I also gave you 2 logical thinking points that match my view very well.  What says such an honest man as you to those 2 points?  Agree?  Or refute?

Yes.  But on the other hand, I’ve given you 3 clear non-lizard ways to prove your view on Antarctica, right?  Which of the 3 will you begin with?

I just totally ignored your huge copy and paste Antarctica info.  None of it means anything unless you can show me a (proven) flight path that went directly over the  “continent” (not just skimming the edge), a tour in which participants travel WAY inland for hundreds of miles, or a satellite photo that shows REAL land and features inland. Can y…[Read more]

And couldn’t a tiny island have the same flora?  Sure.  So now you see a pineapple palm tree.  Have you sailed to Australia?  North America?  Chile? Or an unknown island that has pineapple palms?

Actually, go to the video I linked earlier with the big boat.  The previous scene before the big boat I queued it to was a lighthouse that should have been below the curve.

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.  🤣

t8:  In short, as a protected wilderness, it serves a lot of interests.

Okay then.  I guess I’ll settle for pristine photos of this pristine wilderness from our space satellites.  Can’t wait for you to upload them beauties.  😉

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…[Read more]

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.…[Read more]

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 refrac…[Read more]

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…

<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet”><p lang=”und” dir=”ltr”>🍿👍 <a hre…[Read more]

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…

[Read more]

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 th…

[Read more]

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:  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 on…

[Read more]

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 vali…[Read more]

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 thi…[Read more]

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…

[Read more]

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 t…[Read more]

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 v…[Read more]