- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8, if your photo shows exactly what a ball earth calls for…
- Why is there zero refraction/miraging?
- Why can’t you see it there every day?
Understand? You were the one saying, “Well if it isn’t refraction, then I’d be able to see it every day”, right? And I was the one saying, “Sometimes we have clear skies, and sometimes atmospheric conditions prohibit us from seeing things that are always there.” I even brought up Superstition Mountain, telling you that although I shot it from 55 miles away, there are times I can’t see it from 10 miles away, right? And you balked at my arguments, remember? Well now it seems YOU are the one who has to use those same arguments for why you can’t see it every day, right? And what about your “standard” refraction and miraging that you appealed to originally? If you are seeing what you should be seeing on a ball earth, then WHY? Why isn’t more of Ruapehu looming up over the curve due to “standard refraction”?
THAT was the point of the challenge, T8. And you have just PROVEN my assertion, so thanks. (I would have rather had you just come out and admit it clearly like dazza did, but this works just as well. 😉)
How, you ask? Well, you’ve proven that the ONLY evidence you ballers have for crying refraction and mirage is whether or not we SHOULD see that thing on your imaginary ball earth. When you believed we were seeing more of Ruapehu than we were supposed to, you cried refraction and argued that you should be able to see it every day. But now that you mistakenly believe that we’re seeing just the right amount for the ball earth, your “standard refraction” has just up and disappeared, hasn’t it? You no longer feel you NEED refraction and miraging to fix the problem, so they’ve just conveniently disappeared. You no longer feel you need to use the “why can’t we see it every day” argument anymore, so that has also just up and disappeared. So you’ve proven my point that there is nothing about a photo of a distant object (or actually seeing it with your eyes) that would determine whether that object was real or mirage, and so your only “evidence” for making that determination is whether or not we SHOULD be able to see it on a ball. First you thought we shouldn’t, so it was miraging. Now you think we should, so there is no miraging.
Thanks again. Perhaps you will man up now like your fellow NZ’er, and just admit that my assertion is correct, and that you guys use your belief in a ball to determine whether distant objects are real or mirages… and nothing else whatsoever.
3. Are you able to see compression in my sun and moon photos? Yes or no, please?
Mike, you need to understand that I actually said that it could work without refraction, but that because I believe in refraction, that it played an inevitable part because I thought it unlikely that there would be zero refraction with all that water in the image. Further ,I used refraction as the explanation given any meterage that was unaccounted for. But your math was flawed and I did point out to you that you did not consider the base under the mountain. But even still, refraction is what I said if there was left over metres to explain and your math was correct. But your math wasn’t correct was it? You admitted this in the live stream video. Thus, based on the correct math, refraction was not needed in the end, however, I still believe there would be some and the guys in the live-stream video said that it would only change it by 2% or somewhere near that. Honestly Mike, I didn’t trust your math, but as I pointed out numerous times, I simply did not have the time to go full tilt on this one and delve into your math. I argued as if it was correct, even though I had my doubts.
T8, we already discussed my mistake of saying 69%, remember? And your plateau claims, remember? Let me refresh your mind…
- We did the math with my (accurate) conclusion that we were seeing the entire mountain AND plateau all the way down to the beach – and it was 55% should be missing.
- Then we did it subtracting 600 meters of plateau – and it was 50% should be missing.
- Then we did it subtracting 900 meters of plateau – and it was 45% should be missing.
So yes, my original mistakenly has 69%, and I still don’t know how I came up with that. But we’ve discussed it since with the correct math. As for the height of the lookout, I believe it was you who told me you were 210 meters high… and I believe I verified it via some online source. I naturally wouldn’t have just pulled a height out of my ass, not knowing if I was even in the ball park, right?
But listen, I’m done talking about your photo of Ruapehu. I know we’re seeing from tip of mountain to where beach touches ocean. I know that the bottom is seriously compressed just like ANY distant photo of sun, moon, mountain or city will do. So there is no sense in arguing about that anymore. You’ll believe what you want, and I know the truth of the matter.
So the ONLY thing I want from you now is to openly admit that it is SOLELY the ball earth measurements that made you cry refraction when you thought we were seeing more of it than we should – and SOLELY the ball earth measurements that now have you convinced that we’re seeing exactly as much of it as we should be without any crying refraction.
Yes, I think you are right there, although I can’t recall you bringing it down to 45% missing.
So the guys pointed out that half the mountain is missing, so it works right?
This one is debunked. My image is absolutely possible on a globe earth.
Phew! I nearly converted to the flat earth right there and then, but I have been saved.
(Okay that was humour in case you didn’t recognise it.)I already admitted in a post above on this page.
That if there was any height not explained, that it would be refraction because refraction is a real thing that I believe in and it is more likely there was some refraction than absolute zero refraction. What I could never prove and I never claimed was how much refraction.
And yes correct, if say 50 metres was unaccounted for, then I would be looking to refraction because the Earth is a globe.
But you were making wild claims about half the mountain being refracted or something to that tune.
