 miles gives me 166,666 feet of drop, while the chart shows 167,378. So the chart gives 700 more feet of drop than the 8 inches per mile squared formula. So using 8 inches per mile squared actually helps the globers by resulting in less drop than should be there. But who is going to see anything 500 miles away anyway? We’re dealing with distances between 3 miles and 220 miles – the current long distance photography record.
T8: 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.
Actually, the ironic thing is that you think the bottoms being hazed out by moisture in the air somehow eliminates the fact that we can see the tops – when they should be thousands of feet and even miles beyond the curve. Remember my refraction test video?
Notice how I can see the tops of the bushes, but the bottoms have all but disappeared due to refraction and reflection. Are we unable to see the bottoms of the bushes because they are behind the curve? Does my video prove the globe? No, it proves that refraction and reflection are more prevalent the lower you go.
Besides, are you claiming that refraction somehow projected just the tops of the buildings up over the curve, and left the bottoms behind? Rob Skiba already debunked your refraction theory by taking a boat from the Michigan shoreline (where the Nowicki photo was taken) all the way across the lake to Chicago – keeping the camera pointed at Chicago the entire time. Guess what? The “mirage” Chicago from the Michigan shoreline turned out to be the real Chicago all along…
And how do you explain seeing all the way to the bottom in the LA photo – taken from twice as far away? I guarantee you that somebody will eventually reproduce that Chicago skyline from the same place with an IR camera, and we’ll see all the way to where the lake touches the shore. Then what will you say? Of course you’ll say that this time the entire skyline – including the bottoms of the buildings – was projected up over the curve, right? And then somebody will do the Skiba test again with an IR camera – showing the entire skyline all the way from Michigan to Chicago. And then what will you say? I’m sure you’ll think of something. 🙂
T8: 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.
Is one of those possibilities that the actual scientific observation is the truth of the matter? Are do we only consider the baseless post hoc possibilities that protect your indoctrination? Btw, supernovae don’t exist. They are just part of the fantasy you’ve been fed as reality.
T8: These rare photos vs satellite photography and video? No contest.
There’s nothing rare about these photos, T8. There are already thousands of them online – with millions more to follow. So it’s really a matter of actual observational evidence that anyone can see for themselves versus images from space that none of us can verify as authentic, and that have already been proven fake multiple times in multiple ways.
Anthony: Hi Mike
I showed you by Scriptures that there’s NO doom over your flat earth.
Of course that never happened, because there exists no such scripture.
Anthony: 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.”
Oh, well if Brian Cox says so, then it must be true. 🙂 Anthony, he can’t even tell the truth in statements you quoted above. Anybody will tell you that everybody believed the earth was flat until less than 500 year ago, so his second claim is absurd. As for his first claim, observational evidence is the basis for thinking the world is flat. For example…
At that distance, LA would be over a mile behind the horizon if the earth was a ball. Since LA is right there for everyone to see, the earth is clearly flat. Have you ever seen the alleged curve? Since I know you haven’t, on what do you base your belief that it is curved? Surely not any observational evidence that you and I can personally verify, right?
Anthony: 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…
Why would I believe it when it is nonsense? First of all, the Coriolis Effect belies the deception of the globe. It is another one of the many times when one thing they say contradicts another. Anthony, why can’t we lift off in a balloon in America, and just float there in place waiting for Africa to rotate under us on the spinning ball? Well, they say it’s because the atmosphere is stuck to the earth, and moves right along with it, right? Okay, but if that is the case, then the Coriolis Effect is a farce, because there would be no difference between the air currents in northern and southern hemispheres. The entire ball-shaped layer of atmosphere (north and south) would simply spin around with the earth in the same direction. There would be no reason whatsoever for storms to rotate clockwise in the south and counter-clockwise in the north – since the entire atmosphere is moving the direction that the earth is spinning.
Secondly, we can observe that winds blow north, south, east, west, and every direction in between, right? That right there is clear evidence that wind patterns have nothing to do with the alleged spin of the earth.
And finally, southern storms sometimes do rotate counter-clockwise, while northern ones sometimes rotate clockwise.
