Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: CrazyFox

You know it’s been proven you right out lie?



Funny, the boat I was on had no trouble with satellite communication In the pacific.

Communication Underway: Everything to Know About Emails

thesubmergedlife.com...

Parents and significant others of a submariner learn to embrace email as their lifeline of communication while their sailor is underway. Unlike other Navy communities, submariners do not have the ability to casually communicate with their families via phone or video chat while they are out to sea. Forget about direct messaging platforms…in the submarine community, we learn to make email our jam…because it’s all we have! Don’t get me wrong, communicating solely through email can be tough!

Navigation

science.howstuffworks.com...

The inertial guidance systems are accurate to 150 hours of operation and must be realigned by other surface-dependent navigational systems (GPS, radio, radar, satellite). With these systems onboard, a submarine can be accurately navigated and be within a hundred feet of its intended course.

Anyway…

How amateur satellite trackers are keeping an 'eye' on objects around the Earth
By Leonard David published May 03, 2020

www.space.com...

In 2006, amateurs began to track satellites in secret orbits by measuring and analyzing the Doppler shift of their radio signals, or changes in the frequencies of the radio waves caused by the relative motion of the observer and the satellite.

Its scarry that some people actually believe the Earth is flat. All anyone has to do is go outside and look at the clouds. They look closer to the ground the further away they are. Thats the curvature of the earth that you are seeing.

originally posted by: CrazyFox
I am not the one claiming an altered image is absolute proof that the earth is round and not flat (while only debating the crappiest flat earth theory out there that is so blatantly planted that anyone who is not looking into why is accepting ignorance.

Which image are you claiming has been altered? What proof do you have that it has been altered?

Now for some more meme magic to continue to prove that the premise of this thread is garbage just like the only flat earth theory debunking but not the other thousand or million other one.
Still waiting for anyone to comment on the fact that according to even the chief liars Not A Space Agency no one has actually been into what is defined as space.

Still wiating for you to acknowledge that the person saying we haven't been to space is nothing to do with NASA, or to acknowledge that what he was referring to was the idea that until we have been beyond the moon, we haven't been to space. That does not mean we have not been to LEO or the Moon.

If something is computer generated it is not real like all the photos of the round earth

Not all digital photos are computer generated. Not all photos of Earth from space are computer generated. A computer generated image can still be a genuine representation of the thing it is imaging.

Again I don't have to find an unaltered photo I just have to point out how it's all fakery

You do have to point out what is fake if you're claiming photos are fake. Besides, I found you a very nice one. Prove it has been altered.

My claim is that the altered photo is not absolute proof

You have yet to prove any photos are altered.

NO ONE HAS EVEN DISCUSSED IT OR POSTED UNALTERED VERSION

This 52 year old photo is unaltered:

Your point is where is an unaltered photo

No, that was not my point. I asked you to show a photo that had been altered in some way. If you can do that, point out how that alteration makes a material difference to the content.

which is actually concise but you forgot the follow up question If there are no unaltered photos why would anyone believe any of it?

I didn't forget anything, you have not answered my original one. There was no follow up.

Thanks for proving my point

You have yet to make one.

a reply to: turbonium1

Just keep claiming that man isn’t placing objects in orbit around the earth. And creating documented changes. Just highlights the flat earth lies. Just kills your credibility, and makes you look ridiculous.

A United Nations committee will discuss whether pristine night sky should be protected against Starlink trains.

www.space.com...

More from this very website, ATS. Like to see you try to crash the thread, and prove the personal experiences of those posting there are false.

Geomagnetic storm sends 40 Starlink satellites plummeting to Earth

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From the op

Only edit was to compress to fit on ATS.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

This 52 year old photo is unaltered:

Yeah that doesn't look fake.
At all
From Nasa lol
from what altitude? and by what type of camera? what shape was the lens? how high up since we have already pointed out that no human has been at a high enough altitude (actually in space)
Not A Space Agency is the one promoting the globe so posting anything they present as unaltered makes me wanna tell you to go look up gullible again

a reply to: CrazyFox

Dude. You need to address this flat earth lie before you do anything else. It’s a blatant and ridiculous falsehood. A total destruction of any credibility you have.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CrazyFox

You know it’s been proven you right out lie?



Funny, the boat I was on had no trouble with satellite communication In the pacific.

Communication Underway: Everything to Know About Emails

thesubmergedlife.com...

Parents and significant others of a submariner learn to embrace email as their lifeline of communication while their sailor is underway. Unlike other Navy communities, submariners do not have the ability to casually communicate with their families via phone or video chat while they are out to sea. Forget about direct messaging platforms…in the submarine community, we learn to make email our jam…because it’s all we have! Don’t get me wrong, communicating solely through email can be tough!

