- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
t8: Thanks to Dazza for saving me time in debunking some of these absurd claims.
Of course you didn’t know that I did a debunk video of Dazza’s debunk video, right? I mean, how could you know since Dazza contacted the owner of the Little Piggy balloon footage, and that man put a copyright strike against me with YouTube – and they pulled both videos. Now in that situation, the video maker can file a counter claim and assert “Fair Use”, which allows anybody to use small clips of other people’s work for commentary and critique. And considering that my first video used only a SINGLE STILL SHOT of the Little Piggy footage, it was a no-brainer that it fell under the Fair Use Act. The second video used the still shot and about 8 seconds of live video – which also clearly falls under Fair Use.
So I did appeal. And because my video promotes Flat Earth, YouTube rejected my counter claim. And I appealed again. Same results. And I appealed again, knowing full well that my use was 100% legal under Fair Use. And then Dazza got involved and appealed on my behalf, because he also knows it was Fair Use. And both of us contacted the Little Piggy guy and pleaded with him to remove the copyright strike. And then Dazza contacted his YouTube representative personally, and asked them to review this case, since it was clear that a SINGLE STILL SHOT of footage falls under Fair Use.
We tried for weeks to get them to remove the copyright strike, but there’s no way they’re going to unless I take them to court. Why? Because the video in question promotes flat earth, and YouTube is already doing everything they can to hide those kinds of videos and ban the channels of people who make them.
But… simply because of your arrogant and ignorant comment here, I just uploaded my debunk video to Vimeo. It’s 8 minutes long…
t8: Anyone can visit Antarctica provided they follow the requirements of the Antarctic Treaty and respect that it is a pristine environment, so technically what you propose is completely legal.
You’re just not getting it. Yes, anyone can pay thousands of dollars and go on a GUIDED TOUR which takes you to THE EDGE of an ice shelf. Now please tell me how you could tell you were on a CONTINENT by standing within a couple miles of the ocean on the very edge of the alleged CONTINENT. Seriously, t8. If you were lost at sea, and woke up in the morning with your vessel resting on some land, could you tell whether you had landed on a tiny island, Australia, or America? Of course not! You’d have to explore INLAND to learn about the place you landed on, right? So can we get this one single thing straight once and for all?
NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY is allowed to freely explore the ENTIRETY of the ALLEGED CONTINENT of Antarctica. Yes, we can go and see some penguins on an ICE SHELF. Flat earthers agree there is an ICE SHELF there. But can we travel ACROSS that ice to conclude for ourselves that it is indeed a continent instead of an ice shelf at the ends of the earth? NO! NO! NO! Can we charter a plane and fly across the entire alleged continent to see for ourselves that it is indeed a continent? NO! NO! NO!
No private person can fly ACROSS the north pole or the south pole. No person at all has EVER done such a thing. And your argument that it’s too dangerous is ludicrous, since planes fly much greater distances over vast swaths of ocean at extremely cold temperatures since they’re so high up. So let that sink in, okay? Many flights would save many miles by flying directly over the alleged continent of Antarctica – but zero of them do that. Let it also sink in that millions of people have circumnavigated the earth from east to west, but never, in the history of mankind, has ANYONE EVER circumnavigated our “globe” from north to south. NEVER!
Also let it sink in that two different British ships trying to map the coast of the alleged continent of Antarctica (Captain Cook and then later the British ship Discovery) spent YEARS and traveled 35,000 miles without ever making it “around the continent”.
Also let it sink in that I recently posted Google Earth images in which you can see where real aerial photos give way to little blocks of pixels that clearly don’t represent an actual photo of real land. WHY? With thousands upon thousands of satellites orbiting in space, why can’t we zoom in on every square mile of this “continent” like I can zoom right in on your house and even see your car parked in the driveway? Here’s my home…
The red circle is my balcony with a great southern exposure that allows me to film the sun, moon and stars from rise to set. The blue circle is my parking garage. The green circle is a little ramp that people in the dog park below me can run their dogs up and over. And the yellow line is the track on which runs the trains that wake me up in the middle of the night with their horns. You can see each individual railroad tie… and I’m not even zoomed fully in!
