Topic: Flat Earth - page 204. (Read 1095196 times)

Ships sail up, over and behind a giant hump of water three miles out, am I right? What kind of idiot thinks that water is flat and level over the immense distance of three miles? Fucking retarded idiots here think that empirical measurements prove anything at all, how retarded they are?

You right, they're just immature trolls with too much time on their hands who need to feel special.

How does it feel to be the bad man Joe? The liar, the scammer, the cheat, that's you Joe!

Joe it doesn't matter that you can prove your claims with empirical evidence, you've got a problem with authority. Joe you claim all the adults are conspiring against you, do you think that's reasonable? All the hard working professionals, all the teachers, the scientists are all out to get little Joey are they?

Joe even the ancient Greeks knew that ships sail behind a curve, why would you lie about this? Why would you disrespect all these people and their families?

I don’t understand why people write this nonsense about flat land? Seen nothing else to do?

Second encore

Funny water around Antarctica in this “Satellite” photo with high detail.
When converted back to original flat state sure looks uncomfortable close to grid system map.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/LakeVostok-Location.jpg

North Geomagnetic Pole 80 N 72 W - Galactic Plane path of constellation
North Magnetic Pole  86 N 172 W   (Aurora Borealis)  and Ecliptic Plane, - Zodiacs path
North Pole 90 N 180 E/W
South Pole 90 S 180 W/E
South Magnetic Pole 64 S 136 E   Aurora Australis and Ecliptic Plane, - Zodiacs path
South Geomagnetic Pole 79 S 108 E - Galactic Plane path of constellation

Amundsen–Scott “South Pole” Station  89°59′51.19″S 139°16′22.41″E on top of Queen Elizabeth Range/plateau is 2775 km south of magnetic south and missed South Pole by 4550 km.
The six month continuous summer and winter at the station come from the fact of magnetic offsets of the poles and the continuous light comes from the north pole.
I dare say most of the ice between 80° S and 90° only existent on maps because only one station (Amundsen–Scott) is located south of 80° and on the northern part is nothing but water north of 80° N. North and South poles (geographic not magnetic) are “together” (strip thickness apart) but offset  by 90°

When someone ask you what is gravity, tell him moving forward in life at 20mph.

Universe split in two


a "better" illustrated Möbius and the "cube" type system


The way i see it, the situation right now.
https://imgur.com/WPhmpyk


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/8-cell.gif/220px-8-cell.gif
and or
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tesseract_transparent.gif


on that note
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU

NASA and the MSM are going to stand by their claim that ships go behind the curve and that you're disrespecting authority if you disagree. Not only are you disrespectful but you're some kind of idiot or a liar if you don't like this proof. You're slandering all the hard working men and women who have dedicated risking their lives for advancing the cause of science and improving the lives of everybody on the globe.

joerogers8, how do you feel about being a disrespectful liar slandering good people? You should apologize for claiming the ocean doesn't curve and admit that you're wrong. You've got an entire thread full of users who all agree that you're a disrespectful liar, just look at all the most merited comments. The only users who support your lies are other liars who have negative trading rep.

Pipul, nothing but pipul as far as the eye can see!

The mountains are taller than the ship.

What level of school did you finish, Joe?

So you believe the ship is behind the curvature of the earth? 

Do you believe the earth curves that severely?  Don't you think when viewing this in the distance you would see visible curve to the left and right while on shore if the ship is going behind the curve like that?

How can you see mountains from hundreds of miles out but this ship disappears behind curvature so close to the shore?

People are also saying he doctored the footage as the horizon lines change.  Hence the problem with videos.  Logically though if the ship was hidden by curve like that don't you think you would also be able to see the curve from left to right?  Curvature would be clearly visible and this thread would not exist. 

Thinking about the size of our earth, if that ship really did disappear behind curvature that close to shore the images you see from space I believe would look much different. 

Nothing at 17:50 it zooms out and in, the boat is always missing 35% ~ of its bottom, it becomes smaller and bigger but the 35% missing bottom is always missing, it's pretty clear to be honest.

You seem to think that a boat not only becomes smaller but also starts to disappear bottom first until it's completely out of view, you can clearly see that's not the case in the video.

