Flat Earth Horizon Proof

Whether at sea-level, the top of Mount Everest, or flying a hundred thousand feet in the air, the always horizontal horizon line always rises up to meet the eye-level of the observer and remains perfectly flat.  You can test for yourself on a beach or hilltop, in a large field or desert, aboard a hot-air balloon or helicopter; you will see the panoramic horizon ascend with you right at eye level and remain completely flat all around.  If the Earth were actually a big ball, however, the horizon should sink as you ascend, not rise to your eye-level, and it would dip at each end of your periphery, not remain flat all around.  Standing in a rising balloon, you would have to look downwards to the horizon, more and more the further you ascended; the highest point of the ball-Earth would be directly beneath you and declining on each side.

http://www.AtlanteanConspiracy.com

The Flat-Earth Conspiracy Paperback:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/eric-dubay/the-flat-earth-conspiracy/paperback/product-21889483.html

The Flat-Earth Conspiracy PDF:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/eric-dubay/the-flat-earth-conspiracy/ebook/product-21889577.html

The Flat-Earth Conspiracy EPub:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/eric-dubay/the-flat-earth-conspiracy/ebook/product-21890088.html

Where ever I go & no matter how high, the horizon always looks flat:

Rory's got a great sense of humor as well as great sense of truth about the flat horizon.

csp wrote:

That's a great video, thanks for sharing! Love the amount of detail she goes into.

I used to watch boats go out of the firth of forth in Scotland all the time when I lived nearby Edinburgh. Watching them go out for miles into the North sea then bring them back into view with a scope, no curve on flat water ;D

Pretty good wide angle (non-curved) lens shot.

Melbourne Australia Fireworks timelapse with Nikon P900 and 'night sky' option shot with 25 second exposures from Eagles Nest, 37 miles or 59.5km over Port Phillip Bay


Wasn't sure if this was the right place to post this, shot this a few hours ago, might be a good clip to add to someones collection, may be too short, I have a bit of preroll I should of added and maybe slowed the fireworks and added some pauses or something..

JD87 wrote:shot this a few hours ago

Nice clip, do you what elevation above sea level you were?

Also could you point on a map exactly where you were located for me to plot, cheers.

Hi csp somewhere between 20 and 40m asl


Location:
-38.307460,144.660307
Can't post links yet

JD87 wrote:-38.307460,144.660307

That exact location is 29 meters ASL (with an added 5ft for the camera) and with a distance of ~60km to the Melbourne sky scrapers.

There should be curve with a peak of 140m between the observer and the tallest building in Melbourne (Eureka tower, on the right, 292m), so at least one third of it should be not be visible - which is not what we are observing.

The great thing about your short clip is the fireworks, it completely illuminates the lower portions of the buildings and the ground around where the fireworks were launched. Just look at the frame at 0:02, irrefutable proof that there is no curve.

Great capture.

EDIT: I made a quick info graphic



EDIT2: Also, forgot to take into account the ASL of the Eureka tower, but upon checking it's only 10m , so the peak of the tower is 302m ASL, still leaves the ball earth theory in tatters.

Arent you supposed to be on top of the ball always according to gravitymagic?

Irrespective if you are located at position 'h0' or 'on top' of the Ball at the point 'Horizon' you 'should' still observe 140m of 'alleged' curvature from your location, it is relative to your observation point.
From the cameras location almost half of the building should be hidden from view, but as seen in the video, this is clearly not the case.

I finally found a video i've been looking for for several months.
Thanks to Steve Torrence

And a big thanks to all of you on IFERS that share your thoughts and information.

Rob Skiba is a religious myth believer and still uses Flat Earth to support his false religion,
but this video shows that flat horizon proves there is NO curvature or spinning ball.

Howdy everyone.

First time post. Been around for awhile soaking in as much information as possible.

Eric. Keep fighting the good fight.

Had one quick question, a friend posed to me the other day. I wasn't able to asnwer.

Not sure if I have missed something along the way. Just to satisfy his needs.

The calc we are presented to come up with curviture of the earth, is the (miles distance squared) x 8".

Which would be: (3959miles x 3959miles) x 8" = 125389448"

10449121ft.

1979 miles... Should it not be 3959, or am I amiss?

Thanks for your time!

tankjones wrote:Howdy everyone.

First time post. Been around for awhile soaking in as much information as possible.

Eric. Keep fighting the good fight.

Had one quick question, a friend posed to me the other day. I wasn't able to asnwer.

Not sure if I have missed something along the way. Just to satisfy his needs.

The calc we are presented to come up with curviture of the earth, is the (miles distance squared) x 8".

Which would be: (3959miles x 3959miles) x 8" = 125389448"

10449121ft.

1979 miles... Should it not be 3959, or am I amiss?

Thanks for your time!

