- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 2 hours ago by
.
- Posts
That didn’t work.
What about now Mike?
Did this post invoke a notification?
It should as you are the topic starter. Please let me know.
Thanks. What could they possibly say at this point? Either the moon moves 2288 mph or 60,000 mph. It must be the latter to overtake the rotation of the earth, but then we’d see it go west to east in the sky. And they NEED it to overtake the rotation of earth in order for the shadow to go west to east, right?
Glad to hear this because it kinda draws a line in the sand. Either you are right and that would be troublesome for science or you will be proven wrong, providing a near knockout punch. As you say, there is no comeback, so what happens if there is?
T8: Glad to hear this because it kinda draws a line in the sand. Either you are right and that would be troublesome for science or you will be proven wrong, providing a near knockout punch.
It’s not troublesome for “science”, but for scientism. Or as Paul terms it, “science falsely so-called”.
T8: As you say, there is no comeback, so what happens if there is?
Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it, okay? For all I know, they could claim “refraction!” – in which case I would roll my eyes knowing that it is as absurd of a rescue device in this case as it is in the long distance photographs like Ruapehu. In the meantime, I’ve just completely destroyed the model you’ve blindly believed in all your life. So surely you are going to join Team Flat until there is a comeback, right? Because to do otherwise, knowing what you now know, would be irrational, right?
For all I know, they could claim “refraction!” – in which case I would roll my eyes knowing that it is as absurd of a rescue device in this case as it is in the long distance photographs like Ruapehu.
Roll your eyes at Ruapehu for the flat earth model because you can not see it nearly every other day. Troublesome for the flat earth because you have to come up with a theory why on a rare occasion you can see it. Can’t say large hills in the way. My guess is you will not answer this, but if you did, you would have to say atmospheric moisture or some other answer that you roll your eyes when others say this for the globe earth model. It works equally both ways, but you do not see that or you do not admit to it.
I’ve taken photos of Superstition Mountain from 55 miles away – and even did a video about it. Many days you cannot see it from 10 miles away. Now what is the most likely scenario…
- Some days the entire mountain is hidden behind a curved earth from only 10 miles away.
- Some days the air is clear enough that you can see the mountain that is always there from as far as 55 miles away.
You really can’t be this slow, can you? Do you SERIOUSLY think it’s more likely that Superstition and Ruapehu are always hidden by the curve, but on rare occasions refraction magically projects a PERFECT image of them up over the curve so we can see them? Isn’t it more likely that they are always there, but most days are hidden by our majorly polluted air?
Some days the air is clear enough that you can see the mountain that is always there from as far as 55 miles away.
2) Atmospheric conditions.
Rolls eyes.
See, it works both ways.
You really can’t be this slow, can you? Do you SERIOUSLY think it’s more likely that Superstition and Ruapehu are always hidden by the curve, but on rare occasions refraction magically projects a PERFECT image of them up over the curve so we can see them? Isn’t it more likely that they are always there, but most days are hidden by our majorly polluted air?
The air is not polluted between the lookout and Ruapehu. Not many people live there.
The city is further south and air is very clear there most days too. Crystal clear when the air is a bit colder.
Hey, I just thought of something! In your photo, only HALF of the mountain is supposed to be hidden behind the ball earth, remember? So if YOUR explanation that sometimes the mountain magically projects itself up over the curve is correct, then you should see the top half of it EVERY DAY! Now what?
Well? Can you see the top half of Ruapehu every day? If not, then your explanation is done for, leaving only the sensible explanation… ie: mine.
You usually can’t see Ruapehu at all, but on especially clear days, you see all of it. It’s not like there are days when you can see only the top half of it, and other days when you can see all of it. On the days you can see it, you see all of it. The other days you see none of it. Your explanation fails, as if it was ever plausible or believable in the first place.
Please remember Mike that for every video or picture you think proves a Flat Earth there are a thousand or more that show a globe.
But for your sake, I will focus on that one in a thousand or million picture or video.
I will post again soon and reply to your last 3 posts and perhaps some previous posts too.
Measuring Earth’s Radius With A Telescope?
Mike. This video demonstrates how you can see over the horizon and how you can have extra information at the bottom of the view.I could apply some of these phenomena to the explanation of Ruapehu. I now have quite a few things I can draw upon to explain seeing the mountain. Can’t tell you which ones for sure, but that there are things that make it possible. One more interesting thing. Most of these kinds of photos seem to have lots of water in the image.
You usually can’t see Ruapehu at all, but on especially clear days, you see all of it. It’s not like there are days when you can see only the top half of it, and other days when you can see all of it. On the days you can see it, you see all of it. The other days you see none of it. Your explanation fails, as if it was ever plausible or believable in the first place.
Your all or nothing argument here doesn’t work because I have only seen the volcano once and at least half was visible with what I suspect were hills possibly separated by many km merged into the bottom half of the view. The zoom lense flattened all these features. So it is probably only half the mountain anyway and we only have one photo to go by and another one I posted which was similar to mine. In short, both images either showed the whole mountain or less. Your point is moot given this.
But let’s look at your argument here again because it actually fails your own theory. If it is very rare to see Ruapehu and the air is crystal clear all year round, then you would assume in winter when the mountain is covered in snow and when heat is not present to distort light that you would see it many times. Cold air with no wind is very clear and there are many days like this, not one per year or one per 5 years Mike. Like I said, even your flat earth belief requires some kind of atmospheric phenomena. And to support my argument, I have mentioned before that I have clearly seen atmospheric lensing taking place from the same lookout to the peninsula making the low building appear as skyscrapers with nearby Kapiti Island looking like it has cliffs.
BTW, is not even a peninsula if you look at Google Earth, that was created by the zoom lense and sometimes atmospheric lensing or whatever it’s called gives it this appearance too.
So Mt Ruapehu should be seen many more days on a flat earth than a globe. Take a look at the video I posted above. It explains what could have taken place if the photo shows all or near all of Ruapehu. But like I said before, it could also be only half the mountain with other landscape features over the near side of the horizon blended in.
Finally, have you noticed that my photo and a few other rare events are scrutinised to the enth degree, while the vast majority of globe earth proof videos and photos are completely dismissed. True science doesn’t do this. This cherry picking activity goes by the name, ‘bias’ not ‘science’ Mike. If your going to take the piss out of science or scientism, then the least you should do is true unbiased science for yourself and be an example, otherwise you condemn yourself with your own standard as the measuring stick.
You keep making my point for me. Listen closely this time…
According to the ball earth math, the top half of Ruapehu should be visible from that vantage point ALL THE TIME. Now you keep telling me how clear it is there, and asking why you can only rarely see Ruapehu… but that’s what I’m asking you! Why CAN’T you see it every day when the top half is ALWAYS above your imagined curve?
T8: Finally, have you noticed that my photo and a few other rare events are scrutinised to the enth degree, while the vast majority of globe earth proof videos and photos are completely dismissed.
We’re talking thousands of photos and other proofs… versus not one single verifiable proof of a globe. But let’s not get distracted here. We’re just working out your misunderstandings about Ruapehu as a way to pass time while you’re figuring out the solar eclipse shadow problem that unequivocally destroys your entire model.
OMG Mike, are you really serious. Okay, I will need to post up globe earth videos regularly to prove you wrong. And I’m pretty sure you have piste the best flat earth ones leaving few left that might be wort watching. Of course I know that posting up these videos will not lead you to disprove them, but will keep posting them up to show the sheer weight of documented evidence.
Go for it… but remember, only ones that regular people like us can verify for ourselves, okay? In the meantime, what is your response to my last Ruapehu comments? When is your rebuttal of my solar eclipse shadow point coming?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