Why?

Right from 1 inch vs 6 feet vs on the tower your changing your elevation and PERSPECTIVE.  

It's not a boat being blocked by the water (due to the curvature of the earth) when you see it disappear on the horizon.  That's all I'm trying to get at here.  I don't believe anyone has actually seen a boat go out of sight because of curvature blocking our view (even if we are on a sphere).  I don't think we can see that far (due to multiple factors).  I believe it is due to perspective that the boat goes out of sight.  From any elevation (that is at least attached to the earth).  

I'm simply making the argument that when we see that ship disappear it's not because of the curvature of the earth.  It is due to perspective.  The ship example proves dick for either side.    I'm just surprised most here are fighting it with such vigor as they truly believe it went behind the curve.  The ship is not far out enough to be concealed by the curve.  At 3 miles out the curvature is negligible.   It's not going to disappear that ship.   You have been the only one, from the globe side,  who has not full on said (from what I recall) that the ship goes behind the curve.  Your very careful to say horizon.  Which is correct.  

I started in on this because suchmoon and his binoculars saw that ship go behind the curve thus proving the earth is a sphere.   He was very proud of that and considers anyone who doesn't believe him a complete dumb ass.
The ship did go behind the horizon (at his vantage point for him) however it had nothing to do with it being blocked by the curvature of the earth.  This was his big example that proved the earth is a sphere.  I'm simply saying him and his binoculars didn't prove shit and his big reason of believing in the sphere is faulty. 

Laser beams have gravity and can warp the fabric of the universe


All this flat earth density rather than gravity is bunk.

But if you look at the ship going over the horizon from only 1 inch above sea level, the horizon will be so much closer that you won't need a zoom or scope, except if you want to read the lips of the people talking on deck. Of course, once they are over the horizon, you'll be out of luck with that... except, maybe, if you elevate yourself a little higher than 1 inch.

Gotta earn my Illuminati Soros NASA paycheck.

hey no fair, you're engaging in pipul...(whatever the phuk that means)

What do you think would happen if you had a more powerful zoom or scope?  Would the ship come back into your view or did it actually go behind the curvature of the sphere?  Remember we cannot see any visible curve at 120,000 feet.  How could you possibly see the curve a few feet over sea level?  

The only thing we are trying to establish is you cannot see that curve from sea level as you guys are saying.  

Why can we not see the this phenomenon while looking left to right?  It's always head on.  If Earth is a sphere the boats should show this behavior in all directions not just straight on.

These videos you have given us along with the flat earth videos showing the boats coming back into sight after they have disappeared do not prove earths shape.   To think you can see this massive curve (enough to conceal these large vessels) over such a short distance is insanity, especially since you can see land masses 100's of miles away on many parts of earth.  You can't have it both ways.  

https://youtu.be/7nUFLLUahSI

You can clearly see where the ''narrow band mirages'' that notbatman likes to talk about so much, start and end, however after taking in count that you can still clearly see half or even more than half of the boat literally erased, specially in this video:

https://youtu.be/NPrTMz7a4X8

Those are not "better explanations" because they require the existence of a massive conspiracy that is simply not possible. Proven by the fact that you and your deluded buddies are still alive and not killed by NASA.

Still waiting for those pictures of a massive military blockade around Antarctica or in Argentina or wherever the fuck it is.

Tax money is taken by virtue of force and given to NASA based on the claim a boat goes over and behind a curved horizon. Currently NASA is demanding $3.6 billion USD to drill a 10 mile hole in the Yellowstone "supervolcano" and fill it with water.

The question is, are objects in the distance obscured by curvature or are there better explanations like perspective, narrow band mirages or looming that can be proven?

By answering a question he didn't ask with a question, you're engaging in pipul. By stating that that objects are obscured on video but neglecting to detail how, you're sidestepping the question and engaging in pipul. By implying that people hundreds of years ago were ignorant but still knew what you claim is truth, you're creating a false standard to improperly weigh the question with the intent to justify discarding the question entirely, you're engaging in pipul. By engaging in personal attacks without justification, you're engaging in pipul.

That's at-least five cases of pipul in a single sentence without actually tackling the question.