Bill, we must buy all standard lenses on our fancy cameras... like the plethora of vids that you show that aver our stance.
Not no fish eye lenses that NASA, et al use!!!
The earth is a flat, non spinning realm, not a planet in an infinite universe
- Thread starter Bushy Bill
- Start date
- Status
Not no fish eye lenses that NASA, et al use!!!
The only thing you have educated this thread on is that you are either a dedicated troll, or a blithering idiot. Engineers, people with backgrounds in science, and some with degrees in scientific disciplines have all exposed numerous ways and times that your beliefs/trolling are beyond unreasonable. You deflect, move the goalposts, and change subjects any time someone challenges or corners you, and your arguments are circular, just as the Earth is. Now please, go back to Iowa, just because it is flat doesn't mean the whole Earth is.
How do you see Chicago from 53 miles away or the Superdome from 27 miles away or the Isle of Man from 70 miles away all across flat, apparently, bodies of water? Until someone explains this you can spout off all you want about science this and scientists that; these, among others are game, set and match. The earth is FLAT.
How do you explain the sun setting two minutes later at the top of the the tallest building in Dubai than the bottom is there isn't a curve? How do you explain a perfect half lit, half dark Earth if it is flat? How do you explain the sun not being in the visible sky, even if it is dark, the sun should still be seen from a flat Earth perspective. How do you explain tides? How do you explain a different night sky in the Southern Hemisphere than in the northern? If we are flat, should be the same sky we view. How do you expain seasons? How do you explain a frozen outer disk when at best to get a day/night scenario for Earth, it would be closest to the sun, therefore the warmest? Go ahead, you have a lot more to explain that we do.
But you didn't answer them scientifically. Just whackjob theories. I reject your answers and demand better ones. Your answers aren't fact, just conjecture.
I'm not your dancing monkey if you don't like my conjectures tough. And the only thing that matters right now is how can you see over the distances above if the earth is round? We can quibble about how, why, etc but until you answer the above you have no leg to stand on, PERIOD.
I have hundreds of years of proof, and you just admitted your stance is conjectures. Now, kindly:
What is this, Bill?:
Objects above the horizon[edit]
Geometrical horizon distance
To compute the greatest distance at which an observer can see the top of an object above the horizon, compute the distance to the horizon for a hypothetical observer on top of that object, and add it to the real observer's distance to the horizon. For example, for an observer with a height of 1.70 m standing on the ground, the horizon is 4.65 km away. For a tower with a height of 100 m, the horizon distance is 35.7 km. Thus an observer on a beach can see the top of the tower as long as it is not more than 40.35 km away. Conversely, if an observer on a boat (h = 1.7 m) can just see the tops of trees on a nearby shore (h = 10 m), the trees are probably about 16 km away.
Referring to the figure at the right, the top of the lighthouse will be visible to a lookout in a crow's nest at the top of a mast of the boat if
A view across a 20-km-wide bay in the coast of Spain. Note the curvature of the Earth hiding the base of the buildings on the far shore.
As another example, suppose an observer, whose eyes are two metres above the level ground, uses binoculars to look at a distant building which he knows to consist of thirty storeys, each 3.5 metres high. He counts the storeys he can see, and finds there are only ten. So twenty storeys or 70 metres of the building are hidden from him by the curvature of the Earth. From this, he can calculate his distance from the building:
which comes to about 35 kilometres.
It is similarly possible to calculate how much of a distant object is visible above the horizon. Suppose an observer's eye is 10 metres above sea level, and he is watching a ship that is 20 km away. His horizon is:
kilometres from him, which comes to about 11.3 kilometres away. The ship is a further 8.7 km away. The height of a point on the ship that is just visible to the observer is given by:
which comes to almost exactly six metres. The observer can therefore see that part of the ship that is more than six metres above the level of the water. The part of the ship that is below this height is hidden from him by the curvature of the Earth. In this situation, the ship is said to be hull-down.
