Author Topic: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth  (Read 239 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14621
  • Reputation: +7672/-2383
  • Gender: Male
Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
« on: May 23, 2018, 09:40:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Can anyone else tell me what's wrong with this video's claims?  Run the math.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14621
    • Reputation: +7672/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #1 on: May 23, 2018, 09:47:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In the first sequence, they claim that the laser went up 6 feet when the boat got to 3 miles out.

    They did a measurement first at 500 feet, then went out to 3 miles.

    Now, if you wanted to prove that the laser was level, you'd do another measurement at 1000 feet, then 1500 feet, etc.  But they jumped right out to 3 miles.

    It looks like the laser was about 3 feet off the ground.  Run the curvature calculator.

    In the second sequence, they say that 24 feet disappeared behind curvature at 6 miles out.  Again, the telescope appeared to be about 3-4 feet off the ground.  We'll say 3 (which would be in their favor).  Run the curvature calculator.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14621
    • Reputation: +7672/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #2 on: May 23, 2018, 09:58:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • At 6 miles out, only 10 feet of the target would be hidden by curvature.  They claim that 24 feet were hidden.  So why?

    Offline Truth is Eternal

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1768
    • Reputation: +774/-1987
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #3 on: May 23, 2018, 10:12:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Can anyone else tell me what's wrong with this video's claims?  Run the math.
    Here are some of the problems with the video.

    • Discovery Channel propaganda machine.
    • Robotic voice.
    • The Video staged to promote NASA.
    • One flawed experiment doesn't destroy the totality of all other experiments.
    • They suspiciously go out of their way to try to convince people that water does not find its own level.
    • "Chopper appears out of nowhere" Staged Dramatics.
    • Trying to Convince people they can't see the helicopter. Use binoculars. Don't hide the helicopter behind weeds.
    • You can tell the conversations do not sound natural and fluid.
    • Did I mention the whole experiment is staged by the Discovery Channel. Water always finds its own level.
    "I Think it is Time Cathinfo Has a Public Profession of Belief." "Thank you for publicly affirming the necessity of believing, without innovations, all Infallibly Defined Dogmas of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2605
    • Reputation: +989/-1588
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #4 on: May 23, 2018, 10:36:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Another independent study found that the largest lake in Europe is flat.  The team is compiling a video but a slide show is presently available.  

    https://fecore.org/lake-balaton-results-success-at-12-km/


    Of the many problems documented in this kind of testing is the spreading of the laser over distances. Perhaps a factor in the test in the OP.  The source of the information is questionable since Discovery Channel is basically main stream media.  Also, the lax way the test was performed left a lot to be desired.  One tiny movement of the laser would change the trajectory of the beam to include the discrepancy.  They need to show how that wasn't a factor or it can be assumed.  Otherwise, level just isn't level and that is ridiculous. As far as the helicopter going behind the water before it landed, that is an old theory debunked many times since the water between the two sites appears higher at the farthest end than it really is.  This is proven with a telescope or camera which will bring the copter back into view, a test shown repeatedly to be easily done.  The copter only appeared to go behind the water which visually grows taller over a long distance according to the eye of the viewer.  This is because the waves appear as a single layer yet represent many layers and heights over a long distance that come together as one. Distance over the surface of turbulent water is not as easily resolvable to the naked eye.  To not include this reality and give the impression that the helicopter went behind the curve is somewhat dishonest.    


    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2605
    • Reputation: +989/-1588
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #5 on: May 23, 2018, 10:52:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  • Known information and empirical science proving we can see too far for earth to be a globe.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14621
    • Reputation: +7672/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #6 on: May 23, 2018, 12:19:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • At 6 miles out, only 10 feet of the target would be hidden by curvature.  They claim that 24 feet were hidden.  So why?

    This debunks their science using their own measurements though.  Only 10 feet should have been hidden by curvature math, but they say 24 feet were hidden.  So either something was wrong with their measurements, or else some other phenomenon that accounts for the additional 14 feet could also be used to explain the remaining 10 feet ... assuming the whole thing wasn't faked.

    Similarly, at the first distance of 3 miles, you'd get about 6 inches hidden whereas they report he laser being off by 6 feet.  Now, all you have to do is to tilt the laser ever-so-slightly off level, I'm talking millimeters would do it ... to get it to go up like that.  And they took one measurement at 500 feet.  To prove level, they just had to take a couple more, at 1000 feet and 1500 feet.  But they went right out to 3 miles without proving level.

