I know of only one person who pushes what I repeatedly called "tinfoil hat cօռspιʀαcιҽs": mind control, graphene, AI, all that. But I came out openly and strongly against it, so you can't pin that on me OR CathInfo.

Along with time travel and aliens, "AI" is another impossibility once you understand Catholic dogma and traditional metaphysics.

I don't understand, Matthew.

Do you not believe that graphene sensors exist?

I've provided evidence from Harvard, Rice, MIT, medical journals, DARPA, US patents and many other sources.

You don't think it's in the shots even though the Pfizer and Moderna docuмents say that it is as well as the electron microscopy?

AI is impossible?  What do you mean?  Why do you think they are collecting all of that data to feed their AI systems?

You call me names rather than refute the actual evidence I provide.

The invincible ignorance is astounding.

How arrogant is that, gladius_veritatis? You're not even able to check out and calculate an example, but you react as if you believe that the engineers, who built the ships shown above, were idiots.

They aren't. They built and build useful ships with useful crow's nests.

I am not arguing that an elevated perspective isn't useful.  I am saying the advantage upon the supposed globe is completely negligible where the element of time -- which YOU introduced -- is concerned.  Such an observation is correct even when using the math to which you necessarily subscribe.

Where did you obtain your in/ability to process information?  The Deeply-Discounted Aisle at The Dollar Store?

I don't understand what you are talking about. What is an angle of resolution? Shouldn't a person be able to see anything that is in front of him if there isn't an obstacle in the way? Why would it matter what angle he is looking at the object with in relation to the earth?

You are right.

I think if the Earth was actually flat, if you were in a crows nest on a ship and were approaching land, you wouldn’t necessarily see the land before the people on the deck. If the Earth is actually curved then a crows nest would be a necessity, especially in olden times.

There is absolutely no reasonable explanation from FE theorists, that I’m aware of, for seeing a ship disappear on the horizon from the bottom up.

I think if the Earth was actually flat, if you were in a crows nest on a ship and were approaching land, you wouldn’t necessarily see it before the people on the deck. If the Earth is actually curved then a crows nest would be a necessity, especially in olden times.

I agree. What Trad said was If the starting angle is small, 1 degree for instance, even if there was nothing in the way, you couldn't see very far because the angle of resolution is too small. I find this statement bizarre since a person can see anything in front of him if there is nothing in the way, regardless of what angle he is looking at it from. I have also never heard of an "angle of resolution", so I hope he can explain what that means.

There is absolutely no reasonable explanation from FE theorists, that I’m aware of, for seeing a ship disappear on the horizon from the bottom up.

Yes, their only answer seems to be to deny that it happens. It's a little hard to discuss something with people who deny common, universally observed phenomena.

There is absolutely no reasonable explanation from FE theorists, that I’m aware of, for seeing a ship disappear on the horizon from the bottom up.

The ship disappears because of the limits of the human eyeball, which is designed to see colors/shapes and has limitations on depth and distance.

The way ships on water can be "brought back" with a high zoom camera, and mountains/buildings in the distance staying STRAIGHT UP and VISIBLE LONGER THAN THEY SHOULD BE are two of the biggest arguments for Flat Earth that I've found so far.

If a skyscraper were super tall and very far away, to your left OR right, and part of the "missing bottom" was below the horizon, you wouldn't just have half of the skyscraper sticking up straight perpendicular to the ground, as it was when it was 20 feet in front of you! If the explanation was "the earth's curvature made the bottom half disappear from view" then the other half would be leaning one direction or the other -- certainly "backwards" away from you, but also to the left/right unless the skyscraper was RIGHT IN FRONT of you.

Get out a globe and test it. Think about it.

I never thought of that, until I watched one of those videos. VERY convincing. In fact, despite many other unresolved questions I have about Flat Earth, I can't imagine a globe-friendly explanation for this obvious, common-sense, down-to-earth evidence that anyone can test/repeat.

Remember, the number of scientists trying to figure out how Flat Earth works is almost non-existent. Just a few laymen (amateurs), really. So having an unresolved mystery, an unanswered question or 100 should NOT be a dealbreaker, logically speaking. It is logical to have many unanswered questions, given the resources, time, and personnel being thrown at this subject at present.

However, if there are 1 or 2 valid proofs for Flat Earth, out of all the chaff, controlled opposition, intentional disinformation, etc. then the whole Globe Earth house of cards comes crashing down: it becomes a lie. Prove JUST ONE LIE, and the whole thing is a ball of lies that unravels. NASA wouldn't just lie about one thing. Once they are proven liars, they are not to be trusted, and it's LOGICAL TO CONCLUDE they have a whole web of lies to defend their whole "system" or "Big Lie". It is not necessary to come up with courtroom-worthy evidence or proof to debunk EACH of their lies.

All we need to do is come up with compelling, concrete evidence that most laymen can understand (with common sense) that proves NASA is lying to us.

The angle "falls" (you look more downward), while the radius grows.

Said no human ever in real life. This does not match experience. Sorry.

If a skyscraper were super tall and very far away, to your left OR right, and part of the "missing bottom" was below the horizon, you wouldn't just have half of the skyscraper sticking up straight perpendicular to the ground, as it was when it was 20 feet in front of you! If the explanation was "the earth's curvature made the bottom half disappear from view" then the other half would be leaning one direction or the other -- certainly "backwards" away from you, but also to the left/right unless the skyscraper was RIGHT IN FRONT of you.

Get out a globe and test it. Think about it.

I'm sure it does lean a little to the side from your point of view as it moves away, but not enough to be visible. You would probably have to get hundreds of miles from the skyscraper before it was leaning so differently from you that its lean would be visible, by which time it would long since have gone out of sight.