Anthony: Mike let’s face it,( your blind) your mind is close it’s almost in possible for you to have a open mind.
You’ve got that backwards, Anthony. The first thing you need to realize is that I was you just a few short months ago. I also heard the same stories and learned the same lessons in school. I also spent a lifetime blindly believing the things they told us about our world. The difference is that when I was shown evidence that contradicts the things they taught us, I had an open mind and looked into it… while you refuse to. After a little research, it was easy to see how we’ve been lied to and how their own stories don’t even align with each other. But you won’t do that little bit of research, will you? So who here is really the one with the closed mind? Which of us is really blind? The one who did the research? Or the one who stubbornly refuses to even look into it – opting instead to go on blindly believing stories that contradict the Bible, observation, and common sense?
Hey T8, where’s the homework I gave you? Oh well, I’ll do it for you…
Aluminum melts at 1221 F. We’re told, “Most of the ISS structure is aluminum…” We’re told the 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”.
Are you seeing a problem here?
Here’s a couple of observations of why that video is more than likely bull hockey. In the thumbnail Florida is about 1/6 of the entire “globe”. 1/2 of the entire “globe” is covered with clouds. The clouds don’t move. Where did the continents go?
Your ISS sprung a leak the other day. Don’t worry they fixed it just fine in the usual lying manner.
D4T: In the thumbnail Florida is about 1/6 of the entire “globe”.
That’s the first thing I saw too. 🙂 This is footage from a drone or camera attached to a balloon, and the curve is the result of the fisheye GoPro camera. It’s funny that T8 doesn’t even realize that posting this footage “from the ISS” is equivalent to an evolutionist posting this…
…and saying, “See? There’s evolution right before your eyes you stupid creationist! How can you not believe your own eyes?!?” 😀
D4T: Your ISS sprung a leak the other day. Don’t worry they fixed it just fine in the usual lying manner.
What are the odds? Flying around in the midst of trillions of micro-meteorites and other space debris for over 20 years, and already one of them hit the ISS? LOL
Luckily it didn’t happen like experimental science has shown us it would…
Nah, on the ISS the tiny loss of pressure wasn’t even worrisome enough to wake the actors up in the middle of the night. They let them sleep and then the next morning, dude plugged it with his finger while the other guys prepared some epoxy to fill the hole.
People, NASA is laughing at you when they put out these kinds of stories. They want to see just how indoctrinated you are, and how blindly you will believe even the most absurd things they can throw at you. You’ve been programmed to believe nonsense like this as long as a guy in a white lab coat tells it to you. Break the programming. Wake up.
T8: 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.
Hope this helps. It’s only 40 seconds long…
Mike, great capture of the fading moon! Musta gone behind a tree ; )
LU, I’ll see your 4 miles and raise you 20. The obvious problem with their test was that it was not level.
If you investigate how difficult it is to get a level reading on the laser and the kind of equipment that is really needed to measure large distances you can see that it is best left for the professionals. Not that it couldn’t be done by amateurs but that the expense will usually be prohibitive.
Here’s a nest visible test from 50 miles away! (2 min.)
There should be over 900 feet of missing sight due to curvature, but there isn’t.
D4T: Mike, great capture of the fading moon! Musta gone behind a tree ; )
Arghh… don’t remind me! 🙂 As D4T knows already, the moon fade video was my third attempt this past weekend. I spent 6 hours filming on Saturday, just to have the moon go behind a house before it faded. Then I changed locations and spent another 6 hours Sunday, just to have the moon sink behind a tree before it faded. (I was sure it would fade before sinking that low in the skyline.) The final attempt was Monday, and that 40 seconds of video amounts to 4 hours of work for me. I am learning some tricks and getting better as I go, so once the weather gets below 100 in Phoenix, I have a lot of videos planned. My P1000 should be in this month, and I’ll immediately send the P900 off for IR conversion. I can’t wait to put them side by side to show how much of these distant objects are there, but being hidden atmosplanic haze… like the bottoms of the buildings in the Chicago skyline photo.
D4T: LU, I’ll see your 4 miles and raise you 20. The obvious problem with their test was that it was not level.
