I am in utter disbelief that this 'Flat-Earth' nonsense has gained some attention

a reply to: TerryDon79

Not exactly, it could circle around the disk instead of around the globe.

I've never seen any satellites myself and, although hard to believe, some say that ISS is actually just an hologram. Who knows? Many people say that black ops are 40-50 years ahead of us technologically.

a reply to: theMediator

I've never seen any satellites myself and, although hard to believe, some say that ISS is actually just an hologram.

A hologram? Orbiting Earth at over 17,000 mph? Projected from what, exactly? If someone could buy that, why is ISS being real so difficult to accept?

ETA:

Not exactly, it could circle around the disk instead of around the globe.

The path of the ISS isn't a circle above any FE 'map' that I've seen. It doesn't make sense.

a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

I have never known anyone who actually believes the earth is flat. I do know that some just have fun with it. Same with ancient aliens, evolution, Narnia, nibiru, I could go on. Some even make a living of off it. It can be easy $$ thanks to the uneducated masses.

These people are a special kind of retarded.

a reply to: texasyeti
Maybe, but I don't think it's fair to those with unavoidable mental handicaps to be lumped together with those suffering from willful acute conspiranoia (WAC).

originally posted by: theMediator
a reply to: Indigent

Good argument.

Why have you ignored my Ross Ice Shelf argument?

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: LostThePlot
There's a very simple way to determine whether the Earth is flat or not.Next time you go to the beach, look at the horizon and watch as ships slowly disappear and appear.

Without a telescope, the same would happen on a plane...so, that particular argument is not a good sphere proof one.

Yes, with a telescope.Many people have already done this.
Actually, I don't know why I'm getting involved in this thread.
It should be in the LOL section.
Here you go.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: higherconscience
No. Not magic.

Tall things project above the curve of the Earth. That's why you can see the sail of a boat, but not the boat itself, as it sails over the horizon.

Then there is light refraction as well. Physics, not magic.
www.islandnet.com...

I'm talking about greater distances. Far enough away that the object one is seeing should be MILES below the horizon if the accepted rate of drop is accurate. But since you left yourself a backup argument with 'refraction' could you please explain that? Thank you.

a reply to: higherconscience

But since you left yourself a backup argument with 'refraction' could you please explain that? Thank you.

Yes, variations in air temperature refract light.
The link I provided goes into more detail.

Under arctic mirage conditions, instances of atmospheric visibility extending 320 km (200 miles) have been reported. In 1937 and 1939, W.H. Hobbs documented several occasions during which objects were sighted at distances well in excess of those possible under normal viewing conditions. One significant arctic-mirage sighting occurred on May 24, 1909 when Commander Donald B. MacMillan observed and clearly recognized Capes Joseph Henry and Hekla in Grant Land from his position on Cape Washington on the north Greenland coast 320 km (200 miles) away.

www.islandnet.com...

I'm not talking about mirages. a reply to: Phage

a reply to: higherconscience

I'm not talking about mirages.

What are you talking about then? Can you provide a source?

If it is because the Earth is flat, why is it that it is a rather rare occurrence? Shouldn't we be able to see 200 miles (or more) most of the time?

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

No?

So you can book the trip, and then what? You believe they'll take you somewhere else?

That there's no such thing as these trips?

What?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: higherconscience

I'm not talking about mirages.

What are you talking about then? Can you provide a source?

If it is because the Earth is flat, why is it that it is a rather rare occurrence? Shouldn't we be able to see 200 miles (or more) most of the time?

Many report clear images in plain site of objects further away than they should be able to see. Clear images as in not mirages, we all know there is a distinct visual difference and this is not the meat and potatoes of my argument as it pertains to the rate of drop question.

Now as for shouldn't we be able to see 200 miles or more most of the time- I have no answer for that. I am not the creator. We know that normally humans have a limited distance we can see... that in and of itself has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, that I am aware of.

I just wonder about clearly seeing further than we should BASED ON THE ACCEPTED RATE OF DROP given for the ball earth model, that's all.

originally posted by: higherconscience

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: higherconscience

I'm not talking about mirages.

What are you talking about then? Can you provide a source?

If it is because the Earth is flat, why is it that it is a rather rare occurrence? Shouldn't we be able to see 200 miles (or more) most of the time?

Many report clear images in plain site of objects further away than they should be able to see. Clear images as in not mirages, we all know there is a distinct visual difference and this is not the meat and potatoes of my argument as it pertains to the rate of drop question.

Now as for shouldn't we be able to see 200 miles or more most of the time- I have no answer for that. I am not the creator. We know that normally humans have a limited distance we can see... that in and of itself has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, that I am aware of.

I just wonder about clearly seeing further than we should BASED ON THE ACCEPTED RATE OF DROP given for the ball earth model, that's all.

That would still be a mirage.

It's called a FATA MORGANA

a reply to: higherconscience

Clear images as in not mirages, we all know there is a distinct visual difference and this is not the meat and potatoes of my argument as it pertains to the rate of drop question.

Mirages can be very clear. And the fact that they make it possible to see "over the horizon" specifically addresses the meat and potatoes of your argument.

Bartlett wrote: "If I hadn't been sure of my position and had been bound for Reykjavik, I would have expected to arrive within a few hours. The contours of the land and the snow-covered summit of the Snaefells Jökull showed up unbelievably near."

Perhaps if you could provide some specific examples instead of vague references it would help.

We know that normally humans have a limited distance we can see... that in and of itself has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, that I am aware of.

Yes, the shape of the planet indeed has something to do with how far we can see on the surface. Even when using telescopes.

I just wonder about clearly seeing further than we should BASED ON THE ACCEPTED RATE OF DROP given for the ball earth model, that's all.

So you don't think the world is flat. That's good, because it isn't.

a reply to: Phage

So you don't think the world is flat. That's good, because it isn't.

Sorry. I couldn't help myself.

a reply to: Skid Mark

I would say a disc have curves too...

Ooh I get it sphere earth got boobies not that is a "curve"... Sleep time is way overdue for me

a reply to: Indigent
Earth boobies? I think it just might be bedtime for you lol.

I love how no one has responded to my proof, posted almost 10 pages ago. Hint, if it's not possible for my proof to exist on a flat Earth, then the Earth is not flat.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

any single observation that falsifies the flat earth premise .....................

well falsifies the flat earth premise

if only the anti science demographic on ATS would accept this


but no - they ask :

but what about ............................

and people wonder why i am rude to them