- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
So there is all this missing land pointing to a globe, but unfortunately for globeballer globalists it got squashed, so back to the flat earth. Dang!
Mike, your calculations have been wrong before and I haven’t got the time or energy to delve into them and check everything Further, I have already said I have little confidence in the figures that FEs provide. Likewise if you guys say that no part of that mountain should be seen, then you need to check the math.
But the easy fact that is staring us in the face without wasting too much of our time is that only a small part of that land is visible, the very top of that peak, with most of it and under it if we consider seal level is missing. That is evidence against the flat earth not for it. For me, the video that did this infrared photography to prove a flat earth is debunked.
Another victory for Team Globe Earth
Behold: the globe earth predicts what we see in that photo. Flat earth theory completely fails to replicate the photo.
You lost the minute you changed your rescue device from “refraction is bending it up over the curve” to “refraction doesn’t affect it at all and so we’re seeing what we should be seeing”. 😁
Now let me throw another wrench into your machine… 8 inches per mile squared applies to the equator. The LA photo you’re talking about, at 33 degrees north, will have a much higher drop rate due to the ball being “skinnier” at that latitude. So let’s say it’s 10 inches per mile squared at 33 north… now we’re once again seeing more mountain than we should be, right? So now you have to go back to rescue device number 1 again!
And it’s worse for Ruapehu, since it’s at 39 degrees south – so even farther off the equator, meaning an even smaller circumference, meaning even more inches per mile squared! Of course that means you’ll have to appeal even more to rescue device number 1 for that image!
Cheers.
You lost the minute you changed your rescue device from “refraction is bending it up over the curve” to “refraction doesn’t affect it at all and so we’re seeing what we should be seeing”.
Not at all Mike. That is false. I stated that if there was any leftover that could not be explained by the math, then it could be refraction. I also had my doubts about your figures too and that proved to be correct. So if the math was wrong and refraction not needed then that is a win for Team Globe Earth. If your math was correct, then one theory and still the most likely would be refraction. But this is not needed because:
YOUR MATH WAS WRONG
now we’re once again seeing more mountain than we should be, right? So now you have to go back to rescue device number 1 again!
Your figures could be off again. I care little about the figures. What I see is a whole lot of missing land. Trying to bamboozle me by throwing in figures that I cannot be bothered working out doesn’t detract one bit from the fact that the globe earth is the more likely shape of the earth according to that photo. I’m not agreeing to your idea that part of the mountain visible should not be on a globe. Your math hasn’t been trustworthy in the past, why would I suddenly just believe it now?
Here we go. Someone else’s take on the figures and there is no prize for figuring out which one’s closer to reality.
And it’s worse for Ruapehu, since it’s at 39 degrees south – so even farther off the equator, meaning an even smaller circumference, meaning even more inches per mile squared! Of course that means you’ll have to appeal even more to rescue device number 1 for that image!
How can you with a straight face say that my Mount Ruapehu shot points to a flat earth after all that has been worked out. Seriously, you speak as if you had some respectability left in that discussion.
Since when did an honest search for truth and God turn into a “I am right at all costs” pride war?
Life is too short to engage in deception and lies for the sake of one’s own pride in being right when you know you are wrong.
Pretty sad when you think about it. Our soul is of immeasurable worth, but people waste their lives on being cheap like that guy who sold his birthright for a single meal.
The search for truth is for the noble in God. But turning to deceiving doctrines is a form of turning away from the truth. People who do that are ripping themselves off.
T8: I stated that if there was any leftover that could not be explained by the math, then it could be refraction.
If your explanation relies on: “IF the math doesn’t work out in my favor, I’ll cry refraction” – then you’ve already lost.
T8: Your figures could be off again… Your math hasn’t been trustworthy in the past, why would I suddenly just believe it now? Seriously, you speak as if you had some respectability left in that discussion. YOUR MATH WAS WRONG
My figures weren’t off at all. Please explain your accusation, and point out how my math was wrong.
T8: What I see is a whole lot of missing land.
T8, are the circled hills part of Ruapehu… or much shorter bluffs in the foreground of Ruapehu?
If your explanation relies on: “IF the math doesn’t work out in my favor, I’ll cry refraction” – then you’ve already lost.
It doesn’t work like that Mike. If we both agree that refraction is real, then to say no to refraction at all times means you are saying there is zero refraction which I highly doubt is ever the case. I imagine that there is always some moisture in the air and light as we know does refract when passing through moisture and this can easily be demonstrated.
But again, your math was incorrect in your assessment of the Ruapehu shot, so while there is likely some refraction, it could be tiny because the amount of visible mountain doesn’t need to rely on it right?
Arguing against refraction and at the same time acknowledging refraction is a strange thing to do. It doesn’t help your case at all. In fact it hurts it because it is illogical what you are saying, thus easy to assume that your argument could easily rely on other illogical factors and untruths of which I believe is the case.
Further, just ignoring all evidence to the contrary and cherry picking things that could support your view is unbalanced and not honest science or the scientific method. Most people who give much effort into debunking the flat earth look at both debunking flat earth claims and experiments as well as provide proof for the globe earth. Whereas flatties just conveniently ignore evidence that disproves their hypothesis such as what I’m seeing here with the clear debunking of the infrared photo and the lack of addressing the honest analysis and continued belief it debunks the globe regardless.
Okay, so the infrared photo is debunked, but you would like to resurrect the Ruapehu photo back from the dead. I will address your last post when I have some time.
It’s simple Mike.
My photo shows the tree line near the bottom or much closer to sea level than it really is.
But when you see the whole mountain up close, the tree line is around half way up the mountain and then there is the 590 metres to consider under that.
No amount of math changes that right?
Do you now disagree with Dazza on the height of the tree line? Even if you do, the photo below shows it clearly for you.
Sometimes you just have to accept reality because it just looks silly when you don’t.
Clearly, the notion that the Ruapehu and infrared photos point to a flat earth or disprove the globe has been debunked.
Can we move on to another point now, or is there something new in this argument that you want to introduce?
Sounds like you’re in a hurry to get out of the IR photography. Interesting.
If you were honest you would have to admit that the photos he takes are of objects that should NOT be visible at all on a globe earth. That is IF you were honest.
Be honest? You be honest. No photo you have supplied shows the whole mountain. Even at face value, you can see that the hidden parts more or less agree with the earth calculators.
Seriously this is debunked and in case you were not aware, Mike’s math was wrong. Discrepancy gone. I seriously had my doubts about the so-called facts, but I ran with it because I couldn’t be bothered working out the math. Whatever discrepancy remained upon a number of facts I point out disappeared when Mike’s math was corrected.
Is there anything else that keeps you believing in the flat earth? What piece of evidence is most compelling to you right now?
How about the photos where there should be NO part of the mountain seen but you can see a large part of it? Be honest, how do you explain that?
That would be troublesome for the globe earth, but what mountain pic are you talking about? I’m not aware of any pic that is as you describe. Remember, my pic and that infrared pic agree with a globe earth.
San Jancinto was photographed from 170 miles away. This mountain range in Southern California begins at less than 1,100 feet above sea level and tops out at an elevation of approximately 10,800 feet.
You do the math and tell me if this should be visible from 170 miles away. If not then explain why it can be seen.
If I put the camera at 300 ft above sea level then there should be over 14,700 ft of hidden height! Where’s the curve!? Seriously, I would like to hear your explanation.
Seriously, I would like to hear your explanation.
Seriously I, would like to know what happens when this is debunked? Will anything good come of it like you acknowledging that this casts doubt on the flat earth? If it won’t make a blind bit of difference, then tell me exactly what will make a difference and I will spend my time on that instead.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