I can’t top that answer, but I’ll add another one done by an old man and his wife…
I have it queued to the results part, where his camera is on the ground and his wife is holding the laser on the ground 7.5 miles away. So what then to make of the test Kathi linked? Well, a little research tells you it was propaganda.
1. First of all, these are claimed in the video to be three “regular” people, but both of the girls are scientists. The black girl even says she’s not a scientist in the video, but in an earlier video of her, she claims multiple times to be a scientist – and she is. The Asian girl works for the science/media relations department at NASA. So the entire setup is a deception.
2. For every flat earther laser test (like the ones D4T and I linked and many, many others), the immediate claim is “Refraction!” We’re told the laser light is refracting right along the curve of the earth, and showing up in the camera even though the laser itself is well behind the curve. But wouldn’t you know it – Hawking and his crew of “regular everyday non-scientist people” got results that were perfectly in line with what they should get with the 8 inches per mile squared rule, thereby proving the globe. At 3 miles out, the laser hit exactly at 6 feet. At 6 miles out, the laser was exactly 24 feet above the ground. So apparently “Refraction!” isn’t an issue after all – or they would have gotten the same skewed refracted results that they claim all of our tests get, right? So by showing that the laser hit exactly where it should have at 3 and 6 miles distance, they destroyed the refraction excuse the globers use on our tests, while simultaneously confirming that 8 inches per mile squared is indeed the correct curvature formula for a ball 25,000 miles in circumference.
3. They showed some footage and claimed the laser was 2′ 7″ off the water – but they never showed them leveling the laser. So was it level? Or aiming up at just the right angle to match the 8 inches per mile squared formula? Well, look at this screenshot of the 1:33 mark of the video…
Hawking says they are 500 feet from the laser at that point, but 500 feet gives a drop of like a 10th of an inch. So if there is supposed to be no measurable drop at 500 feet, why does that laser beam look quite a bit higher than the 2′ 7″ off the water that it should be? Looks to me like the laser beam is already at 4 feet off the water – which tells us the laser was tilted upwards instead of being level.
4. And finally, there is undeniable evidence that the helicopter was a CGI addition to the footage. When showing the opposite shore before the helicopter arrives, there are three birds floating past in the water. In the helicopter landing scene, the same three birds are in the exact same place, doing the exact same thing. They overlaid the helicopter onto the original footage of the opposite shore line. You can see this for yourself here…
And if that’s not enough for you, feel free to watch the Globebusters episode from 3 weeks ago, where they dedicated most of the 3.75 hour show to debunking everything about that PBS special…
In summary, what they did on that PBS program wasn’t science – it was deliberately deceptive propaganda designed to produce exactly the results they wanted it to produce, thereby pulling yet another fast one on their blind followers.
But Kathi, I’ve got to say that I’m pleased you’re at least still looking into it now and then. I only wish you’d find a pro-flat earth video next time – and then compare what they show you (stuff you can see with your own eyes) with the flat earth debunking videos, and see which ones ring closer to observational and Biblical truth. I suggest starting with the DITRH YouTube channel. He was an angry atheistic evolutionist who wouldn’t even listen to anyone who brought up flat earth. Then he finally got sick of hearing about it, and set out to debunk it once and for all. Only he couldn’t. And the more he tried, the more he started seeing through the world of lies they’ve been foisting on us for 3 centuries. Now he is one of our most outspoken proponents, and a firm believer in creation. He’s not 100% down with the God of the Bible yet, but he at least knows that we and our world were created. Anyway, the vast majority of his videos are less than 3 minutes. I made a 2 minute video of his testimonial, if you’re interested…
His videos are humorous, and make good points very quickly. Please give him an hour or two of your time.
Another great one is The Potter’s Clay YouTube channel. He is a strong Christian who also produces very short, humorous and entertaining videos.
D4T: Here’s a nest visible test from 50 miles away! (2 min.)
There should be over 900 feet of missing sight due to curvature, but there isn’t.
That’s from the same dude who did the IR LA photo I’ve been trying to get T8 to address. Have you seen his latest? He was flying from LA to Florida, and captured IR footage of some of the Rocky Mountains – from over 500 miles away!
It’s a long video, but he shows you the punch line in the first minute.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