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2605
    • Reputation: +989/-1588
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #7 on: May 23, 2018, 12:27:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • This debunks their science using their own measurements though.  Only 10 feet should have been hidden by curvature math, but they say 24 feet were hidden.  So either something was wrong with their measurements, or else some other phenomenon that accounts for the additional 14 feet could also be used to explain the remaining 10 feet ... assuming the whole thing wasn't faked.

    Similarly, at the first distance of 3 miles, you'd get about 6 inches hidden whereas they report he laser being off by 6 feet.  Now, all you have to do is to tilt the laser ever-so-slightly off level, I'm talking millimeters would do it ... to get it to go up like that.  And they took one measurement at 500 feet.  To prove level, they just had to take a couple more, at 1000 feet and 1500 feet.  But they went right out to 3 miles without proving level.
    Yes, it does debunk their science! You caught them red handed and used their proof to do it.


    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1098
    • Reputation: +440/-1355
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #8 on: May 23, 2018, 05:44:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Another independent study found that the largest lake in Europe is flat.  The team is compiling a video but a slide show is presently available.  

    https://fecore.org/lake-balaton-results-success-at-12-km/


    Of the many problems documented in this kind of testing is the spreading of the laser over distances. Perhaps a factor in the test in the OP.  The source of the information is questionable since Discovery Channel is basically main stream media.  Also, the lax way the test was performed left a lot to be desired.  One tiny movement of the laser would change the trajectory of the beam to include the discrepancy.  They need to show how that wasn't a factor or it can be assumed.  Otherwise, level just isn't level and that is ridiculous. As far as the helicopter going behind the water before it landed, that is an old theory debunked many times since the water between the two sites appears higher at the farthest end than it really is.  This is proven with a telescope or camera which will bring the copter back into view, a test shown repeatedly to be easily done.  The copter only appeared to go behind the water which visually grows taller over a long distance according to the eye of the viewer.  This is because the waves appear as a single layer yet represent many layers and heights over a long distance that come together as one. Distance over the surface of turbulent water is not as easily resolvable to the naked eye.  To not include this reality and give the impression that the helicopter went behind the curve is somewhat dishonest.    
    This.
    All light beams diffuse ans spread over any distance.
    You can see that for yourself with a flashlight. 

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16848
    • Reputation: +7972/-569
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #9 on: May 24, 2018, 02:23:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In the first sequence, they claim that the laser went up 6 feet when the boat got to 3 miles out.

    They did a measurement first at 500 feet, then went out to 3 miles.

    Now, if you wanted to prove that the laser was level, you'd do another measurement at 1000 feet, then 1500 feet, etc.  But they jumped right out to 3 miles.

    It looks like the laser was about 3 feet off the ground.  Run the curvature calculator.

    In the second sequence, they say that 24 feet disappeared behind curvature at 6 miles out.  Again, the telescope appeared to be about 3-4 feet off the ground.  We'll say 3 (which would be in their favor).  Run the curvature calculator.

