Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 13:36:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 20:59:58 GMT
Together with the evidence above, if you like to view videos better than formulas, here they are. They prove the same exact things as the post above, but in this case, skeptics will claim that it is "mirages", and then there is nothing you can object to them. Whereas with the lighthouses' ranges, they cannot say that their ranges are based on Fata Morgana or mirages, because they will be sued by sailors for giving out unreliable information. Yet the ranges they give still prove flat earth, because they do not match the curvature formula. I will start with Corsica, which is my strongest photographic evidence: Corsica's mountains from Ventimiglia, at least 189 km away, highest mountain is Monte Cinto (2706 m), a drop of 2803 meters (according to all curvature formulas): www.cumpagniadiventemigliusi.it/Corsega/Veder_Corsica.htmVideo from the beach of Ventimiglia: Corsica's mountains from Genoa, at least 227 km away, highest mountain is Monte Cinto (2706 m), drop of 4043 meters: Other ships and lighthouses: |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 2, 2015 21:08:46 GMT
Acenci, great research! I have nothing to add.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 21:08:49 GMT
Well done, acenci.
I can say also from personal experience.... I've been to the Negev desert, parts of which have nothing (not even a tumbleweed) for as far as the eye can see in any direction. Totally flat, no drop off of any kind at all. Likewise, you can see, on a clear night, across tons of water ways that I've been around, where there was visibility for dozens and dozens of miles across the water way, and you can see the city on the other side, all of it. There should be some drop off, if the earth was curved.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 10:41:45 GMT
Together with the evidence above, if you like to view videos better than formulas, here they are. They prove the same exact things Tuskar rock lighthouse is 11km from the coast. The camera is many meters above the water. The horizon is beyond the lighthouse With this shot of the same lighthouse at the camera end the small 5 feet or so above the water and the very poor visibility makes it very difficult to see if the expected 10 feet or so lost the other end has happened or not. The horizon is invisible compared to the first shot. But the cameras are the same implying this shot is nearer. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 11:23:31 GMT
The video is from 31 nm This photo is from the opposite side but i am unsure of the distance  The building names:  |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 12, 2015 11:45:19 GMT
 Basically, the photo shows that you can see the bottom 100 meters of the Willis tower from 31 nm away. Does the horizon calculator allow for that? If we enter for h1 2 meters and h2 100 meters, the calculator puts the visual horizon at 22 nm. Basically, if our altitude is 2 meters we should see the tip of something 100 m tall at the very horizon line from a maximum distance of 22 nm. If the distance here is indeed 31 nm, that shouldn't be possible at all. However, we don't know the distance, so without that information we can only guess. Horizon calculator What we see in the photo is possible if the photo was taken from an altitude of 35 meters for a distance of 31 nm, but it doesn't look that way. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 12:01:38 GMT
Basically, the photo shows that you can see the bottom 100 meters of the Willis tower from 31 nm away. Does the horizon calculator allow for that? If we enter for h1 2 meters and h2 100 meters, the calculator puts the visual horizon at 22 nm. Basically, if our altitude is 2 meters we should see the tip of something 100 m tall at the very horizon line from a maximum distance of 22 nm. If the distance here is indeed 31 nm, that shouldn't be possible at all. However, we don't know the distance, so without that information we can only guess. Horizon calculator What we see in the photo is possible if the photo was taken from an altitude of 35 meters for a distance of 31 nm, but it doesn't look that way. I was unable to match the photo image of the tower with the drawing. The image is distorted or the drawing is wrong. I was thinking maybe the tower was leaning away from me but whatever it is they did not match up |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 12, 2015 12:20:43 GMT
Basically, the photo shows that you can see the bottom 100 meters of the Willis tower from 31 nm away. Does the horizon calculator allow for that? If we enter for h1 2 meters and h2 100 meters, the calculator puts the visual horizon at 22 nm. Basically, if our altitude is 2 meters we should see the tip of something 100 m tall at the very horizon line from a maximum distance of 22 nm. If the distance here is indeed 31 nm, that shouldn't be possible at all. However, we don't know the distance, so without that information we can only guess. Horizon calculator What we see in the photo is possible if the photo was taken from an altitude of 35 meters for a distance of 31 nm, but it doesn't look that way. I was unable to match the photo image of the tower with the drawing. The image is distorted or the drawing is wrong. I was thinking maybe the tower was leaning away from me but whatever it is they did not match up Just look at the Willis tower. You don't need to match it with all the buildings on the skyline. It is clear from the photo you posted that we can see everything at least above the 100 m mark of the tower. The drawing doesn't refer to the photo per se, but it shows the tallest buildings in the U.S. and their height. I posted it, because you can see the height marks on the left and use them as a reference. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 14:00:32 GMT
