Looks like plasma with some electrical activity.  That professor who held the moon was plasma might have been onto something.  He was dead certain about it too and it would be nice to find his science regarding the matter.

Yes. A fascinating possibility. I got to admit I'm suspect of literally everyone and everything but that is definitely something to be aware of.  

Look for "Toronto skyline from Fort Niagara".  This is a very popular picture, and they're taken by all kinds of people who aren't really thinking about flat earth or curvature.  Fort Niagara is 30 miles across Lake Ontario from Toronto.

Here's a video discussing the Toronto skyline. Start about 12:20.


At about 14:40 images (of a different skyline) show atmospheric distortion.

Awesome video.


Here's another that someone filmed from a plane. The appearance of the stars reminds me of cymatics.

As someone who's vision has sadly deteriorated quite badly, I can tell you this is exactly like what any light looks like from a distance to me. From that, I'd reckon the star is merely blurry.

Stanley, you can't be serious...a superior mirage??  So many problems with this video; this guy didn't do ANY work.

1.  The photo taken where 25% of the building was hidden...taken on a very high-wave day.  Obviously, high waves will block a larger amount of the building.
2.  Why didn't he use a zoom camera to "prove" that the 25% was still hidden?  Hmm?  We know why.
3.  So, on a calm day, with perfect visibility, the only explanation for why there is no curvature is a made up term?  Light bending superior mirage?  haha.

Totally ridiculous.  Ignoring the obvious.  Hiding behind made up terms.  Lazy, lying, stupidity.

It's just nothing but lies and distortions from the globe earthers.  Flat Earthers do the measurements, make the calculations, and have hundreds of such videos, while we see nothing but lies and bullshit from the globe earthers.

Google searches of people without any kind of agenda (not even thinking about this controversy) taking this picture consistently show no more than 150 feet or so of the CN tower missing, when it should be closer to 500.  I've gone through a ton of them.

And the guy in the video is an abject liar.  I'll prove it momentarily.  His scale model next to the picture of the tower is a joke.

He claims that this proves that 26% of the image tower is missing. 

500 feet should be hidden.  He claims 486 feet, but I found 520 when I ran the calculator.  In either case, let's say 500 feet.

It's easy to look up that it's 1100 feet from the base to the restaurant.  500 feet should reach nearly to the halfway point of the shaft below the restaurant.  Those lines are ridiculous and there's absolutely nothing in his scale to indicate 25% missing.  It looks to be maybe 10-15% just looking at it.  I intend to actually blow up the image and take measurements.  And the picture I posted showed the top part of the Rogers Center baseball stadium.  I would say the top 25-30% of the building, which you can look up is 282 feet tall.

By any calculation, no more than 200 feet is missing from the the tower, vs. the 500 feet alleged by globe earth math.

So, his scale is a total joke.  Why doesn't he simply chop the thing into 4 equal parts and then demonstrate his 26% missing?  Because it would show that he's a liar and a fraud.

I blew this picture up on my screen.  Total height of the tower measured at 3.75 inches on my scale on the screen.  I drew lines on paper.  Then the missing portion measured .5 inches.  That is 13.333%.  That's exactly HALF of what he claimed.  THIRTEEN PERCENT, and NOT TWENTY-SIX PERCENT.

You can just tell he's a liar visually.  Again, the restaurant is just about 1100 feet from the base.  Does it look like nearly HALF the base part is missing?  Maybe a QUARTER at best.  He lies by DOUBLING the missing height.

So 13% of 1815 feet is just about 240 FEET missing.  In that other picture you could see a good chunk of the top part of the Rogers Center baseball stadium, which you can look up at 282 feet tall.  Everything indicates about HALF missing compared to what wold be expected on a globe.

And the pictures are all consistent.  I can't find ONE where nearly HALF of the bottom shaft of the CN Tower is missing.  And this guy here has to lie and DOUBLE the portion of the tower missing.  He gives himself away with his ridiculous scale.  All he'd have to do is cut the entire height of the tower into 4 sections.  Why did he draw it like that?  Because he KNOWS DAMN WELL that he's lying.  He probably tried that and went "oh crap", so he had to fake it.  He figured he'd sneak that through in his propaganda video by flashing it for a couple seconds and then moving on.

Why are globe earthers always exposed by the flat earthers as lying and distorting?  Why do they have to lie if the science is so indubitably behind them?  We know the answer.

And the 200 feet (at most missing), a little over 10%, that's easily attributable to the waves and convergence with the line of sight.  And, BTW, I could not find a any pictures taken with a P900 or P1000.  I bet if you go up in elevation about 20 feet, with extremely calm water, you can get the entire thing in view, having risen up above where the water would interfere with the picture.

There are hundreds and hundreds of very dramatic "see too far" videos, including lasers just a few feet off the ground that were spotted 26-27 miles aay when they should have been hidden behind 500 feet of globe curvature.

Here is the problem with your conclusion. First, you say “these pictures are typically taken from the beach”. I contest this. The hight from the beach is much lower than the person taking this picture below:




This man is likely 30 or more feet above the beach.

In the video I showed, the guy literraly pointed the camera down at his feet, as the water was touching his shoes.  And he could capture the top of the Rogers Center (I would say at least 25% of it), which is 282 feet tall.  So, again 200 feet missing vs. the 500 expected by globe earth math.

Yes, this guy here is some height above the beach, but in this picture here, you can easily see 95% of the tower.  Let's say it IS 30 feet.  I think that's probably an exaggeration but it's anybody's guess.  Calculator indicates even at that height you should have 360 feet of the bottom missing, so 1/3 of the lower shaft of the CN tower should be gone, and you can darn well see the entire thing.

And in this one also, you can see the top 25% or more of the Rogers Center, which should have been hidden by nearly 100 feet ... even if you granted the 30 feet.  I'd wager that it's closer to 10 or 15 feet, and not 30.

But no matter how you try to crunch the numbers, they simply don't work for the globe.  Look the picture again.  At 360 feet missing, that would make the bottom shaft of the CN tower appear to be about the same if not less than the height from the restaurant to the top.  Does it look that way to you?  It's obvious that the bottom shaft is much longer than from the restaurant to the very top .. .and that means nearly the entire thing is in view.

In a lot of the pictures, people indicate that they took the pictures "on the beach".

Awesome video.


Here's another that someone filmed from a plane. The appearance of the stars reminds me of cymatics.

As someone who's vision has sadly deteriorated quite badly, I can tell you this is exactly like what any light looks like from a distance to me. From that, I'd reckon the star is merely blurry.

I would almost place money on this being a Google Loon balloon (or another such balloon from the same manufacturer Google contracted.)

My husband, his best friend, two of my brothers and I all witnessed one of these last summer. Our house is about 3800 feet up. When the balloon passed over, we were freaking out trying to figure out what it was. Straight up went tinfoil hat mode. It looked completely unnatural and almost exactly like that video when you tried to look through a camera. We ultimately identified it as being the same type of balloon google uses by looking through my husband's telescope.

https://www.wdbj7.com/2020/07/07/googles-project-loon-high-altitude-balloons-spotted-over-virginia-and-carolinas/

Here you can see a somewhat amateur ish photo of one. To my understanding they do float well above the heights of planes so I would say that shouldn't rule it out.