Navigation

science.howstuffworks.com...

The inertial guidance systems are accurate to 150 hours of operation and must be realigned by other surface-dependent navigational systems (GPS, radio, radar, satellite). With these systems onboard, a submarine can be accurately navigated and be within a hundred feet of its intended course.

Anyway…

How amateur satellite trackers are keeping an 'eye' on objects around the Earth
By Leonard David published May 03, 2020

www.space.com...

In 2006, amateurs began to track satellites in secret orbits by measuring and analyzing the Doppler shift of their radio signals, or changes in the frequencies of the radio waves caused by the relative motion of the observer and the satellite.

Which flows right into this post.

Just keep claiming that man isn’t placing objects in orbit around the earth. And creating documented changes. Just highlights the flat earth lies. Just kills your credibility, and makes you look ridiculous.

A United Nations committee will discuss whether pristine night sky should be protected against Starlink trains.

www.space.com...

More from this very website, ATS. Like to see you try to crash the thread, and prove the personal experiences of those posting there are false.

Geomagnetic storm sends 40 Starlink satellites plummeting to Earth

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You understand satellite phones for at sea communications is a real thing.

The Best Satellite Phones for Marine Use
www.boatingbasicsonline.com...

Dude you gotta address that a compressed image is not absolute proof of squat this has been debunked over a hundred pages ago but yet you go on and on like a broken record.
Now if you want to discuss a real flat earth theory (unlike the one you say is the one which I have mentioned many times created to discredit the movement. Next you will post a bunch of photos of a round disc and claim that this is proof that it cannot be flat but then completely ignore any other theory on the topic. Just gonna straight out say it again your photo is not absolute proof of anything

you should get anew hobby as photog is definitely not something you are good at as clearly depicted a million times by your incessant re-posting of the same photos the colors fade/bleed, whats with the red eye is there even a human in it? contrast is off, shading terrible, the compression makes it distorted etc but hey that is what you want to call absolute proof it is absolute proof you are stuck in a cult of ethnocentrism to your mythological (non existent) picture taking skills ability to debunk something you will only discuss what you want to discuss on it and show stupid pictures and made up theorems that still lack proof even gravity has no proof
a reply to: neutronflux
again
quit being a liar liars are not good and posting altered photographs and calling them absolute proof IS A LIE this entire thread is base on a lie and you have the nerve or gumption to question any of my memes ffs get a fin clue GIANT LIAR MNO PROOF OF ANYTHING TOTALLY DEBUNKED whether the earth is a ball flat a hologram these ALTERED PICTURES are not proof of anything other than a your delusions and pathetic egocentrics let me guess you were not hugged much as a child don't care quit being a giant liar

originally posted by: neutronflux
No. That’s is total BS. Because, like the North Star being physically blocked from view in the Southern Hemisphere, they are physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature. We know this because they cannot be brought back into view by zooming with binoculars or a telescope.

No, they are NOT physically blocked from view, the reason we cannot see them beyond a certain distance, say, past 3 miles outward when viewed from the ground, is due to VISUAL LIMITATIONS, whether our eyes, or binoculars, or telescopes are used to view objects in the distance. You don't understand how binoculars, cameras, or telescopes are 'seeing' for us, is based on OUR eyesight, so when WE cannot see objects at a distance, telescopes and binoculars can only magnify what can be seen, in perfect conditions, and nothing beyond what our eyes can see, can be seen by magnification.

You will still see an ocean appear higher than you are, through a telescope, etc. You will still see parallel objects appear to converge in the distance through these instruments, only that they will appear to converge further out than by eye.

Our telescopes, binoculars, zoom cameras, etc. are amazing instruments, no doubt about that. They will 'see' far further out, and show more details of what we CAN see, and many other things beyond that. But what you must understand, and you should research for yourself, is that these instruments are based on OUR OWN EYESIGHT, which makes sense, since we have to see what those instruments 'see', is what WE would see, if our eyes had their own 'magnification' capabilites.

You say that instruments would be able to see objects far beyond the horizon, if Earth was flat, because they can magnify on objects we cannot see by eye, so they would see objects past the horizon, if Earth was flat, so you believe telescopes cannot see objects past the horizon, in full view, nor anything further out, because the Earth curves downward at the horizon, and objects are 'physically blocked out'.

Again, telescopes and so forth, obviously show an ocean appearing to be higher than we are, or our instruments are, right?

How would you explain this? It's pretty simply, isn't it? Why do telescopes, etc. 'see' an ocean, along the horizon, which appears higher than we are? You claim they would see BEYOND the horizon, yet the horizon appears to be HIGHER than we are, through the telescope, because WE see the same thing, with our eyes, too.