    At 6 miles out, only 10 feet of the target would be hidden by curvature.  They claim that 24 feet were hidden.  So why?
    .
    You're spinning your wheels! 
    You can play around with curvature calculators but it's not conclusive because of inadequate data.
    .
    Insufficient information is provided by the video. This is not scientific. But it could easily be accurate, that is, not fake.
    .
    The location of the lake is not provided. 
    What are the longitude and latitude coordinates?
    Is this in Canada, perhaps near Quebec or Toronto?
    Is it in Maine?
    .
    These would be highly problematic locations for example.
    .
    The fact that they show a "level laser" (they do not explain how they knew it was "level") only a few feet above the water surface (they measured it with a tape measure and they MUMBLED the tape measure read "TWO FEET SEVEN INCHES" or 33"), then the same laser beam marked "their first reading at 500 feet from the shore" only about the same height above the water (they never measured how high above the water the marked place on the boat was!). They should have had their board down the CENTER of the boat so their physical movement on board would not change the measured height of the beam. You can see as the guy leans out around the side of the boat to mark the board, the boat rolls sideways, making the laser appear to be higher on the board. VERY SLOPPY MEASUREMENT!! Even dangling over the side to shoot the video makes the beam appear to be higher.
    .
    Then at 3 miles out on the lake the beam was 6 feet higher (something like a total of 9 feet above the water, or what? They don't say!).
    .
    Are they aware of how CONTRIVED it appears when they say "We're going to have to measure it on -- something else" and she reaches between the seats on a small boat to pull out a convenient corrogated panel of white fiberglass. DOESN'T EVERYONE WITH A SMALL BOAT CARRY A CORROGATED PANEL OF FIBERGLASS ON BOARD, "just in case?" (In case of WHAT? Quicksand? Portuguese man-o'war? a tsunami??) Not to mention the fact that having junk on deck you can trip on is a safety hazard. Unbelievable. But in any case, putting that panel on the side of the boat makes it roll to that side even MORE, and marking it requires even MORE weight on the side of the boat causing further inaccuracy. All BAD news here. Sloppy, amateurish and inconclusive.
    .
    So they're describing a laser beam that begins parallel with the water's surface then rises rather quickly at 3 miles out to 6 feet higher. It's really unfortunate that they didn't go further out to see if perhaps the laser beam would come BACK DOWN when measured at 6 miles, for example. I suspect it very well might have come back down, before it rises back up again further from shore! This means that the surface of the water could have highs and lows. IOW just because it's water doesn't mean it's reliably a straight line, even without the waves.
    .
    The fact that they're doing this over water introduces several problems that are not helpful. And the additional facts that they do not record the time of day, the date of the year, the temperature, the humidity, the temperature of the water, and a meteorological description of atmospheric conditions that day are very problematic. How can we rule out any inversion layer or refraction? The laser beam could be bending over the water, and it would LOOK STRAIGHT in a refraction condition because ALL the light going over the water would be bending the same way, so it would ALL appear to be straight just like the laser does!
    .
    When you measure points along a supposedly straight line of sight down to a presumably level surface of the earth over an extended distance, what you are actually measuring is the distance from a perhaps questionable reference line (the laser beam) down to the geoid. 
    .
    What is the geoid?
    .
    The geoid is essentially the surface of an open, at rest body of water. (Not a flowing river or aqueduct or channel.) 
    So that MUST be a reliable surface, no?
    NO.
    It's not reliable as a measure of the "straightness" of the surface (or the curvature for that matter!) because the precise direction to the pull of gravitational force (or which way your "weight" pulls you PRECISELY) is a variable entity. There are places on earth where what would seem to be level is exactly the SAME as what seems to be level 3 miles away, but then checked in the opposite direction, what seems to be level is suddenly far different than both the previous two cases.
    .
    This is because the geoid is not consistent. It undulates up and down all over the earth.
    The surface of a lake could have a low area AND a high area both of which are not discernible by the unaided eye.
    Large expanses of water always have some disturbances going on so these highs and lows don't appear obvious.
    .
    Measured over very small distances you don't notice any difference or inaccuracy, but over three or 6 miles, you can notice quite a bit, if you have sensitive instruments. 
    .
    If they were doing this over solid land, for example, they could set up a tripod at each station and check vertical angles to monuments like tops of tall mountains or artificial points elevated such as a flashing red beacon on a high antenna, a favorite reliable elevation marker.
    .
    They could use readings of star locations but then you have to employ accurate time stamps and spherical trigonometry, which is a lot more complicated.
    .
    In the final analysis, they could have set up the laser at a local high point, taken their first measurement @ 500' still in the local high point, then at 3 miles in a local low point causing the beam to appear much higher, then further out around 5 miles where they didn't bother to go the laser could have been back down to 33 inches above the water because it's a local high point in the geoid. 
    .
    Do you see the problem?
    .
    Laser set up at a local HIGH point
    First measurements @ local HIGH
    Second meas. @ local LOW point (looks like beam is 9' above water)
    Third meas (not taken) @ local HIGH point (beam could be back at 33")
    Fourth (where helicopter went) another local LOW point, beam appears 20' above the water
    .
    This is quite feasible since they say the laser appears to be on the water's surface in the far distance, so they took a helicopter over there only to be surprised to find the chopper disappeared behind the water's apparent horizon. This could be explained by a dip in the geoid at the other shore line so that an apparent hump in the water surface hid the chopper, but it might have been a geoid hump and not a curvature hump.
    .
    Notice the theatrics to appeal to a vain sense of entertainment. They have two attractive ladies running around, they have a man who tries real hard to ACT SURPRISED when the laser beam appears 6 feet higher than they thought it would be at 3 miles out, they just HAPPEN to find a 9-foot panel of white fiberglass lying on the deck of their tiny boat (where every square inch is valuable space!), then a helicopter just HAPPENS to show up right on time to give the pretty girls a free ride (but they didn't bother to check for pilot license or maintenance records!), and finally the chopper DISAPPEARS over the water to the man's amazement, Yeah, Sure, Like He Didn't Know That Would Happen, Riiiight.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16848
    • Reputation: +7972/-569
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #10 on: May 24, 2018, 02:40:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    They said their helicopter was 24' above the water but in his telescope he could see the entire chopper so it could easily have been 4' less than 24', or 20 feet from the water to the skids of the chopper. The chopper landed on the shore near the water line so the pilot and passengers started at 6 feet above the lake. None of this was accounted for in the video.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16848
    • Reputation: +7972/-569
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #11 on: May 24, 2018, 03:52:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Radio waves propagate in straight line-of-sight fashion.
    HAM radio and Citizens' Band are other topics, and we're not referring to those.
    Handheld walkie-talkies (not cell phones or HAM radio or CB) only work when there is a clear line of sight between the units.
    Sometimes a building getting in between interferes with reception to a lesser degree.
    But solid objects like a mountain or a large mass of rocks can obliterate the signal.
    It is well-known that radio waves do not travel through water.
    Submarines only a few feet underwater cannot use radio for communication to other vessels.
    Two submarines right next to each other underwater cannot communicate with radio waves.
    .
    The two-way handheld devices used in the video for communication with the helicopter were walkie-talkies, not cell phones.
    Such two-way walkie-talkies have a range of up to 5, or perhaps 10 miles, but not much more than that.
    IOW the signal from across the lake would have been already very weak, at the limits of range.
    .
    Consequently, when the chopper went down behind the HUMP in the water, the water would have interrupted the radio signal.
    .
    Why was the man still able to communicate with the woman when she was out of sight behind the water?
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Truth is Eternal