Where is the equivalent of this in Antarctica, t8? You can do this with your house too, right? WHERE IS THE ANTARCTICA EQUIVALENT? Do you suppose it’s too dangerous for the same “space satellites”, orbiting in near 0 Kelvin and in a vacuum, to pass over Antarctica and get the same quality of images so we can zoom in an see actual features of this great ice continent?
All you gotta do is THINK it out, man. So, our next step on this never ending Antarctica debate will be YOU finding some nice clear sights like this in the MIDDLE of the ice continent, okay? Start from one of the bases on the edge – where we can see tents and buildings and vehicles. Then start moving further inland to show me some REAL features of this pristine patch of nothing but ice that has to have dozens of military forces protecting it from regular people wanting to do some honest exploration.
I’ll be waiting. In the meantime, invest 30 minutes in this video, where a friend of mine painstakingly researched what’s REALLY involved in a regular person trying to get a permit to explore there. Hint…. MILLIONS of dollars are involved – along with a bunch of other hoops that need to be jumped through. Then ask yourself WHY – just to check out a huge chunk of ICE…
D4T: Well, as t8 spikes the ball again for no apparent reason, Mike is off to watch some real players. But he left us with some solid words to consider.
The math is correct for the curvature of the earth and the drop distances.
Will this factor into t8s claims? Doubtful. Will he continue to parrot videos without much thought involved? More than likely, just look above. Now that YouTube has hidden the pro-FE videos and put all the “debunk” videos at the top of the list t8 is in paradise. And the eyes are tightly closed and the mind is disengaged.That’s right… the math is correct. It isn’t up for debate anymore than the value of pi (3.14) being up for debate. But it’s good that we went through this again so that t8 can get a perfect example of how debunk clowns do their best to sound smart and educated while telling complete lies to people like t8… who then blindly believe those lies because they don’t know any better, and the clown is telling them what they WANT to hear. Embarrassing.
t8: I simply stated that according to some, the formula you use is not accurate for long distances…
Um… it’s obvious that this formula cannot carry on AROUND a ball, t8. It’s common sense that if you’re starting at the top of a ball, at some point you’ll reach the side of it, and the formula will no longer apply. But there is only one thing we need agreement on (and like I just told D4T, it is non-negotiable)… Does the formula work up to 300 miles? YES or NO? Because since nobody can see farther than that anyway, that’s the maximum distance we need to to work. So… does it work up to 300 miles or not?
t8: He corrected you and your case fell apart when Dazza pointed out that the photo made a case for the globe earth. His posting of that mountain shot that was taken much closer didn’t really change anything.
Oh brother! Okay then… describe to us HOW he made the case. What exactly did he show you that made you believe his case was valid? I’ll be waiting…
t8: Here’s an example: as your friend accurately points out, at 0cm above the Earth’s surface an 96′ object would be hidden at a distance of 12 miles. On the other hand, at 5’7″ above the Earth’s surface (the eye height of a six-foot man, me), a 12 mile distance would only obscure a 55′ object.
From post 849190: “Okay, now let’s use an online earth curve calculator to see if that 300 miles still matches. We’ll set the eye height at zero, since these figures are all based on how much drop there’d be if you were lying flat on the ground.” – Mike
Do you see it? Yes, we realize that the 8″ formula is based on ZERO eye height. That’s why all the online calculators (including Mick West’s) have an entry for the observer height AND the distance to the object. That’s why I said an average boat would be over the curve at 4-5 miles (instead of 3 miles). Why? Because nobody’s watching that boat “disappear over the curve” with their face on the ground. For an average person standing up (eye height 5-5.5 feet), the horizon is at 3 miles. But that doesn’t mean a boat with a 6 foot profile would disappear at that distance. It would take a couple more miles for the 6 foot profile of the boat to disappear behind your curved horizon. I was saying 4-5 miles, but let’s just check it out on Mick’s earth curve calculator…
Okay, I put the eye height at 5 feet, and in order to have a boat with a 6 foot tall profile on the water (a good size fishing boat like the one in my video) completely disappear over the curve it would have to be 5.75 miles away from me standing up. So let’s call it 6 miles to be safe.
