Printable View
I'm being honest. I don't know everything about the flat earth but I do know that according to the numbers, 8" times the mile squared, that the earth is flat and people are documenting it all over the plane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBhDFO4NMrw
Awesome another video of guys on boats, this time with lasers so you KNOW it's true.
Ok... here's an article from The Guardian... because if it is written then it is more true. Kansas is literally flatter than a pancake as stupid as that sounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ghereducation2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
You didn't actually read the article, did you? Let me just quote a few things from it for you:
"The Ig Nobel awards are the supreme application of common sense to science: the common sense of humour."
"Some research papers may simply be seen as shameless bids for an Ig"
"This year, for instance, three geographers compared the flatness of Kansas to the flatness of a pancake."
And THIS is the kind of material that makes you believe the Earth is flat? Dude.... this is getting silly.
Did you read the article ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
"This year, for instance, three geographers compared the flatness of Kansas to the flatness of a pancake. They used topographic data from a digital scale model prepared by the US Geological Survey, and they purchased a pancake from the International House of Pancakes. If perfect flatness were a value of 1.00, they reported, the calculated flatness of a pancake would be 0.957 "which is pretty flat, but far from perfectly flat". Kansas's flatness however turned out to be 0.997, which they said might be described, mathematically, as "damn flat."
The measurements tell the truth even if it is being done in jest.
Also when i search google scholar for "kansas is flatter than a pancacke" i get no real hits, suggesting this is not in fact a published journal article at all.
Also the article you posted gives no links to the research, and does not give the names of any scientists who were involved in the study.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...kansas+is+flat
The measurements given by the USGS? We're back to that again?
The USGS will tell you it's round, but you're going to believe their data?
So the USGS has the data right, and they know about it, but they are tricking you? They are in on this vast round earth conspiracy?
And finally, we already talked, at length, about how parts of the continental crust can be flat, without the entire planet being flat. You should be able to visualize this if you try.
Ok Craig. Show me proof of the convexity of the globe.
Try this if you're still having a hard time visualizing...
take a sphere of wood and sand one part of it on a belt sander. Now observe. Flat area on a sphere.
You're not winning the debate because you say you are or that everything I show that proves the earth is flat is discredited. I have shown that it is flat. No curvature has ever been documented and tested to verify it.
I'm not having a hard time visualizing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDWS1smA8kw
I do not need to demonstrate direct evidence of a round earth, i can infer it from observation.
I cannot show you a picture of an atom either, but I infer it from observable information.
If you look at the proofs I've given regarding the observation of the sun, you will see it only makes sense on a round earth. therefore the earth is most likely round. And until I hear a better model that better explains observable data, it's round.
You can't do this, nor can anyone else because it's flat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Yet another video relying on topographical information provided by a government agency.
Here are some things to consider while watching your youtube videos.
How are the USGS height maps calculated? When were they created? How accurate are they?
You should try searching for curvature proofs on yourtube. You'll find a ton of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
There is no curve... the earth is flat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSdo1lo8T5Q
You are being willingly ignorant now there buddy. I clearly said that It could be round but even if it's round the math we are currently force fed in second grade is patently FALSE. Proven FALSE. Have fun with your 17 hour day for the love of God would you just buy a post card about it or something. JEEZUZ! Great your the great mouse detectives newest rival. Please take the short bus out of this thread, there's a spot next to the lady quoting the bible as a source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
I'm just going to make a friendly suggestion. Just make your own thread about it.... Please... Pretty please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalredemption
Who made this about you? I was talking to Jason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanfit
Also pretty sure I actually quoted him in the post.
Miss your morning workout this morning, you seem cranky?
Cranky for sure... If you were a real detective you would have asked how I know who is on the the short bus (do I ride it?) hahahaha would have been a good come back for you ;) I'll let you get back to your video homework haha (too soon Jason?) ...well bus is here, see ya guys :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
This is why I got confused I think. I was the one who mentioned the usgs altitutedal measurements. Jason is posting the videos. must have thought you were addressing me still?Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
I think there's only one solution to this flat earth conundrum at this point.