It looks too complex for us to comprehend...I'm getting nervous.
Allay my fears, prophet.
Objects above the horizon[edit]
Geometrical horizon distance
To compute the greatest distance at which an observer can see the top of an object above the horizon, compute the distance to the horizon for a hypothetical observer on top of that object, and add it to the real observer's distance to the horizon. For example, for an observer with a height of 1.70 m standing on the ground, the horizon is 4.65 km away. For a tower with a height of 100 m, the horizon distance is 35.7 km. Thus an observer on a beach can see the top of the tower as long as it is not more than 40.35 km away. Conversely, if an observer on a boat (h = 1.7 m) can just see the tops of trees on a nearby shore (h = 10 m), the trees are probably about 16 km away.
Referring to the figure at the right, the top of the lighthouse will be visible to a lookout in a crow's nest at the top of a mast of the boat if
A view across a 20-km-wide bay in the coast of Spain. Note the curvature of the Earth hiding the base of the buildings on the far shore.
As another example, suppose an observer, whose eyes are two metres above the level ground, uses binoculars to look at a distant building which he knows to consist of thirty storeys, each 3.5 metres high. He counts the storeys he can see, and finds there are only ten. So twenty storeys or 70 metres of the building are hidden from him by the curvature of the Earth. From this, he can calculate his distance from the building:
which comes to about 35 kilometres.
It is similarly possible to calculate how much of a distant object is visible above the horizon. Suppose an observer's eye is 10 metres above sea level, and he is watching a ship that is 20 km away. His horizon is:
kilometres from him, which comes to about 11.3 kilometres away. The ship is a further 8.7 km away. The height of a point on the ship that is just visible to the observer is given by:
which comes to almost exactly six metres. The observer can therefore see that part of the ship that is more than six metres above the level of the water. The part of the ship that is below this height is hidden from him by the curvature of the Earth. In this situation, the ship is said to be hull-down.
It looks too complex for us to comprehend...I'm getting nervous.
Allay my fears, prophet.
Last edited:
How do you see Chicago, N.O., The Isle of Mann from so far away? Until you do you've got NOTHING.
They offer remedial reading comprehension classes, you should try one, I said my explanations on how things work on the flat earth are conjectures dumbass, not that the earth is flat itself.
p.s. They thought bloodletting was an effective treatment for illnesses, but when better evidence emerged they abandoned the practice, just sayin'.
P.P.S. They thought the Earth was flat and the sun and stars revolved around it, but when better evidence emerged they abandoned the practice, especially when we went out and saw the f***ing thing. Just sayin'.
That's cute, you think we've been to space to see it. I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'm practically giving away, interested?
Explain the Columbia shuttle disaster. Where exactly did they go if not out of Earth's atmosphere where they burnt up on reentry?
I'm deflecting
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I already told you (at least I think it was you) that I'm not your dancing monkey. I have no idea where Columbia went, what they did, or why. What I do know is you can't answer why you can see Chicago from 53 miles away. Get back to me when you have an answer.
When will these rubes learn, Bill. We have the answers. This is all hundreds if not thousands of years of faux science.
Chicago skyline 'looming' from MI - explained
The response, however, has been everything from claims that this is NASA tricking us to just completely ignoring the evidence and claiming 'Flat Earth PROVEN!' with this picture. How can they ignore the missing half of the Chicago skyline that remains below the horizon? Well, they aren't famous for allowing facts to get in their way
But I digress...Once again, I refer the reader to my page with the details for the relevant mathematics I will be using here: Derivation for Height of Distant Objects Obscured by Earth Curvature
And for quick reference, I remind the reader that what we want to know is how much of the distant Chicago buildings should be obscured by the Earth's curvature on a spherical model. This is measure (B) from the following image, not distance (D) since the camera here is clearly not submerged half-way under the water of Lake Michigan at "0" elevation.