You are trying to square a circle from the end of a square. Many do not realize, from the corner of the square to the circle on a 45 degree angle is where curvature stops. You just got the distance from the circle to the corner of the square we put around it. I can show you in autocad, what line is 1979 miles, and why it is you get that figure using the math. The math is based on the radius from vertical. If for example you drew a radius line just below the 45 degree mark, the end would pass the 3959 mile square. That is how they play it down with the math. It does work if you are using radius to measure. But the truth is, that is not how curvature should be measured. If your eye is level, that line continues the entire 3959 miles. Anything you want to measure below this line, you would draw a line straight down to the edge of the circle. The math works, if you are going by globe belief, that up is up no matter where you are on the circle. The problem is, I know we are vertical, and not according to a radius.

It isn't anyone's fault to fall for this premise. But I have started making some AutoCAD videos to show why this is wrong. Take a look at how the distances should be measured. and you will see what I mean by the 1979 mile figure you come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnWNfPXHpOU&list=PL7e_ZnyUTAa933xCypl_Hk245xhUZTlqb. I have about 10 more videos I am working on using the observations people are taking. One thing everyone needs to keep in mind, refraction, compression and mirages are illusions. Just because you see these illusions, doesn't mean that the ground is somehow higher. Perspective is why the buildings are cut off. The water level is rising to the vanishing point. Sure there might be a haze, little bit of reflecting, but the reflection is also an indication there is more water past the vanishing point causing that reflection. People need to stop feeding the trolls on refraction and other visual illusions.

edit. Quickly used a pic I already had from a video to show you visually which line you just calculated.

If the alleged circumference of earth is roughly 25.000 miles, then how much should the horizon drop when we gain altitude? I remember seeing a video of a 3d program simulating a sphere with the similar dimensions and you could notice the horizon dropping fairly early in the ascension of the observer. I can't seem to find or remember the name of this video, if anybody here knows it please help me remember. thanks

Sonny Gonzuliano wrote:
how much should the horizon drop when we gain altitude

Globe Earth vs Flat Earth

RickFE wrote:

tankjones wrote:Howdy everyone.

First time post. Been around for awhile soaking in as much information as possible.

Eric. Keep fighting the good fight.

Had one quick question, a friend posed to me the other day. I wasn't able to asnwer.

Not sure if I have missed something along the way. Just to satisfy his needs.

The calc we are presented to come up with curviture of the earth, is the (miles distance squared) x 8".

Which would be: (3959miles x 3959miles) x 8" = 125389448"

10449121ft.

1979 miles... Should it not be 3959, or am I amiss?

Thanks for your time!

You are trying to square a circle from the end of a square. Many do not realize, from the corner of the square to the circle on a 45 degree angle is where curvature stops. You just got the distance from the circle to the corner of the square we put around it. I can show you in autocad, what line is 1979 miles, and why it is you get that figure using the math. The math is based on the radius from vertical. If for example you drew a radius line just below the 45 degree mark, the end would pass the 3959 mile square. That is how they play it down with the math. It does work if you are using radius to measure. But the truth is, that is not how curvature should be measured. If your eye is level, that line continues the entire 3959 miles. Anything you want to measure below this line, you would draw a line straight down to the edge of the circle. The math works, if you are going by globe belief, that up is up no matter where you are on the circle. The problem is, I know we are vertical, and not according to a radius.

It isn't anyone's fault to fall for this premise. But I have started making some AutoCAD videos to show why this is wrong. Take a look at how the distances should be measured. and you will see what I mean by the 1979 mile figure you come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnWNfPXHpOU&list=PL7e_ZnyUTAa933xCypl_Hk245xhUZTlqb. I have about 10 more videos I am working on using the observations people are taking. One thing everyone needs to keep in mind, refraction, compression and mirages are illusions. Just because you see these illusions, doesn't mean that the ground is somehow higher. Perspective is why the buildings are cut off. The water level is rising to the vanishing point. Sure there might be a haze, little bit of reflecting, but the reflection is also an indication there is more water past the vanishing point causing that reflection. People need to stop feeding the trolls on refraction and other visual illusions.

edit. Quickly used a pic I already had from a video to show you visually which line you just calculated.

Just wanted to say thanks for the swift response! Took my time going over the videos you posted on the subject, thank you for taking your time to shine some light on it for me.

Hope all is well! Look forward to more.

Sry but after looking into your comment further, I admit I assumed that the line is the end line, as that is the Pythagoras method. It is much worse than what I first posted.




Assumption made an..........out of me. The math is only symbolic, and not accurate at all. I will be making a thread with a bunch of AutoCAD videos soon.

Hey Rick, thanks again for taking your time to put up these vids.

I know you are only putting them up for a detailed explanation of something I asked.

However, I was wondering when you create your videos, if there is any chance of you using a mic to allow us to hear you speak when your going through the material?

As you know people have the attention span of a goldfish. You zooming in and out on AutoCAD with limited visibility and only text explanations may not hold peoples attention as much as one would hope.

Other than that, keep up the good work. I look forward to more updates that allow us to establish the flaws they present to us as fact.

Take it easy man!

Pretty impressive H.A.B video.

Nice shot of the sun at the 6:10 mark. Slow the video play speed to 25%.



Another. At 01:44:41 time stamp. Theres loads tbf.

tankjones wrote:Hey Rick, thanks again for taking your time to put up these vids.

