|
|
Post by Rob on May 14, 2015 1:04:08 GMT
As you travel up the Southwest Coast of Michigan (heading Northeast), the buildings of the Chicago skyline disapear bit by bit from the shortest buildings to the tops of the tallest, until you get to the dunes of Benton Harbor, Michigan, where you can just see the tops of the Sears Tower, John Hancock, and now, Trump Tower. I know because I grew up in Southwest Michigan and lived in Chicago for a long time. These pictures prove it: yumyummatt.wordpress.com/tag/chicago/ |
|
|
|
Post by preciousjewel on May 14, 2015 5:44:18 GMT
Weird, because all I see is a straight horizon!
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 14, 2015 8:03:17 GMT
Well, I opened the link, and I see very good photo proofs for round Earth there. For instance, this photo:  Why do you think the buildings are half sunk below the horizon line? It is clear it is due to curvature. Perspective cannot account for that. If it was due to perspective, you would see the buildings as small dots, hardly visible at all, and not their bottoms hidden, but their tops perfectly visible. You're right this proves curvature or at least strongly suggests it. The only other possibility is extreme light refraction which distorts somehow what we see, but I don't think it is the case, because the buildings don't seem distorted. |
|
|
|
Post by preciousjewel on May 14, 2015 8:36:47 GMT
Okay, I was looking at it horizontally, lol. :-D
Could the waves account for that? As we aren't dealing with flat water etc....
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 14, 2015 8:41:24 GMT
I don't think so. You can clearly see how it gradually vanishes, but the tops are still clearly seen. Perspective doesn't work like that. Waves cannot be 500 meters high either. Also, the Sun must be blocked by the waves as well when it sets  |
|
|
|
Post by preciousjewel on May 14, 2015 9:01:30 GMT
What about water vaporisation? That would blurry it somewhat, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 14, 2015 9:16:04 GMT
Yeah, I was thinking about it too, but can't really prove it to be the case. I had a hypothesis that since everything we see is reflected light, the light reflected from the water itself eventually blocks the view and we only see water. The problem is I can't prove that. If that is a viable explanation than hypothetically it can still be flat. I even argued with someone that we don't have photos of buildings disappearing like that on land, but you can't really explain why the Sun would set and rise however you spin it...It doesn't get smaller, but it still sets.
|
|
|
|
Post by zero11s on May 14, 2015 10:51:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 14, 2015 11:41:28 GMT
I am confused. What do you mean fake? The photos are not fake. I see you're mixing NASA and space travel with the Flat Earth. They might not have photos of Earth from space, because they have never been there, but it doesn't prove the Earth is flat. That is what NASA probably is hiding if anything. I don't really understand the logic that just because we don't have photos of the Earth from space which appear authentic, that alone is enough proof to think the Earth is flat. Are you saying that before the space era like in 1920, for instance, scientists thought the Earth is flat? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 14, 2015 22:05:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 14, 2015 22:29:53 GMT
steveI still don't get it why the concave Earth should be the right model. Just your word is not enough. The rectilineator experiment is not enough either. Even if they measured everything correctly, you can't make a conclusion about the Earth on the basis of a local measurement. From what I have read the concave Earth model is taken by you guys on faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 14, 2015 22:44:00 GMT
steveI still don't get it why the concave Earth should be the right model. Just your word is not enough. The rectilineator experiment is not enough either. Even if they measured everything correctly, you can't make a conclusion about the Earth on the basis of a local measurement. From what I have read the concave Earth model is taken by you guys on faith. process of elimination. cant be convex, the horizon is too high (not just locally  ) cant be flat. (youtube LSC) concave, win. local and global. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 14, 2015 23:09:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gioknows on May 15, 2015 0:57:21 GMT
Maybe we can use spider silk to solve this problem. It's really strong and light so you can pull it taught enough over say a length of 10 km without sagging and/or breaking. Start 1 meter off of the ground and pull the spider silk for 10 km's. If the silk touches the ground at the half way point the earth is a ball and convex. If there is a huge distance from the silk to the earth at the half way point, the earth is a ball and concave. If the silk stays the same amount of distance from the beginning to the middle and to the end again, the world is flat. Easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 15, 2015 3:42:18 GMT
Maybe we can use spider silk to solve this problem. It's really strong and light so you can pull it taught enough over say a length of 10 km without sagging and/or breaking. Start 1 meter off of the ground and pull the spider silk for 10 km's. If the silk touches the ground at the half way point the earth is a ball and convex. If there is a huge distance from the silk to the earth at the half way point, the earth is a ball and concave. If the silk stays the same amount of distance from the beginning to the middle and to the end again, the world is flat. Easy. there is no problem, but i'm pretty sure that would sag. |
|
|
|
Post by cobracommander on May 15, 2015 4:42:34 GMT
According to the news media and Peter James. Yeah, those are real realiable sources.  Bust out a telescope and prove it. Otherwise, this is useless info. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 15, 2015 5:52:09 GMT
According to the news media and Peter James. Yeah, those are real realiable sources. Bust out a telescope and prove it. Otherwise, this is useless info. What do you mean? Can't you see the photos? |
|
|
|
Post by broken arrow on May 15, 2015 6:33:32 GMT
That is strange?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Flat earther on May 15, 2015 7:22:30 GMT
I am very sad to say but if the photos are real that means there must be a drop or a curve leading to the bottom of the buildings I can't explain it otherwise, I feel I am detaching from flat earth because there is a lack of evidence(if the conspiracy is true it's quite understandable) but this photo are making me think that there is a curve I don't know if a global curve but the photo support round earth.