I was unable to match the photo image of the tower with the drawing. The image is distorted or the drawing is wrong. I was thinking maybe the tower was leaning away from me but whatever it is they did not match up Just look at the Willis tower. You don't need to match it with all the buildings on the skyline. It is clear from the photo you posted that we can see everything at least above the 100 m mark of the tower. The drawing doesn't refer to the photo per se, but it shows the tallest buildings in the U.S. and their height. I posted it, because you can see the height marks on the left and use them as a reference. I used MS paint to attempt to compare willis tower with the drawing so i could then know how much was cut off. The camera image is somehow distorted so the relative sizes of the various rectangles do not compare to the drawing. However i found that photo was taken in his words by TomDadams from Porter beach indiana using a medium size telephoto lens. There is no porter beach on the map but other people know the beach as porter beach and he must have been at the dunes rather than at the town which is someway inland. Using google map the distance is 51km. What we can see in that picture he is looking down on the nearby water so he must have been a bit further back than the water. This area is however more or less flat with porter itself only at 20m above the beach. Willis tower is also on relatively flat land. If the camera was 5m from the water then 145m is calculated to be cut from that view Another aspect of the problem is created because in a round world the visible part of the tower would be leaning away from the camera so the observed height is less - which means a few more meters have to be allowed for. Can that account for the difficulties i had matching the image with the drawing?? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 14:31:10 GMT
You bring a lot of evidence and you document it very well, you are obviously in good faith in your beliefs, and... so it is tempting to be overwhelmed by it, give up and say that you are right. But we can't do that, and you wouldn't want us to stop reasoning, so let us try to reach a compromise and focus on just 1 small fact each time. For example, I have my own watertight proof, which is lighthouses. Can you convince me that it is wrong? The details are all here: serendipitous.boards.net/post/900/threadThere is a lot there, too, so to prevent it from overwhelming you, I will summarize it as: the curvature formula does not account for the lighthouse ranges (and their heights). |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 14:55:14 GMT
I used this picture to compare the image. The drawings are not to scale for the various shapes found on the willis tower. This photo provided a good match.  Assuming the tower reached to the water line in the above picture (which it cannot do as the ground will appear to slope upwards as does the water) the amount cut from the tower from 51km is 167M |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 15:01:52 GMT
Thanks for all this work you are doing, and I hope LIT will continue discussing the skyscrapers with you. In the meanwhile, why not focus on something where we don't have to make so many assumptions: the lighthouses? Cf. my previous post and link I provided. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 15:57:42 GMT
Thanks for all this work you are doing, and I hope LIT will continue discussing the skyscrapers with you. In the meanwhile, why not focus on something where we don't have to make so many assumptions: the lighthouses? Cf. my previous post and link I provided. Atmospheric refraction is recognised by navigators and astromoners as being a big problem. Anyway the biggest problem you have with the observations of for example Chicago is that Chicago is surrounded by hills. If the earth is flat those hills would be visible behind between the towers. Similarly if you look at waves on the horizon you see only the local waves at the horizon and this feature is quite noticeable against the sky. If the earth was flat the local waves would be against a background of other waves and would be essentially invisible, instead of being very highly visible. I am pretty sure you can see this occur with the naked eye - I crewed on a recreational boat for a while. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 16:01:41 GMT
So, since they are saying refraction makes vision unreliable, we should rely on it to amplify our vision and the range of lighthouses?
I cannot understand and therefore answer all your objections, sorry. It's not your fault. It happens to me sometimes that I don't understand all the objections and arguments. I am new to flat earth.