Note: D should actually point towards center of Earth as shown in my post on [8"×d²]
From my page above we know that:
Height of Distant Objects Obscured by Earth Curvature = h₁ = √[(d₀ - [√h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R]])² + R²] - R(when √h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R] is LESS THAN d₀)
This fairly simple geometry - I didn't even use trig functions, just basic algebra - so hopefully this is fairly accessible to readers.
Grand Mere State Park, Michigan
Joshua has many (awesome) pictures and videos of Chicago from various locations along the Michigan shoreline, Warren Dunes State Park, Grand Mere State Park, and Michigan City Pier just to name a few. He is a very good photographer and you should definitely check out some of his work (facebook) (smugmug).
The image in question here was from Grand Mere State Park (source), so we will use the details for that location. The first thing we need to do is locate Grand Mere and get the geographic details for that location. Using Google Earth we find a plausible viewing location on the Dunes overlooking Lake Michigan and we get our viewing altitude (190m) and latitude 42.003712.
(aside, I welcome corrections on anything throughout this post, especially from Joshua who might have better information than my estimate of elevation and location, however, I attempted to be fairly conservative)
From here we draw a path from this location at Grand Mere to the base of the Willis Tower (I measured all the way to the base of the actual building, not just shoreline) - the upper line here is to Grand Mere, for comparison the lower (and only slightly shorter) line is to Warren Dunes.
NOTE: Google Earth gives you GREAT CIRCLE distances along the oblate spheroid of the Earth, so these are NOT straight-line distances. But at under 60 miles the difference is negligible so I'll just stick with these values - but if you were working with hundreds of miles you would need to take that into account.
So we're at about 90,933 meters (~56.5 miles) distance. CAUTION: there is a danger here of thinking we are "exactly 90,933 meters away", that is not true, we don't know this value exactly because we don't know exactly where Joshua was standing, so we need to keep in mind that we could be somewhat closer or further away. But we are in the ballpark sufficiently to get a good estimate of what we would expect to see, given an oblate spheroid Earth model.
Next we need to check our elevation profile to #1 verify nothing would be blocking our view (it isn't) and #2 to find the lowest-point between us, this is our elevation bias (or 'ground level'). We can't use sea-level because we have 175 meters of water and Earth between the surface of the Lake and sea-level that we can't see through. NOTE: if you use sea-level, even with zero refraction, you find only 136m hidden so we would think we could see almost all of Chicago if you use the wrong values. You really must understand what these values mean so you can measure properly and get proper results.
So we find that Lake Michigan is at about 175 meters elevation which is our elevation bias - this is the amount we need to add to the Earth's Radius to get our 'ground level' for this observation ('ground level' meaning the lowest point we could possibly 'see over'). It helps that we are viewing over a lake that is at a fairly constant level so we don't have to worry about hills in between.
We also note that we are at about ~15.5 meters over the water, plus ~2 meters for tripod, so 17.5m overall for the elevation of our observer, over 'ground level'.
Now we come to the most difficult part, estimating the refraction. We know for a fact from the video above that there are very strong refraction effects that bring Chicago all the way from being 100% obscured to being somewhat visible over the horizon. But we don't know the exact values for the moment that first picture was taken (which was ), so what we're going to do is calculate an estimate based on 0% refraction, 10% refraction, and 20% refraction and that will give us a range of values so we can compare them against our observation.
Remember that we already know from the video, that one possible observation is that Chicago skyline is completely obscured (indeed, this is the normal observed condition). We see that very clearly in the video, and then we see it 'rise up' and fluctuate quite a bit. But we never see the bottom half of the city! So this already dis-confirms the Flat Earth model, where we should be able to see all the way to the shoreline of Chicago.
Some attempt to appeal to some mythical version of perspective to explain this observation away, but perspective changes the angular size of distant objects - it simply does not shift one object behind another.
