Search results

I think they get around this by saying that the moon is self-illuminating, therefore its phases aren't caused by the sun.

I think he's been well known for a while. His books And The Truth Shall Set You Free (1995) and The Biggest Secret (1999) were both big sellers; I'd see them around a lot in the late 90s/early 2000s.

It was actually on Terry Wogan's show, Wogan. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NapHiWsoFXI Watching that interview in May 2016 after reading about Icke in Jon Ronson's book Them was what, unfortunately, opened my eyes to the world of the flat earth belief. And now I'm here. ;)

I often use that on laptop, just scrolling it up to the bottom or top of a window. A good way to check to see if an image needs levelling up too. Also noticed looking at the above that there is a bit of distortion at the right of Wolfie's image, where the curve appears to level up a bit.

Philip Schofield also mentioned that he could see the curve of the Earth from Concorde during his GMTV interview with some flat earthers. And Wolfie6020, a pilot for Qantas, has posted photos from 46,000 feet showing a lovely nice curve that matches exactly the mathematical prediction: Source...

How about Achernar? This time of year it's visible after sunset till around 8.30pm in Phuket, and in a week it will be setting half an hour earlier. By March 20th it won't be visible at night. Magnitude is 0.45 (reduced to about 1.2 due to airmasses).

Exactly. Which prominent stars rise and set during daylight hours? Or maybe better would be to identify some that will rise and set with the sun in a week or two: that way he can spot them now, and then won't be able to find them later on. I suppose that would be some that are right now setting...

So basically you're saying that he's lying/forgetting? Are there any prominent stars that he won't be able to see now, but will be able to see in a few weeks? Perhaps we could devise an observation for him.

This is a really nice topographical tool: https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=41.876,-87.6322&z=15&b=t It has that building as being 20 feet above the level of the lake, for a height of 535 feet in total, leaving 125 feet predicted as visible.

Okay, I found the oversight. There was one cell in each step that had factored refraction, I just wasn't spotting where it was: the formulae included C32*C14, which I've now changed to C34. It makes no difference, but it answers the question and tidies it up a bit. A couple of other minor...

It looks like bits of an old bed frame or something. I found them by some bins. :)

Thanks Mick, that's great. I shall give it a try soon. Meanwhile, here's a video introducing the Horizonomatic5000, and giving it a test: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyEfmX2cvOk Results are promising. About time I took it up the hill and photographed the horizon. Other than...

Mick, how did you create this gif? Was there a quick way to do it or was it a frame by frame crop and position job?

Here's a slightly longer version of the gyroscope clip, which is also quite illuminating: youtube.com/watch?v=J9p2Yrbp3xA And here's Jeran's "interesting" experiment with light: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMjDAzUFxX0

I guess what we know from reality is that, for the above example, the lowest visible point is at around 7000 feet amsl, and the amount of the peak visible is around 3750 feet. The results without factoring for refraction are pretty much bang on. I just don't know why.

Can somebody help me with this please? I'm not quite getting my head around how and where refraction should be included. The spreadsheet attached doesn't factor in for refraction, and the results seem right. Relevant cells are C14 (refraction coefficient), C32 (Earth's radius, used in many of...

His image is blurry, but it seems that everything below the white line is hidden:

There is a part of me that suspects he's trolling the flat earthers. Is he really the kind of guy who would start to believe something based on something so flimsy? That he wouldn't look into the math? That he's gonna shift his worldview because of what some hotel staff told him? I also find it...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60elF6RQw4&t=1m10s JohnExArmy: I am not a flat earther.

Would the refraction simulator help to predict ideal conditions for the proposal to recreate the Bedford Level experiment? This would be over a canal, in England, with cameras and targets a minimum of 13-15 feet above the water.