I hope others will be able to answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 16:07:21 GMT
So, since they are saying refraction makes vision unreliable, we should rely on it to amplify our vision and the range of lighthouses? All we can say as a constant is that generally speaking the air is most dense nearer the sea and this will cause light to be bent downwards and so follow somewhat a curved earth more than expected otherwise. And we can say this has been known by sailors and surveyors for a very long time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 16:09:37 GMT
And so, let's pretend you run the lighthouse and you know the earth curvature only allows a range of 30 km.
They ask you for the range and you say "well, it should be 30 km, but write 40, because we can count on refraction".
This seems to be the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 16:13:12 GMT
And so, let's pretend you run the lighthouse and you know the earth curvature only allows a range of 30 km. They ask you for the range and you say "well, it should be 30 km, but write 40, because we can count on refraction". This seems to be the situation. I would imagine they measure the range on a clear night or just calculate it using the usual round earth maths. A sailor cannot expect to see the light at maximum range every night of the year. That French letter from years ago seemed to me to be saying 11/12 days a year for maximum range for le planier. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 16:18:17 GMT
So you are arguing that "range value" actually means "longest recorded range value"? Well then we disagree on a very small verifiable detail.
I will need to find out about your hypothesis.
My hypothesis instead was that it meant "the range which can be perceived in almost any weather condition".
Sorry if I took this discussion a little personally. I try to be objective, but your objections, having heard them so many times, by now have the effect of upsetting me (especially your university researcher remark on the other thread, because I despise academia).
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 16:57:36 GMT
So you are arguing that "range value" actually means "longest recorded range value"? Well then we disagree on a very small verifiable detail. I will need to find out about your hypothesis. My hypothesis instead was that it meant "the range which can be perceived in almost any weather condition". Sorry if I took this discussion a little personally. I try to be objective, but your objections, having heard them so many times, by now have the effect of upsetting me (especially your university researcher remark on the other thread, because I despise academia). And so because you despise academia you despise the body of work produced by these people. Anyway if you are beginning to hate me then nothing i can say or do can be heard by you and that is just the way it is  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 17:07:54 GMT
Well, I am not hating you. I was getting a bit upset because you kept bringing up things to discredit my proofs, and your arguments do not seem convincing to me, especially the argument that academia is not investigating lighthouses defying the laws of (imaginary) physics.
I equally got upset when my physicist cousin said that... I was right about everything, but then wrong... because the earth's radius must be incorrect.
That was what got me a bit upset in our discussion, because universities to me are not a place concerned with spreading knowledge.
And this was confirmed to me by my cousin's attitude. Pedantic arrogant ignorant academics.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 20:28:44 GMT
Well, I am not hating you. I was getting a bit upset because you kept bringing up things to discredit my proofs, and your arguments do not seem convincing to me, especially the argument that academia is not investigating lighthouses defying the laws of (imaginary) physics. I equally got upset when my physicist cousin said that... I was right about everything, but then wrong... because the earth's radius must be incorrect. That was what got me a bit upset in our discussion, because universities to me are not a place concerned with spreading knowledge. And this was confirmed to me by my cousin's attitude. Pedantic arrogant ignorant academics. Everybody tends to believe what they want to believe - that is just human nature. But for something like the roundness of the Earth, and methods used to navigate earth used by ordinary people for centuries, if you can show that Corsica can be seen from Genoa on almost every clear day of the year the word spreads very quickly that something is very wrong with the current thinking and it gets peoples attention. Otherwise you would have to believe that ordinary people - who tend to be smart about ordinary things like navigating a ship out of sight of land long before GPS -are entirely stupid and I would say that would be a very arrogant view to hold. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 20:37:39 GMT
Yes, wise words, and some self-deception, too.
Did the word spread quickly about 911? Are you telling me that it was actually Bin Laden who did 911? I don't know how people can see those towers go down and still think it was Bin Laden. That is what confirms to me, every day, that I am right about my "arrogance".
And I also wonder how a smart and serious researcher like you has not yet realized that 99% of those who surround us are... intellectually disappointing.