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1768
    • Reputation: +774/-1987
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #12 on: May 24, 2018, 09:50:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • .
    You're spinning your wheels!
    You can play around with curvature calculators but it's not conclusive because of inadequate data.
    .
    Insufficient information is provided by the video. This is not scientific. But it could easily be accurate, that is, not fake.
    .
    The location of the lake is not provided.
    What are the longitude and latitude coordinates?
    Is this in Canada, perhaps near Quebec or Toronto?
    Is it in Maine?
    .
    These would be highly problematic locations for example.
    .
    The fact that they show a "level laser" (they do not explain how they knew it was "level") only a few feet above the water surface (they measured it with a tape measure and they MUMBLED the tape measure read "TWO FEET SEVEN INCHES" or 33"), then the same laser beam marked "their first reading at 500 feet from the shore" only about the same height above the water (they never measured how high above the water the marked place on the boat was!). They should have had their board down the CENTER of the boat so their physical movement on board would not change the measured height of the beam. You can see as the guy leans out around the side of the boat to mark the board, the boat rolls sideways, making the laser appear to be higher on the board. VERY SLOPPY MEASUREMENT!! Even dangling over the side to shoot the video makes the beam appear to be higher.
    .
    Then at 3 miles out on the lake the beam was 6 feet higher (something like a total of 9 feet above the water, or what? They don't say!).
    .
    Are they aware of how CONTRIVED it appears when they say "We're going to have to measure it on -- something else" and she reaches between the seats on a small boat to pull out a convenient corrogated panel of white fiberglass. DOESN'T EVERYONE WITH A SMALL BOAT CARRY A CORROGATED PANEL OF FIBERGLASS ON BOARD, "just in case?" (In case of WHAT? Quicksand? Portuguese man-o'war? a tsunami??) Not to mention the fact that having junk on deck you can trip on is a safety hazard. Unbelievable. But in any case, putting that panel on the side of the boat makes it roll to that side even MORE, and marking it requires even MORE weight on the side of the boat causing further inaccuracy. All BAD news here. Sloppy, amateurish and inconclusive.
    .
    So they're describing a laser beam that begins parallel with the water's surface then rises rather quickly at 3 miles out to 6 feet higher. It's really unfortunate that they didn't go further out to see if perhaps the laser beam would come BACK DOWN when measured at 6 miles, for example. I suspect it very well might have come back down, before it rises back up again further from shore! This means that the surface of the water could have highs and lows. IOW just because it's water doesn't mean it's reliably a straight line, even without the waves.
    .
    The fact that they're doing this over water introduces several problems that are not helpful. And the additional facts that they do not record the time of day, the date of the year, the temperature, the humidity, the temperature of the water, and a meteorological description of atmospheric conditions that day are very problematic. How can we rule out any inversion layer or refraction? The laser beam could be bending over the water, and it would LOOK STRAIGHT in a refraction condition because ALL the light going over the water would be bending the same way, so it would ALL appear to be straight just like the laser does!
    .
    When you measure points along a supposedly straight line of sight down to a presumably level surface of the earth over an extended distance, what you are actually measuring is the distance from a perhaps questionable reference line (the laser beam) down to the geoid.
    .
    What is the geoid?
    .
    The geoid is essentially the surface of an open, at rest body of water. (Not a flowing river or aqueduct or channel.)
    So that MUST be a reliable surface, no?
    NO.
    It's not reliable as a measure of the "straightness" of the surface (or the curvature for that matter!) because the precise direction to the pull of gravitational force (or which way your "weight" pulls you PRECISELY) is a variable entity. There are places on earth where what would seem to be level is exactly the SAME as what seems to be level 3 miles away, but then checked in the opposite direction, what seems to be level is suddenly far different than both the previous two cases.
    .
    This is because the geoid is not consistent. It undulates up and down all over the earth.
    The surface of a lake could have a low area AND a high area both of which are not discernible by the unaided eye.
    Large expanses of water always have some disturbances going on so these highs and lows don't appear obvious.
    .
    Measured over very small distances you don't notice any difference or inaccuracy, but over three or 6 miles, you can notice quite a bit, if you have sensitive instruments.
    .
    If they were doing this over solid land, for example, they could set up a tripod at each station and check vertical angles to monuments like tops of tall mountains or artificial points elevated such as a flashing red beacon on a high antenna, a favorite reliable elevation marker.
    .
    They could use readings of star locations but then you have to employ accurate time stamps and spherical trigonometry, which is a lot more complicated.
    .
    In the final analysis, they could have set up the laser at a local high point, taken their first measurement @ 500' still in the local high point, then at 3 miles in a local low point causing the beam to appear much higher, then further out around 5 miles where they didn't bother to go the laser could have been back down to 33 inches above the water because it's a local high point in the geoid.
    .
    Do you see the problem?
    .
    Laser set up at a local HIGH point
    First measurements @ local HIGH
    Second meas. @ local LOW point (looks like beam is 9' above water)
    Third meas (not taken) @ local HIGH point (beam could be back at 33")
    Fourth (where helicopter went) another local LOW point, beam appears 20' above the water
    .
    This is quite feasible since they say the laser appears to be on the water's surface in the far distance, so they took a helicopter over there only to be surprised to find the chopper disappeared behind the water's apparent horizon. This could be explained by a dip in the geoid at the other shore line so that an apparent hump in the water surface hid the chopper, but it might have been a geoid hump and not a curvature hump.
    .
    Notice the theatrics to appeal to a vain sense of entertainment. They have two attractive ladies running around, they have a man who tries real hard to ACT SURPRISED when the laser beam appears 6 feet higher than they thought it would be at 3 miles out, they just HAPPEN to find a 9-foot panel of white fiberglass lying on the deck of their tiny boat (where every square inch is valuable space!), then a helicopter just HAPPENS to show up right on time to give the pretty girls a free ride (but they didn't bother to check for pilot license or maintenance records!), and finally the chopper DISAPPEARS over the water to the man's amazement, Yeah, Sure, Like He Didn't Know That Would Happen, Riiiight.
    .
    It is obviously fake.

    "I Think it is Time Cathinfo Has a Public Profession of Belief." "Thank you for publicly affirming the necessity of believing, without innovations, all Infallibly Defined Dogmas of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16848
    • Reputation: +7972/-569
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #13 on: May 24, 2018, 01:49:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • .
    The Flat Earth Society has members from all around the globe.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16848
    • Reputation: +7972/-569
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Video Claiming to "Crush" Flat Earth
    « Reply #14 on: May 24, 2018, 08:32:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    The sun would not set AT ALL on a flat earth.
    .
    You couldn't even perform an optical illusion of just making the sun go further away, because it would still be visible above the horizon, just smaller.  And you could bring it back using a telescope. But then you'd be blind, so watch out.
    .
    The fact that by gaining elevation you can see the sunset again after it sets, means the obstruction of your view was the earth itself´╗┐.
    .
    In the same way, this helicopter was seen again by gaining elevation after it had "set" over the horizon of the lake.
    .
    The sun would do the same thing if you could only make it reverse course for a few minutes. Good luck with that.

    The Flat Earth Society has members from all around the globe.

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16