Questions About the Flat Earth

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:
Could you point me in the direction of the discrepancies across Australia that you mention please.

You'll find it in this thread: https://ifers.forumotion.com/t337p75-mapping-the-earth
On page 4 of 4, there is a video posted by pitagoras that deals with it.
You made a post below it on the same page.

Finally got to watch the video this morning . Nice to see the work the lad put in to show the discrepancies regarding the size of Australia and I don't like to criticize.

However the Gleason map is not an FE map. It is a representation of Globe model viewed as a plane. The latitudes are equidistant only on a globe , and on the AE map. Other posters on that thread have pointed this out too.

The pretence that the "Equator" is the mid point of the globe is a fantasy designed to back up the imaginary globe model.

Gleason's AE map is fundamentally flawed and is pushed as a flat earth map by the lunatics in power . It gives them a way to defeat the observable flat earth reality .

There are ways to produce a better map but using but using the AE map is not the way until you realise that the map is not distorted by longitude as stated by Gleason.

Tis the latitude that is distorted and leads to the exaggerated distances south of the equinoctial circle. These give ammunition to the globe pillocks - that seems to be the idea of that map.

If the sun is about 3,000 miles away (the length of the USA from east coast to west coast), and the radius of the earth being about 10,000 miles, then the sun should be visible all the time from any point on the earth and never set completely, no?

I would understand the sun disappearing (perspective) if the sun was much closer to earth, or of the earth was much larger, but given these proportions, I don't understand.

Thanks!

stevelucas wrote:If the sun is about 3,000 miles away (the length of the USA from east coast to west coast), and the radius of the earth being about 10,000 miles, then the sun should be visible all the time from any point on the earth and never set completely, no?

I would understand the sun disappearing (perspective) if the sun was much closer to earth, or of the earth was much larger, but given these proportions, I don't understand.

Thanks!

I don't understand your false reasoning here. Especially when the density of the atmos is taken into consideration. Light can't keep penetrating through liquid, just look how dark the ocean gets after a few meters. Even with the sun directly beaming down. The atmos is full of dense particles.

I stumbled on this picture and it puzzled me.
How can we explain this, only if at least one of the numbers mentioned here is incorrect?

My explanation would be :

Writing words and numbers in red does not make them factual or true. It's the kids version of the AE contorted representation of the imaginary globe.

Hey Folks,
Could anybody help me in the sidereal time vs real time topic in fe aspect?
I do not really understand. The firmament moves 4 minutes faster/day?

Adam Kadmon wrote:Hey Folks,
Could anybody help me in the sidereal time vs real time topic in fe aspect?
I do not really understand. The firmament moves 4 minutes faster/day?

Hey AK,
"The Heavens" don't move as one thing. The Sun takes a little longer to get back to it's same position from the prior day than the stars do. The globe explanation is hilarious, but another day.

Hi there

Sorry if this was asked before (couldn't find it) but is there a formula to calculate how much below "eye-level" the horizon should be on a ball with 40000km circumference - depending on observer/camera height?

I'd need to know how much the horizon should drop at e.g. 23km, 37km and 100km observer heights.

Or do we have an accurate simulation for this or a recommended video?

Draw a tangent line to your observer position. The only ratio you need is observer height vs. spherical radius.
Obviously this doesn't make sense, since the horizon always rises to eye level.

jspartanlee wrote:Hi there

Sorry if this was asked before (couldn't find it) but is there a formula to calculate how much below "eye-level" the horizon should be on a ball with 40000km circumference - depending on observer/camera height?

I'd need to know how much the horizon should drop at e.g. 23km, 37km and 100km observer heights.

Or do we have an accurate simulation for this or a recommended video?

This will get you pretty close...
https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/4690/determining-angle-down-to-horizon-from-different-flight-altitudes

Thanks for the replies maril and enagfis, that'll do.

Now I have another question because a friend wants to know why we can see further the higher we are.

Can someone please point me to a convincing video where it's explained and demonstrated why we can see further on a plane the higher we are above it?

I mean to me it's obvious that we can't see as far when we're close to the ground but it's not obvious to my friend and I struggle to explain it.

Same reason we walk on two legs.  Have him lay on the ground and ask him how far we can see.
It is a combination of physical obstructions, dust and particulates, and refraction.  After a certain height, mainly moisture becomes the visible obstacle.  There is certainly less moisture higher up.

Ask yourself why the telescope zoom trick works so well.  Incident light causes a bunch of odd visual effects and I lump that all within refraction.

Yeah physical obstruction is most certainly the main reason in his described case (he asked why he can see a city from a mountain, but not from the ground).
Every little rock or bump magnifies compared to what's far behind and will obstruct the view.

maril wrote:Have him lay on the ground and ask him how far we can see.

That's good advice, I'll tell him that.

It's also because of the flat viewing angle.

I've sent him these pics now:





I think they are pretty instructive.
Told him that - on the railroad pic - he would see much further if he was standing at the same position on top of a rail wagon. But not because of him being able to see beyond the ball Earth's curvature but because of the larger viewing angle.
That should be pretty clear for anyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9LmmsULnnc

Guy wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9LmmsULnnc

That YouTube channel is being run by some kind/ type of Wolf.

Far more interesting is, who they really are, their background etc.

Could be run by another so-called Professor, like this one, who's been BUSTED:
https://old.bitchute.com/video/SkUJzaibu4Qr/

Maybe I should have clarified my question regarding the video. Why does the base of the lighthouse disappear even when the video poster zooms in. It goes against all the FE videos that show items do not disappear when zoomed in; effectively showing that the earth is flat.

This video is two years old. Can someone refute it. If not, then this is a BIG HOLE in trying to use video to prove FE.

Thanks in advance.

It's globalist shite propaganda - simple explanation.

His shitshow ignores the fact that the ocean swell will hide more of the light house when filmed from 1m height as opposed to his 10m view . Ozzie bozo ignores this .

Ask said idiot to repeat his "experiment" across a lake or on the plains of Australia.

G'day skip.

Thanks, also check out this vid, I found it very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zRNhLnaLZg

>1pbtid
>pretentious attitude towards us

you need to go back



here I'll bite even though you're not here in good faith.
Your boy is playing fast and loose with the tide. Maybe he just likes recording bulges.