Search results

That's true: being a CTer doesn't necessarily require anyone to actually do anything, other than maybe take in and believe certain information, and then perhaps have conversations about it. All Deirdre's examples, for instance, probably involve, at a bare minimum, leaving the house. But...are...

With regard to being a supposedly 'spiritually-inclined' person, I can tickbox pretty much all of those CT factors and traits. Something to think about. ;)

Flat earthers are claiming that NASA said the earth is flat? Why would they believe NASA?!?

If they do green screen them, it's very cool that it's done by someone who knows just where to position the horizon. ;) PS Where I come from, that sky would be called "overcast"; light fluffy clouds would be more like we see on The Simpsons. "Perfect" is when there's not/barely a cloud in the sky.

Maybe. But... 1. Is it a perfect scene? 2. Is it hard to get a scene like the one in the photo? 3. Is the weather "perfect"? Looks like a sky full of clouds to me. 4. Why wouldn't there be surf on the Atlantic? 5. There wouldn't be a beach in the shot to have people with umbrellas. 6. Is it...

Parallel. That's what my didn't sleep last night brain was looking for. :confused: I guess using furniture isn't super reliable - seems like it just needs to be a fraction askew to send the line way off course. Also, is it a bit suspicious that we've all got our vanishing points in different...

I think a shot like that you have to be using lines on the same plane (or whatever the right terminology for that is). If we use the right-hand wall only: But using other objects in the room: (Some included for comic, exaggerated effect.) That hotel, by the way, is about 14 storeys, so...

There is another way to discern eye level from such photos, and that's by using the lines of buildings to figure out how high the camera was. If the camera is above a level, such as a floor or a line of windows, drawing a line along that level will angle upwards, while if the camera was below a...

I was curious what difference it would make for some calculations on another flat earth debunk I was working on, so I made a spreadsheet to work it out (simplified version attached). What I discovered: it genuinely makes no real difference to the results, so isn't worth the extra work. We're...

Brief note: S1+S2 isn't quite the distance between, in this case, the two peaks, as that's the distance at sea level, and doesn't take into account the "tilt". Doing so here, though, only adds about another 140 metres to the distance between the two peaks, and doesn't make any real difference...

What amazing and abundant times we live in. :)

Yes, I was going to say something about how, actually, they do seem like the same thing, just the different scale of each makes them appear different. Moreso, though, what about the curve not being as a result of the middle of the horizon being "higher" than the edges?

Agree with that. I'm still not 100% clear on this. First, that when we talk about "the curvature of the horizon", there seem to be two different curves: the curve that one would see when sufficiently distant/elevated (like the outline of a ball, which is what that paper seems to be talking...

Have I posted a link to this paper before? http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf They conclude that: - The minimum altitude at which curvature of the horizon can be detected is at or slightly below 35,000 ft, providing that the field of view is wide (60°) and nearly cloud...

So if one section of ice is 1 metre thick, and another section 2 metres thick, does that mean the surface of the latter section is 10cm 'higher' than the first?

How would you prove that the ice was level? Or, indeed, that the places you set the targets were level with one another? Flat earthers believe "water finds its own level" - not sure that necessarily follows for ice. ;)

My final attempt to extract something from this photograph was to consider the whole panorama and to add a scale to see just how well the predicted angles align with what we are seeing in the photograph: (Scale shown is for sphere earth angles; hypothetical flat earth scale would be...

Another photo I looked at applying these techniques to was a shot of Colorado's Front Range, taken from an aeroplane, and also used in a youtube flat earth video: Source: http://www.pikespeakphoto.com/aerials/front_range.html It's a great pic, and well suited to the method, but unfortunately...

They believe in using it, they just don't believe that it's not ground-based.

Previous to my doing the above, Youtube user "Adams Truth Journey" [sic] had used the same technique to determine the shape of the earth, viewing mountains in Arizona from the Mogollon Rim Visitor Center: Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwN1ODgjq5s In the video he visits the viewpoint...