You still think that the majority is usually right, don't you? Well, it is quite the contrary. As they say in the Matrix, you are not ready to be unplugged and you are fighting to defend the very system that we are trying to save you from.
But you are open to discussion, and very respectful, so there is great hope to unplug you. I hope some other technician will come along with some tools and help me out.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 20:57:22 GMT
Yes, wise words, and some self-deception, too. Did the word spread quickly about 911? Are you telling me that it was actually Bin Laden who did 911? I don't know how people can see those towers go down and still think it was Bin Laden. That is what confirms to me, every day, that I am right about my "arrogance". And I also wonder how a smart and serious researcher like you has not yet realized that 99% of those who surround us are... intellectually disappointing. You still think that the majority is usually right, don't you? Well, it is quite the contrary. As they say in the Matrix, you are not ready to be unplugged and you are fighting to defend the very system that we are trying to save you from. But you are open to discussion, and very respectful, so there is great hope to unplug you. I hope some other technician will come along with some tools and help me out. Well in breaking news for you, something like 40 or 50% of Americans believe the government had a hand in 911 and I dont believe the majority are right |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 20:59:20 GMT
That's good news, at least Americans are smarter than Italians. Well, if you are one of them, then you also agree that the fact that professors aren't telling us the truth about 911 shows that they are not very related to the teaching the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 12, 2015 21:33:45 GMT
That's good news, at least Americans are smarter than Italians. Well, if you are one of them, then you also agree that the fact that professors aren't telling us the truth about 911 shows that they are not very related to the teaching the truth. The point i was making was if you find an anomaly in physics then you will definately get the attention of somebody significant who begins a change in peoples awareness. There are likely thousands of professors in the USA. Do you really presume to know you can speak for all of them? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 21:37:35 GMT
No, some of them are good, you can count them on one hand. For example I found 1 professor in the world who speaks the truth about 911, Daniele Ganser. Of course this destroyed his academic career. I created a thread about him: serendipitous.boards.net/thread/58/daniele-ganser |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 13, 2015 6:25:43 GMT
No, some of them are good, you can count them on one hand. For example I found 1 professor in the world who speaks the truth about 911, Daniele Ganser. Of course this destroyed his academic career. I created a thread about him: serendipitous.boards.net/thread/58/daniele-ganserOK so my advise is you just have to find a single anomaly in physics and you will 100% get the attention of somebody significant in the physics community. I would definately help out if you found something. You need though to do more research before you convince yourself you have a proof rather than getting depressed or annoyed when I do it for you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 6:33:42 GMT
You're right. LIT will like what you are saying. He says the same things. I admit I have a low level of researching. But I also feel that in my opinion maybe you, too, have a low level of researching when it comes to debunking my low level of research: wait, actually even lower than my research. You debunk my research by just assuming that Wikipedia is wrong, that "range" means "longest ever recorded range"... hey, you didn't verify it. You just say to yourself "since his conclusion is wrong, because I know the earth to be spherical, then something must be wrong in his calculations". You sounded like my cousin telling me that "the earth's radius is wrong". He didn't even know what number I had plugged in. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 13, 2015 6:43:32 GMT
You're right. LIT will like what you are saying. He says the same things. I admit I have a low level of researching. But I also feel that in my opinion maybe you, too, have a low level of researching when it comes to debunking my low level of research: you just discard it assuming that Wikipedia is wrong, that "range" means "longest ever recorded range"... hey, you didn't verify it either. You sounded like my cousin telling me that "the earth's radius is wrong". He didn't even know what number I had plugged in. As i said before we all tend to believe what we want to believe. I said the range thing was interesting and therefore it demands an explanation. I am not sure we have found it yet but there are clues it is possible which can range from the height of the ship seeing the light to refraction But I just mentioned anomalies that can get the attention of the physics community. As far as i can see a superior mirage is always going to be accompanied by refractive artifacts that look odd so you will not always get a perfect image of corsica or see several islands many miles apart all appearing perfectly Instead you sometimes will see a highly distorted image. So if the mirage is always perfect you have an anomaly. In the first instance you can ask that Italian for his explanation if it is always seen perfectly and let me know what he says or get him to provide less perfect examples to reassure you it is not an anomaly in physics |
|