So the only question for you is: Is a boat that is 6 miles away from me too small to see with a 125x zoom lens? Yes or No?
And to get your answer, you need only refer back to my cars and trucks footage. It’s clear from that footage that we can zoom in and detect cars and trucks from 15 miles away, right? So if that car (similar size to a fishing boat) was only 6 miles away, would I be able to zoom in and see it? Well, let’s find out. During my 15 mile footage test, I also zoomed in on some cars that were only half the distance. Here’s one of them…
I was on a hill to the east, the distant cars I showed before were on a hill to the west. The town is in centered in the valley between the two hills. That puts the two cars in this shot at approximately 7.5 miles away from me. Can you make out the pickup truck? And the SUV following the truck? Sure. So ARE cars and boats too small to see at 7.5 (or even 15) miles away? Not a chance.
Now think this out, because here is where you keep getting confused. If we can clearly see cars and boats at 7.5 miles away from us with a zoom lens… and if boats would be COMPLETELY hidden behind the curve of the earth at only 6 miles… do you see where your argument fails?
See it yet? The fact is that we CAN see small boats for many miles PAST where they should disappear on your ball earth. So when we zoom them “back over the curved horizon”, it’s NOT because they were on the near side of the curve and “too small to see”. Please refrain from using that argument in the future.
Oh, and here’s yet another example of your “big boats” – which you say supports your small boat claim because nobody ever zooms them back up over the horizon. I have the video queued, and you only need to watch 10 seconds. Notice the camera height too…
t8: Does he have an example where his math is correct and is impossible on the globe?
I delved into the Ruapehu math because it was worth checking out at least one of his proofs that you shouldn’t see this on a globe. Also, the fact that it was my photo made it a bit more worthwhile for me.
As it turned out, his math was out and when all things were considered, the figures matched a globe earth. Took a long time, but he was proven wrong in the end.
Even now he seems to ignore the 600 – 900 metres that sits under the mountain. He just looks at the shape and carries on as if the base of the mountain is just above sea level.
Wrong! Fail! Debunked!
LOL! How high are the hills and bluffs in the FOREGROUND of Ruapehu in your photo? Checkmate! 😎
Because unless you are willing to claim that those much smaller hills are quite a bit taller than 900 meters (making it so we can see them ABOVE the 900 meters you say is missing in your photo), then your entire argument is more nonsensical than Dazza trying to superimpose a much closer image of Ruapehu to force his point! I still remember doing that debate with Dazza on a live stream… and how much my mouth dropped when he presented his “killer blow” with that overlaid photo! 😁😂🤣 You can hear in the live stream that at first I didn’t know what to say – because I thought surely he must be joking. And then my reaction when I realized he was serious! Classic!
Anyway, how tall are those foreground hills in your photo t8? Are they taller than 900 meters? If not, your photo indeed disproves your ball earth – and the only thing you can say is, “Well, magic refraction is lifting the mountain up and around the curve so that we’re really seeing a mirage of it instead of the actual thing.”
Also very classic! 😆
t8: In 1881 the ships that would be observing the lighthouse would be sailing ships or steam ships that still had sails as a back-up. Look-outs on those ships would be placed in a crows nest near the top of the main mast.
“… masts were still to be found on many merchant and passenger ships well into the 1900s”
Source: https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1338.htmThe 65 feet of elevation required to see the Port Nicholson Light on a spherical Earth is absolutely consistent with the elevation we could expect for look outs stationed on the main mast.
Well first of all, Zetetic Astronomy claims the viewer was at 16 feet. Do you understand that just because a ship has a crow’s nest doesn’t mean that ONLY the person in the crow’s nest could see the lighthouse from 35 miles? I assume that the writer got his info from sailors who could ALL see the lighthouse at 35 miles from the deck, ie: 16 feet instead of 65.
