- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
That photo is not mine, but I can see how you thought it was as I placed it in my post that talks about my photos.
I posted this photo earlier in the discussion and thought you would remember it.
It came from here, so up to you what you do with it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/8924589/Fine-weather-ahead
You can test the globe earth for yourself with a camera
We can see from my Mt Ruapehu shot that the earth is a globe because the tree line is near the bottom of the pic when in reality it is half way up the mountain.
The following is another similar proof of the globe using a camera.
In your video he begins by stating that FEs don’t do their own research. Wrong. (Just ask Mike!)
He then says that there is no reason why the buildings should have any hidden height viewing them over 16 miles of water. Wrong again.
He states that there appears to be a mirage or refraction in the photograph, which he admits he knows nothing about. Well, I guess he got something right.
If he wanted a more correct view he should have tried to take an infrared photograph. An IR photo would have revealed more of the buildings that was obscured by the water acting as a magnifying lens.
For anyone wishing to understand this lensing effect of the atmosphere better here is an excellent video that is only about 4 minutes. It is done by a FEer doing his own experiments. (Which doesn’t really happen according to the video).
Now if you really want to be blown away watch this video! This guy, doing his own research which t8’s video says doesn’t exist, captures views that dispels the notion that we live on a ball. He uses IR photography.
T8, I would like your honest assessment of this video. I think you would have a hard time contradicting the results that he has gathered.
In your video he begins by stating that FEs don’t do their own research. Wrong. (Just ask Mike!)
FEs actually do little research Dig. While Mike does lots of research it is always experiments that are designed to prove a flat earth. He and other FEs rarely simulate experiments that prove the earth is a globe to see if they are correct. All FEs do it give excuses. Whereas, those that do not agree with the FE hypothesis do both experiments proving the globe earth and debunking the flat earth.
And all you seem to do is ignore the results, as in the videos above, that support a plane earth.
You didn’t comment on the video which demonstrated the vast distances that was recorded which shouldn’t be able to be seen on a globe earth. Why not?
You see, doing experiments means accepting the results not ignoring them.
Any honest comments on the video?
My latest endeavor…
D4T, let me know if this one is nearer to clearer. Rich and I are planning on doing the real visual aid this Sunday.
And all you seem to do is ignore the results, as in the videos above, that support a plane earth.
Your not paying attention. I have gone through much of the evidence you guys have provided and debunked it myself or with other people’s research and videos.
Obviously not debunked everything you guys have posted. But that has more to do with time being important and this Flat Earth thing not being that important.
Book your seat on a cruise to Antarctica today
Costs about US $13,000 and will need to get yourself to Argentina, so add another $2000 at most.
$15,000 is a cheap way to prove to yourself that the Antarctica is not what you believe it to be.
Money well spent if it gets you back into things that are true right?
Imagine all the hours of deception you could avoid.
https://www.iexpedition.com/voyages/1404-journey-to-antarctica-the-white-continent
Dig posted this video as proof of a flat earth.
Dig then says the following:
Any honest comments on the video?
My Response
The black box shows the portion photographed in JTolan’s image in the video
The above photo overlaid with the image in the video
Another so called piece of evidence for the Flat Earth debunked.
Just like my Ruapehu shot, which Mike says proves a Flat Earth when in fact it proved the globe’s prediction of hidden mountain.
Next!
Mike, I saw this video when it first came out. Much clearer to understand for me. I did watch it again and now have a good grasp on it. I’m looking forward to a more detailed video from you guys!
I came up with a question. How can there be a full moon when the sun is on one side of the “globe” and the moon is on the others side? It just seems like the earth would block the light from the sun reaching the moon.
Anyway, great stuff!
Oh sorry about not being right Dig, it’s back to the drawing board for me. Love how you debunked me there with science.
FEs don’t do their own research. Note Digs last response to me. Zero science just bias. Writing off evidence because it doesn’t fit the narrative he subscribes to.
Just proves the point that FEs do little real science.
Remember I did ask for an “honest” response.
The mountain in Palm Springs he photographed tops out at 10,800 ft. It is 170 miles away from him and I guessed that his elevation was 200 ft. With these stats the hidden height should be 15,540 ft! How can we still see the mountain at all?
This IS evidence.
Also the cities of LA and Palm Springs are 200 to nearly 300 ft above sea level and are much closer than the mountains. What that means is the angular perspective will cause the cities to block the view of the mountains which are much further in the background.
Debunked your debunk.
A globe earth explains this of course. Please explain this on a Flat Earth. Compression rescue device?
T8 ,you should have learned from Ruapehu where that land went. It’s right there where it should be, but compressed on our z axis. Heck, the clearer photo of Ruapehu that you posted a week or so ago shows that compressed land that’s harder to see in your photo. Plus… what D4T just said… the elephant in the room is that we shouldn’t see ANY of the mountain. Also, claiming that you see just what we should see on a ball kills your standard refraction rescue device – like I pointed out in a video that you watched, remember? Because then the question becomes: WHY are we seeing only what we should see? With standard refraction we should see that much PLUS the extra 2000 feet or whatever that’s bending up over the curve, right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
