Author Topic: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign (Read 54307 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #240 on:** December 15, 2021, 04:57:08 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on December 15, 2021, 02:14:36 PM

Video of Venus taken with my p900. Clearly not a solid body and not millions or trillions of miles away.

Amazing, and obviously not a chunk of rock. Great pictures. I should be getting a P1000 for Christmas (wink wink) and I hope to see some amazing things myself.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #241 on:** December 15, 2021, 04:59:44 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on December 15, 2021, 12:51:45 AM

The vacuum of space doesn't "suck". Atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing altitude and eventually becomes the vacuum of space.

That's why I put it in quotes. I've already explained that I know how it works, but it has that effect. It doesn't suck, but it "sucks".

There's plenty of atmospheric pressure beneath the lower pressure areas to push out into the lower pressure areas and push everything out into space. That gravity could counteract the potential difference caused by the vacuum is ludicrous.

Put into a rectangular container a blend of gases similar to what's in our atmosphere with the same ratios as you'd find in the atmosphere and at rougly the same pressure. Then put an extremely large vacuum chamber on top of it. Now remove the lid on the lower chamber. All the gases would immediately evacuate the lower chamber despite "gravity" that should keep them on the bottom. You know what would happen. Gravity would do nothing and all the gases would evacuate the lower chamber immediately. You can find videos of vacuums lesser than that of space inside of a steel train tanker car and watch the car crushed like a tin can. That's how powerful a vacuum differential is ... vs. "gravity".

EDITED TO ADD: and actually a vacuum similar to that of space would rip the container open as well, just as it would with those paper "space suits" worn by the astronots.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #242 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:03:59 PM »

Quote

How is it "clearly" not X distance away?

Uhhh...because the creators of the p900 camera know how far the camera will work.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #243 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:06:15 PM »

Quote

I should be getting a P1000 for Christmas (wink wink) and I hope to see some amazing things myself.

Nice! I heard up til this summer you were on the naughty list (prob because Xavier wrote St Nick and complained about your Diamondisms) so I'm glad you turned your life around.

I'm selfishly waiting to see your photos.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #244 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:19:24 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 15, 2021, 05:06:15 PM

Nice! I heard up til this summer you were on the naughty list (prob because Xavier wrote St Nick and complained about your Diamondisms) so I'm glad you turned your life around.

I'm selfishly waiting to see your photos.

There's one thing you can find very easily just by searching the internet. 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. Now, another reason this is a great picture is because of the CN Tower (space-needle-looking thing). You can look up that it's 1815 feet tall, and the circular restaurant is at about 1,015 feet above the ground. At 30 miles (these pictures are typically taken from the beach just a few feet above water level), that means about 400 feet of the CN tower should be gone and the part below the restaurant should be significantly shorter than the part above it. In every picture I've seen, nearly the entire thing, about 850-900 feet of the 1015 feet below the restaurant remains visible. And the part that can't be seen is likely just due to the distance and convergence with the horizon along with waves on the lake.

Here's a good example from Niagara on the Lake, which is more like 27 miles (instead of 30) across the Lake. Does it look to you as if nearly half of the bottom part of the tower is missing? No, in fact, the visible part of the bottom part is longer in height than the top part, meaning that it's over 800 feet that's still seen from 27 miles away. Very nearly the entire thing remains visible.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #245 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:33:39 PM »

Here's a video where he demonstrates that he's standing right on the edge of the water, at a height of 6 feet, from 30.84 miles away.

Over 500 feet of the bottom part of the tower (about half the height up to the restaurant) should be missing due to curvature. You can see the top half or so of the smaller building at is base and even the top half of the stadium they have there, the Rogers Center baseball field. Height of Rogers Center is 282 feet, and you can see the top (nearly half) part. About 150-200 feet are not visible, when 515 or so feet should be missing. And you can see the blurry water moving at the bottom. So we're talking about waves and distance to the horizon.

Freeze the film at about 1:47 in. No more than 150 feet +/- is not visible, whereas 500 feet, half the distance between the ground level and the circular restaurant above it, SHOULD be hidden and therefore missing from the picture.

Dankward · « **Reply #246 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:40:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2021, 04:57:08 PM

Amazing, and obviously not a chunk of rock. Great pictures. I should be getting a P1000 for Christmas (wink wink) and I hope to see some amazing things myself.

Would be really great if you did, it's an amazing device!

Waiting for some cool videos on December 27th

Dankward · « **Reply #247 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:42:44 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on December 15, 2021, 02:14:36 PM

Video of Venus taken with my p900. Clearly not a solid body and not millions or trillions of miles away.

Very cool video Tradman! I'd argue it's difficult to pick the right set parameters for making clear videos of the planets with a camera. In your videos, it looks like the planet is not focused at all. If you get a chance, could you try to look up the right parameters and make a video of some of our planets? With the P9000 you can even see the moons of Saturn.

It looks to me like a ton of air perturbation that's layered over the planet. As you can see it's quite hard to get the right setting and environment to capture clear footage.

Here is some better footage of the planets:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #248 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:48:49 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on December 15, 2021, 05:42:44 PM

Very cool video Tradman! I'd argue it's difficult to pick the right set parameters for making clear videos of the planets with a camera.

It looks to me like a ton of air perturbation that's layered over the planet. As you can see it's quite hard to get the right setting and environment to capture clear footage.

Here is some better footage of the planets:

I think we need to view these pictures trying to pretend that we haven't seen the NASA pics of these as spherical planets. What happens is that we tend to super-impose our preconceptions of what these things are on what's actually seen. NASA claims to have sent probes to very near these things and taken pictures of planets, but I don't believe ANYthing put out by NASA.

There's one picture of Pluto where they actually show it as having the outline of Pluto the dog on it ... as if it's some kind of joke.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #249 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:52:06 PM »

One of the things I question about the moon ... those pock-marks we're told are craters. They're exclusively nearly-perfect circles. Are we to believe that the asteroids (or whatever) hit this "planet" were all perfect circles? There should be tons of irregularly-shaped "craters". These to me almost look like bubbles that had dried. In addition, we're seeing them on the side that faces the earth. So how was the moon smacked with nearly-perfect-circular asteroids on the side facing the earth? Wouldn't the earth have blocked such asteroids?

Dankward · « **Reply #250 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:52:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2021, 05:48:49 PM

I think we need to view these pictures trying to pretend that we haven't seen the NASA pics of these as spherical planets. What happens is that we tend to super-impose our preconceptions of what these things are on what's actually seen. NASA claims to have sent probes to very near these things and taken pictures of planets, but I don't believe ANYthing put out by NASA.

There's one picture of Pluto where they actually show it as having the outline of Pluto the dog on it ... as if it's some kind of joke.

That's up to the viewer's fantasy and doesn't prove anything. It's confirmation bias that will make one embrace or dismiss your observation.

But you know, all of the planets are lit like spheres and look like made out of solid material (i.e. the moon).

Stanley N · « **Reply #251 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:53:51 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on December 15, 2021, 04:54:30 PM

I didn't downvote you. Anyway, one degree of a broom handle would be miniscule but one degree longitude of the earth is about 70 miles so there should be quite an arc shouldn't there?

70 miles seems about the limit of length of a contrail I could see.

The earth curves about 1 degree in 70 miles.

A contrail of a plane at constant altitude above the ground would likewise curve about 1 degree in 70 miles.

You see the contrail from the edge, like the broomstick from the edge.

If you want to see very small curves (and 1 degree is small) people usually need to look down the length of the item.

Here's a video which seems to go over most of the issues with airplanes. It gives some details about the emergency landing in Alaska. It took off from Taiwan (more south than Tokyo). However, there is no indication that the flight path was the line on a FE map - it appears to be a great circle.

The video claims that when the emergency happened (woman gave birth) Alaska was the closest landing and much closer than Los Angeles. I don't know if that's exactly correct, but the emergency certainly had nothing to do with airplane functionality and Alaska may have been the best place to land for other reasons (airport with sufficient runway*, airline hub, medical facilities).

*An aircraft can land at a lot of places in an emergency. I remember a few years back when a large passenger aircraft landed at a small regional airport near me. It needed to land and didn't have a choice. But getting it out of that airport was a problem. Had to take off unloaded with just the pilots, and still needed an FAA exemption (runway too short). This sort of takeoff is risky because at a small airport they don't have the runway length for a large aircraft to abort if an engine goes out or other problems. They don't land an airplane at an airport without enough takeoff runway (for that aircraft), if they can avoid it.

I'm also aware of airline management insisting on flying to a hub despite an emergency warranting landing at a closer airport. Because $$$.

Dankward · « **Reply #252 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:54:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2021, 05:52:06 PM

One of the things I question about the moon ... those pock-marks we're told are craters. They're exclusively nearly-perfect circles. Are we to believe that the asteroids (or whatever) hit this "planet" were all perfect circles? There should be tons of irregularly-shaped "craters". These to me almost look like bubbles that had dried.

Asteroids come in at such a high speed that they vaporize and create a large shock wave that digs up tons of rock in all directions. You can't really reconstruct the shape of an asteroid from the much larger crater that it's impact produces.

Matthew · « **Reply #253 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:56:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 15, 2021, 05:33:39 PM

Here's a video where he demonstrates that he's standing right on the edge of the water, at a height of 6 feet, from 30.84 miles away.

Over 500 feet of the bottom part of the tower (about half the height up to the restaurant) should be missing due to curvature. You can see the top half or so of the smaller building at is base and even the top half of the stadium they have there, the Rogers Center baseball field. Height of Rogers Center is 282 feet, and you can see the top (nearly half) part. About 150-200 feet are not visible, when 515 or so feet should be missing. And you can see the blurry water moving at the bottom. So we're talking about waves and distance to the horizon.

Freeze the film at about 1:47 in. No more than 150 feet +/- is not visible, whereas 500 feet, half the distance between the ground level and the circular restaurant above it, SHOULD be hidden and therefore missing from the picture.

Globe earthers are basically speechless...they have no decent explanation for this. I certainly don't, if I were trying to defend the Globe paradigm. Seems like "Check and Mate" to me.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #254 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:58:03 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on December 15, 2021, 05:52:52 PM

That's up to the viewer's fantasy and doesn't prove anything. It's confirmation bias that will make one embrace or dismiss your observation.

But you know, all of the planets are lit like spheres and look like made out of solid material (i.e. the moon).

If the moon, for instance, is made of solid material, how is it that both stars and even blue sky are visible THROUGH what should be the darkened side of the moon? There's a lot that we can "see" that's mere perception.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=404885936925227

and

and

Author Topic: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign (Read 54307 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Ladislaus

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Pax Vobis

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Pax Vobis

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Ladislaus

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Ladislaus

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Dankward

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Dankward

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Ladislaus

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Ladislaus

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Dankward

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Stanley N

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Dankward

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Matthew

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign

Ladislaus

Re: Thoughts on why I see the flat Earth theory is likely a disinformation campaign