Secondly, according your boy Mick West’s online calculator, even at 65 feet, there should be 421 feet hidden by the curve – and the lighthouse is only 420 feet above the water. So the entire thing should have still been a foot behind the curve.
Thirdly, we’re not talking about seeing a tiny light blinking right on the horizon here. We’re talking about being able to see the lighthouse itself.
So even accepting your online copy and paste source’s 65 foot claim, seeing that lighthouse from 35 miles disproves your ball earth. Checkmate again. How many will it take?
Ed: Yes, I have been following Q for over 3 years.
I somehow suspected. 😉 Have you made any conclusions as to his authenticity yet? I think the zero deltas and the “prophecies” are very compelling. I just saw this one last night…
D4T: Now let’s see if you can photograph the lighthouse from 35 miles away.
That’s what I was thinking when I saw those last two posts about him seeing it. 😁
t8, now find out if you can see it from a height of 16 feet off the water from 35 miles away. If you can, you don’t live on a ball. Oh that’s right… double secret magic refraction lift, right? 😁😂🤣
That’s really the long and the short of it. If we CAN see Chicago from 55 miles away standing on the shore… we don’t live on a ball. If we CAN see that lighthouse at 35 miles away from a boat… we don’t live on a ball. If we CAN see Superstition Mountain from 55 miles away… we don’t live on a ball. And so on, and so on, and so on.
There’s really not that much more to it… although flat earthers have taken it way beyond that with arguments against vacuum, heat of the thermosphere, the speed of rotation, and SO MANY other great points.
Bottom line… the earth is obviously and observationally flat and stationary. End of story.
t8: But we both know that we will not be able to see it 35 miles out if it is impossible to see that far on a globe earth.
Did you seriously just say that? 😁 Flat earthers have documented THOUSANDS of things we couldn’t see if we lived on a ball! That’s the entire basis of these mirror flash, laser, and distance photo observations! We’re not out there just sight seeing. We’re purposely picking things we COULDN’T see if we lived on a ball – and then scientifically documenting that we CAN see these things! 😉
So if the air quality is good when you take your journey, and you DO see that lighthouse from 35 miles away… what will you say? Will it prove to you that our earth is flat? Nope. You’ll just start appealing to refraction all over again… saying you didn’t see the actual lighthouse, but the mirage of it looming up and around the curve.
Let us know when you do the observation, because the sailors mentioned in Zetetic Astronomy didn’t have powerful zoom lenses like you do. You’ll be able to see it from 60 miles!
t8: In short, as a protected wilderness, it serves a lot of interests.
Of course that’s a bunch of bullocks. But I guess for now I’ll settle for pristine photos of this pristine wilderness from our space satellites. Can’t wait for you to upload them beauties. 😉
Did you seriously just say that? Flat earthers have documented THOUSANDS of things we couldn’t see if we lived on a ball!
When it is done properly without errors, it will work out, just like Ruapehu worked out.
So if the air quality is good when you take your journey, and you DO see that lighthouse from 35 miles away… what will you say?
Check my height and the math. Will use a calc if possible based on a globe, not a parabola.
Let us know when you do the observation, because the sailors mentioned in Zetetic Astronomy didn’t have powerful zoom lenses like you do. You’ll be able to see it from 60 miles!
If Zetetic Astronomy said it, then it must be true. I hear it is faultless, unerring, and 100% unbiased.
Thirdly, we’re not talking about seeing a tiny light blinking right on the horizon here. We’re talking about being able to see the lighthouse itself.
Interesting. Could I see the proof? Would be good to know this claim for sure before embarking on my journey.
So then the 8″ formula? Great. Good stuff. Then, after doing it with the general formula, we’ll check it against Mick West’s Metabunk calculator to verify they both give the same results. 😁
Now if only prominent ball earth defender and self-described expert Mick West realized that his formula is for a parabola instead of a ball. 🤣
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