We need to get some 10p scientists together to send a balloon + gopro into space :cool:
Just make sure it isn't a fisheye lense!
Just get in a boat and sail around Antarctica. If it's flat it's going to take a LOOOONG time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Percival
But an easier way is just go vacation in southern Argentina in December and look at the sun.
C'mon Eddie, it's been called tenth planet for this long and STILL no aeronautics dept. for these claims. Were you even trying to prepare for their return? Face palm.
Ehh I'm not sure why I'd need to- we can be on good terms and still debate these things. You seem friendly enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanfit
All I ask is that people who engage me show intellectual integrity, the way I did toward Murray when he said in the concave model the sun should be a little smaller in diameter when it's further away. I agree with that, and I myself am not fully satisfied with the magnification effect of the glass sky as a total solution.
Likewise, when someone like Jason goes out of his way to quote me in the context that he is refuting me, I expect him to accept when his refutation has been refuted. As I proved with side by side images, the bottom segment of objects at a distance are clipped off, either due to curvature of light bending or a combination- but if it were flat we would be able to see to the bottom of the platform.
There are hundreds of these zoom in videos that all show the same thing: objects at a distance have their bottom segment clipped off from view. The very videos made to disprove curvature are actually disproving flatness. We have to acknowledge the truth, regardless of our egos or identification with a belief.
You still don't get it. You must not have watched the video. I'll post it below for you again. Perspective is the answer to your argument. You cannot see beyond the vanishing point at the horizon. It has nothing to do with being on a ball or plane. You would have the same experience on either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalredemption
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63bK7AnWNWw
Hey thanks for the link we missed that the first 12 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
So if a rocket blasts off into the sky, it will eventually vanish at the horizon? (and not straight above you as I would expect)
If a rocket went straight up it would get smaller and smaller and eventually vanish. Thats how perspective works. On a giant ball or plane it would appear to 'go over the curve' of the horizon before it disappeared into the vanishing point of perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
So, then why does the bottom part get cut off only if it's a ship on the ocean? I honestly don't understand how that is perspective, even after the video. Seems to me that proves curvature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Jason- it's not me who doesn't get it. The images are already zoomed in. You could zoom in right down to the molecules and the bottom portion would still be cut off from view. Zooming does not change your perspective. Moving along the X y or z axis would, but not simply magnifying the perspective from the same point.
I don't think you know what "perspective" actually means. It's your point of view. Point- as in you are staying in the same point in space. Zooming in from the same point does not change your perspective.
The horizon/vanishing point is at a set distance from you depending on your elevation. Anything beyond the horizon will begin to be cut off from the bottom up. It doesn't prove curvature because things that can be seen 100 miles away should already be out of sight based on the curvature formula of 8" times the mile squared. Instead the bottom may be cut off a little depending on perspective and elevation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
I'm sorry but this doesnt make sense. A rocket going straight up vanishes, and nothing gets cut off. The entire ship is above the waterline, but the waterline rises to cover the bottom part of the ship?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
That's a proof of curvature.
Did you watch the video on perspective ? Based on your statements it doesn't seem that you did. At least Craig had an intelligent question about perspective (not saying your unintelligent).Quote:
Originally Posted by Primalredemption
No... because the Chicago skyline should be below the curve, if it existed. You should not be able to see it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
We're talking about ships on the horizon getting cut off being a proof of curvature. This matches what happens when i watch a plane take off and vanish into the sky, not the horizon line, and no getting cut off at the bottom. The ship gets cut off because it's going over the curvature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
You cannot see Chicago from 40 miles away unless you are elevated. (or closer as in the case of the guy on the boat with the missing drone footage)
You can see Chicago from Michigan 40 miles away. The reason the guy went across the lake on the boat was to prove that it was not a superior mirage. The 'mirage' did not vanish as they approached the skyline and it was clearly visible and recording on the trip back to Michigan proving that it was not a mirage and can be seen at a distance of 40 miles which is not possible on a ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
You cannot see Chicago from 40 miles away unless you are elevated.
You can see the Chicago skyline from the Michigan side of the lake at water level. The distance in the video was 40 miles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray