Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Thed0ctor on October 15, 2022, 11:45:34 PM
-
Are there any flat earthers that have taken a photo of Lake tahoe? I saw this link
https://flatearthanswers.com/fisheye-lens/ which shows Lake Tahoe from space and then on the ground. In space there is clear curvature. I am trying to see if anyone has taken a photo or videos on the ground and is able to see the whole thing with no curvature.
-
Are there any flat earthers that have taken a photo of Lake tahoe? I saw this link
https://flatearthanswers.com/fisheye-lens/ which shows Lake Tahoe from space and then on the ground. In space there is clear curvature. I am trying to see if anyone has taken a photo or videos on the ground and is able to see the whole thing with no curvature.
LOL. Why doesn't NASA provide curve photos of buildings leaning over or mountains leaning in different directions?
Does only water curve???
Yes, of course...that's why boats "disappear" as they go "over the curve".
Buildings, mountains, NOPE...they don't "disappear" as they go "over the curve".
Anyway, I've been there many times and NOPE, no curve going on.
Unfortunately I don't have photos though. :(
-
Let's say that it is flat. But there are still six cosmic directions around it and six cosmic directions produce spheres. If it is so flat, it's in the midst of the continuous sphericities of space itself.
-
That "curve" picture is obviously garbage. Tahoe is about 21 miles in length (at its longest point), which would translate to a 295 foot cuvature, so 125 foot drop on each end from center, so the NASA curve is clearly exaggerated. It would be nice to get a picture of Tahoe lengthwise to see if the 125-foot curvature is detectable. Problem with obtaining such a picture of Tahoe is that to get the entire 21 miles within the picture from a low-enough angle so you could see the water-line from end to end, you'd have to be so far away from it that various land features would get in the way, and the 125 might be harder to see. I believe the picture in this link is showing Tahoe width-wise not length-wise.
To me, what's really conclusive is that, if you look at those weather balloon photos from 120,000 feet, and see how high that elevation is, according to globe math, the curvature of Kansas from end to end would be about 110,000 feet, so up the height of the balloon. No such curvature is visible from 120,000 feet. So, Neil deGrasse Tyson actually lies when he claims that no curvature is visible from 120,000 feet. Certainly it wouldn't look like the fake RedBull video where it looks it curve down about 50 miles within 10 miles. But if you looked around in any direction from 120,000 feet, the curve should be noticeable by way of a significant drop in the level of the horizon. It should not stay up at eye level.
-
It is an exaggerated curve caused by a fish eye lens. I don't think it is possible to take a picture of lake tahoe that would show the curve if the earth is a globe due to scale and perspective issues. In my opinion, it would require a very high view of at least 200-400 miles high, to see any curve if there is curve, but at that distance the lake would be too small to notice it curving.
-
It is an exaggerated curve caused by a fish eye lens. I don't think it is possible to take a picture of lake tahoe that would show the curve if the earth is a globe due to scale and perspective issues. In my opinion, it would require a very high view of at least 200-400 miles high, to see any curve if there is curve, but at that distance the lake would be too small to notice it curving.
And yet, those boats disappear behind the "curve". :)
-
it would require a very high view of at least 200-400 miles high, to see any curve if there is curve, but at that distance the lake would be too small to notice it curving.
No, it would not require 200 miles of elevation to see curvature if there is any. It used to be claimed that curvature would begin to become apparent at about 30,000 feet (albeit slightly), but then the 120,000-foot amateur balloons created a problem for their narrative, which is why deGrasse Tyson had to shoot down the RedBull jump because the amateur balloons from 120,000 showed no curvature. At the same time, the RedBull guy claimed that he could see the curvature of the earth. So it seems that there was a mixup with regard to the narrative there. One of them was full of the bull, red bull.
Here's a math-based simulation of what the drop in horizon level should look like, and you'll see 120,000 feet at about 16 seconds in. You can clearly start to see curvature (despite deGrasse Tyson's claim to the contrary, and despite the claims to the contrary from before the amateur balloons made it up to 120K feet and showed no such thing).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08-YbvOCwGw
Now, take it up to 343,000 feet (the height to which they claimed that a captured V-2 rocket went in 1946 -- before they could CGI or fisheye the footage). This footage is hard to find because it's being suppressed. So that would be at about the 27-second mark of the earth curve simulator.
So here's the V-2 rocket footage, and they show at the 54-second mark a still-shot where the narrator claims (starting at about the 49-second mark) that the curvature of the earth is "astonishingly apparent". You can take a straight-edge to the horizon line on that still shot and it's perfectly straight, flat as a pancake. Go ahead and ty it. Just take a straight sheet of paper and put it up to the screen. Perfectly straight minus some tiny undulations here or there in the middle due to topography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sykfqa3MKAg
We're not sure what th FOV (field of view) is on the V-2 camera, but even if it were 1/10th of the 65 degree field of view in the simulator, you would have seen some curvature.
And have a look at this trash below (start at about the 3:27) mark, where the Air Force claimed that this was actual footage of space. :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
https://www.theflatearthpodcast.com/portfolio/best-space-fails-in-one-video/
That entire video above is worth watching.
-
It would be interesting to see a similar altitude view simulation, but with no curve programmed except for the theorized radius of the flat earth to see what that curved horizon would look like. It was hard to tell in the rocket video as if it wasn't high enough for the curve to be clear, though many times it looked flat, it still seemed somewhat curved, perhaps the minimal amount that would be seen when observing the rim of a flat earth.
-
It would be interesting to see a similar altitude view simulation, but with no curve programmed except for the theorized radius of the flat earth to see what that curved horizon would look like. It was hard to tell in the rocket video as if it wasn't high enough for the curve to be clear, though many times it looked flat, it still seemed somewhat curved, perhaps the minimal amount that would be seen when observing the rim of a flat earth.
Well, the curve would be apparent given the 65 degree field of view. It's just straight math in that simulator. Problem is that we don't always know the FOV of the various videos out there. We do see, however, that there's no drop in the horizon line. That Youtube simulator was not made by a Flat Earther.
-
pure space, "absolute space", is constituted in six cosmic directions, which means there are always at least two intersecting planes, which patternwise always creates a sphere and then spheres and spheres, spheres upon spheres in the metaxology of points, and then the only question after that's magnitude.
for the earth to be flat in such a continuous situation would be abnormal and ridiculous. it would be worse than flat lungs and flat brains. when the Jupiter of the sky goes by orbiting the Earth, there are three aspects in azimuth, ascension and altitude which is enough to refute and defute the flat Earth every single day and year ... but the human mind's also subject to lots of fantasy, so the flat earth has its resource ... in fantasy and some sort of flathead whatever.
but at least the flat earthers are correct if they say the earth's not moving because obviously it's not.
And, of course, ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA has never landed on the Moon or Mars and their deep space stuff is space movies and fake syfy channel ...
-
the bells for matins here on Mars are ringing, i have to go ...