I don’t see your acknowledgement, T8. Why not just say, “Yes Mike, we ball earthers base our claims of refraction/miraging on whether or not the distant object SHOULD be seen on the ball earth… and nothing else whatsoever.”
Or tell me straight that this is NOT the case. Please do one or the other.
Also, I was just talking to dazza on Skype while you were responding. We were talking about that moon photo I posted yesterday – as we had discussed that particular footage on an earlier live stream. When it got to the compressed part, he agreed that the moon was definitely compressing like it always does at rise and set, and that there was undoubtedly compression in the Ruapehu image as well. His argument was that we’re looking at the moon through 2000 miles of atmosphere, so it’s compression is greater than Ruapehu – but he at least admitted that compression must be present in the Ruapehu image.
In an upcoming video, I’ll be using the footage from that live stream where dazza zoomed out on Ruapehu in his Google Earth program, and the really tall green part shrunk considerably. I just don’t have a lot of free time, and there are more pressing flat earth matters I wish to discuss – so I don’t know when I’ll get to it.
I’m off to dinner. Cheers.
I don’t see your acknowledgement, T8. Why not just say, “Yes Mike, we ball earthers base our claims of refraction/miraging on whether or not the distant object SHOULD be seen on the ball earth… and nothing else whatsoever.”
That’s not a correct assessment of the matter. I never claimed refraction only. I claimed you ignored what was under the base of the mountain and I claimed that this base was the foreground merged into the mountain because of the Z-axis as you call it. I also said that refraction explains any extra left over if there is a left over. And your math was faulty, so the refraction argument wasn’t really needed in the end. That said, I still believe there was a measure of refraction because refraction exists and the image has a lot of moisture in it. So I stick by that still.
Yes we globalltards tend to say ‘refraction’ if there is unexplained height because refraction is real and the earth is a globe. Just the same as a reasonable person assuming that more than one person was involved in a crime if there was not enough time for one person to have committed it.
Next question, is there a photo left that falls significantly short with the math that would require someone to turn to refraction as the only option left?
I wonder if there is more chance of refraction than compression though. How likely is zero refraction on a vista over water compared to compression?
Seems to me that these are both the same kind of evidence.
So while you may revile me for saying ‘refraction’, are you then entitled to say ‘compression’?
What about not being upset at refraction and I won’t get upset about compression?
So yes, my original mistakenly has 69%, and I still don’t know how I came up with that. But we’ve discussed it since with the correct math. As for the height of the lookout, I believe it was you who told me you were 210 meters high… and I believe I verified it via some online source. I naturally wouldn’t have just pulled a height out of my ass, not knowing if I was even in the ball park, right?
Yeah it was me that gave that height originally. It came up on the first page of Google results. It was a Kapiti Coast Council website or similar. I since cannot find that site and Google is not really giving sites that answer this question. I did read that the lookout is part of a walkway and that 200 metres is the highest point of the walkway.
I’ll take another look.
About two kilometers along the escarpment you’ll strike a barrier across the track. Turn there and make your way back. The contractor is working beyond the barrier, taking the track up to a 200-metre lookout point. From there it’ll taper down to finish at the old Muri Railway Station. When the blue line is complete, the whole track will become part of Te Araroa’s through route.
The section from Paekakariki village includes spectacular views from a 200 metre high lookout.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/8461242/Kapiti-walkway-on-track
Hey T8, thanks so much for finding those sites and for remembering that I got the 210 meters from you. Very much appreciated. I have passed the info on to dazza, and will be making a short follow up video soon. This is the post where we went through the math for all three scenarios (10th post on the page)… https://heavennet.net/forums/topic/flat-earth/page/133/
Cheers.
Thanks Mike.
Here is a coupe of pics taken from Ruapehu just above the tree line (perhaps half way up) looking down toward the trees on the lower flanks and the rural mostly treeless plains below.
Come to think of it. 200 metres high seems a bit convenient. I wonder if that is rounded up or down in those two articles.
Again. I never claimed refraction only, but that if the math was correct and there was leftover metres when the plateau was taken into account, then it would have to be refraction. I still stand by that. You act like it is a shameful thing, but then you admit that refraction is real. Worse, you then bring out your own rescuing device called compression.
Seriously, what kind of victory do you have if people posit refraction as the explanation if the true measurements cannot account for all of the figures. No victory at all if you ask me. A victory would actually be something that points to a Flat Earth and was not able to be refuted. It wouldn’t make it true of course, but that you successfully argued for that premise even if it was false would be a victory of sorts.
Finally, pointing out a flaw in Globe Earth science (lol) doesn’t make the Earth a flat disc and never will.
Hi Mike.
I am calculating when my Ruapehu pic was taken. The time in the meta data is wrong because I never (as far as I can remember) altered the time settings since I purchased the camera many years ago.
The date is correct as you can see, but the time zone is out when compared to my car dashboard which is accurate.
From this I will post the date and time of the Ruapehu pic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