I know you are only putting them up for a detailed explanation of something I asked.

However, I was wondering when you create your videos, if there is any chance of you using a mic to allow us to hear you speak when your going through the material?

As you know people have the attention span of a goldfish. You zooming in and out on AutoCAD with limited visibility and only text explanations may not hold peoples attention as much as one would hope.

Other than that, keep up the good work. I look forward to more updates that allow us to establish the flaws they present to us as fact.

Take it easy man!

Thanks, I was already making the videos prior to your question. As for me actually talking documentary style, I find that is not effective. If I want you to absorb information, reading it is more effective. When you hear something, you parrot it without even knowing anything about what you repeated. People will tune out your voice and watch the moving pictures and not absorb a thing. Then some will say, you have an accent, your voice is boring, you talk in slang, you don't sound like a scientist etc...the list goes on. All distracting people as to why they would watch the video. One will say I like his voice it is soothing. One will say I cannot stand his voice. This way, all of the conceptions people will try to associate, will only be left with the information. A lot of the earlier videos are simple. Meant to slowly awaken the parrots. We already have enough people repeating what they hear, I want them to repeat what they learned.

I do understand what you are saying. You are asking to hear me talk, instead of reading so it is easier on you. Reading information is the best way to retain it. I did think about doing voice over, but that makes editing a pain. Many people have made videos without ever saying a word. My perspective was great at showing videos and forcing you to pay attention. See if I said what I intended, you would listen, but would your attention be on the screen, or distracted but listening? Without having a voice to tell you what you are looking at, you have to pay attention to what is visually happening. I am trying to get curiosity engaged.

Thank you for your input. But I think the speaking documentaries, is how people got into this predicament. People are still parroting Neil Cosmos bs...not repeating the science, but the things he said instead. To me, that is not knowledge retention. You may be repeating the right things, but still have no clue why or be able to explain why you believe it. My hope is that by watching, it does create answers people will want to verify. Not everyone can tinker around on AutoCAD. Not that it is hard, but it cost a lot of $. Think I paid 3999 for my version 5 years ago.....just to give you an indication. AutoCAD 2017 I think is 7000$ atm. I update mine, so it is basically the same, just less pretty.

Trust me, it would take minutes to make a video of just me talking. Editing and picking out clips, takes days to finish uploading. Every video, I have to watch and fit in the clips I take after I watch it. I would take the easy way out, if I thought it was effective.

RickFE wrote:

tankjones wrote:Hey Rick, thanks again for taking your time to put up these vids.

I know you are only putting them up for a detailed explanation of something I asked.

However, I was wondering when you create your videos, if there is any chance of you using a mic to allow us to hear you speak when your going through the material?

As you know people have the attention span of a goldfish. You zooming in and out on AutoCAD with limited visibility and only text explanations may not hold peoples attention as much as one would hope.

Other than that, keep up the good work. I look forward to more updates that allow us to establish the flaws they present to us as fact.

Take it easy man!

Thanks, I was already making the videos prior to your question. As for me actually talking documentary style, I find that is not effective. If I want you to absorb information, reading it is more effective. When you hear something, you parrot it without even knowing anything about what you repeated. People will tune out your voice and watch the moving pictures and not absorb a thing. Then some will say, you have an accent, your voice is boring, you talk in slang, you don't sound like a scientist etc...the list goes on. All distracting people as to why they would watch the video. One will say I like his voice it is soothing. One will say I cannot stand his voice. This way, all of the conceptions people will try to associate, will only be left with the information. A lot of the earlier videos are simple. Meant to slowly awaken the parrots. We already have enough people repeating what they hear, I want them to repeat what they learned.  

I do understand what you are saying. You are asking to hear me talk, instead of reading so it is easier on you. Reading information is the best way to retain it. I did think about doing voice over, but that makes editing a pain.  Many people have made videos without ever saying a word. My perspective was great at showing videos and forcing you to pay attention. See if I said what I intended, you would listen, but would your attention be on the screen, or distracted but listening? Without having a voice to tell you what you are looking at, you have to pay attention to what is visually happening. I am trying to get curiosity engaged.

Thank you for your input. But I think the speaking documentaries, is how people got into this predicament. People are still parroting Neil Cosmos bs...not repeating the science, but the things he said instead. To me, that is not knowledge retention. You may be repeating the right things, but still have no clue why or be able to explain why you believe it. My hope is that by watching, it does create answers people will want to verify. Not everyone can tinker around on AutoCAD. Not that it is hard, but it cost a lot of $. Think I paid 3999 for my version 5 years ago.....just to give you an indication. AutoCAD 2017 I think is 7000$ atm. I update mine, so it is basically the same, just less pretty.

Trust me, it would take minutes to make a video of just me talking. Editing and picking out clips, takes days to finish uploading. Every video, I have to watch and fit in the clips I take after I watch it. I would take the easy way out, if I thought it was effective.

No worries man, I totally understand where your coming from!

I am going through your most recent uploads. Excellent stuff. Keep it up.