please I am not shill if you can explain it please do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 15, 2015 7:47:04 GMT
@flat earther
Well, that is my point exactly. The photos definitely suggest there is a curvature unless there is some other effect in place...
|
|
|
|
Post by gioknows on May 15, 2015 8:42:23 GMT
Maybe we can use spider silk to solve this problem. It's really strong and light so you can pull it taught enough over say a length of 10 km without sagging and/or breaking. Start 1 meter off of the ground and pull the spider silk for 10 km's. If the silk touches the ground at the half way point the earth is a ball and convex. If there is a huge distance from the silk to the earth at the half way point, the earth is a ball and concave. If the silk stays the same amount of distance from the beginning to the middle and to the end again, the world is flat. Easy. there is no problem, but i'm pretty sure that would sag. It might sag a couple of inches, max and I even doubt it would sag that much. This stuff is super light and super strong. Somebody will do this test one day and it will be definitive. |
|
|
|
Post by preciousjewel on May 15, 2015 9:36:01 GMT
You wouldn't even need it to be that long. Two miles should show 16 inches, shouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by o terraplanero on May 15, 2015 12:02:28 GMT
Sinking distant buildings is explainable...It's just the same optical effect of the sun set... You believe the sun sets due to perspective and vanising point, then it's ok that other stuff like buildings and mountains do so. This farway objects can apear to be sunk below the horizon, as the horizon (optical ilusion that exists) IS the vanishing point. No curvature needed for this effect to happen. The real thing is: Can we see further away than it would be possible on the spherical convex earth model? The answer is YES. But mainstream media, like the bozo from that news program video(look at him, he doesn't have a clue of what he is talking about) are paid to say that everything is a mirage. Look up "the mirage" (haha) of corsica seen from genova. Remember, if the sun appear to set on a flat earth, the buildings can also appear to "go down below" the horizon. "Go down below" in reality means to "GO AWAY FROM"
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 15, 2015 12:09:38 GMT
@o terraplanero
Are you saying that it gets dark due to an optical illusion? That is quite amusing. The Sun doesn't set due to perspective. Have you ever seen a sunset? Do you know what perspective is? Have you seen the sun get reduced to a dot before disappearing? I am sorry, but your explanation is basic disinformation.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobracommander on May 15, 2015 14:43:18 GMT
According to the news media and Peter James. Yeah, those are real realiable sources. Bust out a telescope and prove it. Otherwise, this is useless info. What do you mean? Can't you see the photos? Photographic evidence does not fly in this day and age of heavy photo and video fakery. Observable science is the only tool we really have. I would need science experiments that I could perform at home and see with my very own eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by Flat earther on May 15, 2015 21:00:29 GMT
i haven't understood yet what is vanishing point.when i take for example every other place on earth that the bottom of building is hidden like that that's mean there is a drop why it should be different this time ?,as someone said if the earth was flat it was more sensible to see the ships getting smaller when they travel far not sinking in horizon why is that happen and what is vanishing point ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Flat earther on May 15, 2015 21:01:32 GMT
Please answer me i don't want to abandon the flat earth theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flat earther on May 15, 2015 21:25:00 GMT
Something is wrong, i saw different pictures from range of 40 miles to further and some pictures show the buildings way under the horizon and some show them almost in flat plane.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 15, 2015 23:30:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 16, 2015 0:37:49 GMT
this is all you need to know. for convex malarchy you need the meesely difference in refraction gradient of air to pull those tricks - impossible.  |
|
)