And perspective also cannot only make the bottom half of the city microscopic while leaving the top half stretched out and distorted. If you want to make such a claim you'll need to show your math and your model of physics which accounts for it. Basically this is just a non sequitur appeal to a phenomena they do not understand. Meanwhile, the science behind refraction is well-documented (if complex).
I know, right. It's a good thing we've got Rob Skiba on our team. He got in a chartered boat in MI and kept Chicago in the frame of his camera all the way across the lake to disprove the mirage, looming angle. We've got real superhero's on our team.
Yes, you are deflecting. I, as well as others have explained how you see the GD skyline. You just refuse to accept it. I can't help it you're denser than concrete.I'm deflecting
You asked if I believed we have went into space. Obviously I do, so my question to reply is if you don't think we have, what happened to Columbia? It had to go somewhere outside the atmosphere for reentry to burn it to bits. Explain, if there is no space, where did they go? Being called to task to explain a gaping f***ing hole in your belief is making you a dancing monkey, then WTF do you think all your demands to the rest of us have been?
You do realize at best that your Chicago thing only proves that the calculation for the curve could be off.
In a flat earth you'd see all of Chicago, not just parts of buildings.
You asked for science, you've gotten it. Move along to another board and see if there are any dolts willing to jump on your sinking boat
In a flat earth you'd see all of Chicago, not just parts of buildings.
You asked for science, you've gotten it. Move along to another board and see if there are any dolts willing to jump on your sinking boat
No one has explained how Rob Skiba left from Mi with Chicago in the frame of his video camera and traversed the entire width of lake Michigan with the skyline in frame. Disproves looming, mirages, refraction and every other optical illusion explanation. Someone posted a still picture from a camera with a unknown optics and claimed that because only half of the buildings were visible that proved a curve, hint it doesn't because NONE of the buildings in Chicago should be visible from that distance. Answer that and then we can move to other topics.
I am the only one dealing with like 15 of you dillholes, if you don't like that I ignore a few posts here or there or don't answer a question to your liking too f***ing bad. Do your own research.
Why can't you see it all the time? If the Earth was flat we should have many pictures taken by dumbass skeptics that prove it is flat. We have telescopes that would allow us to see Chicago from New York if the Earth was flat.I'm deflecting
Locals in Mi say that they've always been able to see the skyline and didn't think anything of it until about a year ago when the new FE movement was born, I'll even post video when I get my Nikon p900 and do this for myself. And bullshit that you could see Chicago from New York their are mountains in the way, and it's called air density dumbass. There is a limit to all thing optical both with our eyes and technologically. If all you've got is looming/refracted images/superior mirages for EVERY photo and video of something that by our current understanding MUST be beyond the horizon then I feel pretty good about my position.
Last edited:
I think this dude is a Nikon P900 sales rep. Pretty soon, he'll be dropping the 10% off coupons as a hook.
BTW: orbit obit abort. End this thread and send this guy to the Ark.
BTW: orbit obit abort. End this thread and send this guy to the Ark.
Watch the last couple of minutes, kinda blows your Chicago question up.
Hey dummy, I've already explained why you cannot dismiss the Chicago skyline from Mi angle. We've got video documentation crossing the entire width of the lake with the skyline in the frame of the camera the whole way, ergo IT'S NOT SOME SORT OF OPTICAL ILLUSION/REFRACTED IMAGE/LOOMING/SUPERIOR MIRAGE.
Bill, your 15 minutes of fame have expired. We've proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, your reasoning is flawed and your videos are more akin to voodoo.
Please vacate this thread ASAP.
Thank you..
Please vacate this thread ASAP.
Thank you..
How do you keep Chicago in the frame of a video for a trip the entire width of Lake Michigan. Hint, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
Any flat earther who watches that first video in herodutos above post and still defies it... well, you have zero chance of changing. You are simply a conspiracy theorist who refuses to believe anything beyond your nutty thoughts
Unlike you I'm not trying to prove anything, stating facts, and that's a calculator that'll give you exact measurements for the horizon, curve etc
- Status