This is a perfect example that PROVES to you, instruments can only 'see', what WE can see by eye, along the surface, which is what we're talking about here - the Earths surface.

Instruments see the same illusions WE see by eye, like parallel objects appearing to converge, or an ocean horizon appearing to be higher than we are, AND when they cannot see objects past the horizon, like we cannot, due to that VERY SAME phenomenon - perspective and vanishing point of objects or surfaces in the distance, OVER A LARGE FLAT PLAIN OR SURFACE!

And once again, I've told you many times how to prove objects do NOT go over any 'curve' of Earth, at the horizon.

Let me put it another way for you - look at a horizon from the ground, out to the ocean, for example. The horizon will always look perfectly flat, and straight across Earth, one side to the other. There is clearly NOTHING curving, in the least. That's because it IS perfectly flat and straight across, at ANY length across Earth, images from mountain tops, which are NOT EDITED, and use standard lenses, always show perfectly flat, straight horizons. Planes at 20000 feet always show perfectly flat, straight horizons, too. Those other 'images' you like, and post, as 'proof', are all garbage, edited, use special lenses, faked, and so on. We know that, because almost all images show it is perfectly straight, at all altitudes.

Trying to claim there really IS a 'curving' along the horizon, but is so very, very, very 'slight' of a curve, it is not seen by eye, nor can this 'curve' be seen.....by TELESCOPES!

In fact, NOTHING can see a curve, there IS no curve to BE seen.

A 200 mile long horizon seen from a plane, is perfectly flat and straight, there is NO curve at all - not even your 'very, very slight' curve, which must SURELY exist, in your fairy tale story, otherwise, the whole pile of crap they've made up as 'real, will completely FALL APART like a house of cards.

So of course, you MUST claim there is a 'curve' - your entire fairy tale DEPENDS on a curve being there!
But clearly, there IS no curve, that's why horizons are all flat and straight across.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Which is totally BS. On a flat earth. For me, the viewing angle would be about six foot above the earth, and always down to the earth.

The right angle math does not lie.

The only why an object can be blocked from view, especially if it cannot be brought back into view with binoculars / spotting scope/telescope is if it is physically blocked from view.

Math does not lie. It is our eyes, and our instruments, which are ALWAYS 'lying' to us, about what we see in the distance.

Math would show parallel objects appearing to converge in the distance, is that correct? If you say it does, then math would use an optical illusion to account for it. But you say math doesn't 'lie', so math couldn't use optical illusions, only real objects, real angles, and so on.

Math would show an ocean horizon that appears LOWER than us, yet it appears higher than us, by eye.

Do you understand what I'm saying here? It is not that the math, or geometry, etc. are 'lying' about anything, they are not. What they indicate by equations and diagrams is all true, the angles are all correct, and so on.

But math does NOT show what is seen in the REAL WORLD, by OUR EYES, nor does it account for all the illusions we see.

You cannot keep trying your 'math doesn't lie' argument, to dispute Earth being flat. Math alone, simply does NOT work, as I've now explained to you.

If there is any point I've made about it, which you don't agree with, I can go over it again with you, because it is all true.

originally posted by: CrazyFox
From the op

Only edit was to compress to fit on ATS.

And which part of "what was materially altered?" is proving difficult for you? COmpressing an image is not the same is altering what is in it.

This 52 year old photo is unaltered:

Yeah that doesn't look fake.
At all
From Nasa lol
from what altitude? and by what type of camera? what shape was the lens? how high up since we have already pointed out that no human has been at a high enough altitude (actually in space)

Google not working for you?

The photo was taken by a Hasselblad camera at a distance of 87000km with an 80mm lens. It was taken at the same time as a live TV broadcast, images from which appeared on the next days front page. It contains details that can be verified by two different weather satellites, including a hurricane whose configuration was completely different on all the other days of its lifecycle. That hurricane was also photographed while Apollo 11 was in its parking orbit before trans-lunar injection and it was described by the astronauts during the flight.

All of those details can be verified. Now, which bit are you claiming was altered? How? By whom? When? "Gee it kinda looks funny" doesn't work.

This statement:

"we have already pointed out that no human has been at a high enough altitude (actually in space)"

is false. There is no "we" here, just your deliberate misinterpretation of a statement where someone (not a NASA astronaut) is being picky about what counts as 'space'. The generally accepted definition is above the von Karman line. If the (dead) cosmonaut in question wanted to exclude himself from the club then fine.

Not A Space Agency is the one promoting the globe so posting anything they present as unaltered makes me wanna tell you to go look up gullible again

Prove that it has been altered and by what means.

Top tip: Lazy meme spamming proves nothing, and only shows how gullible you are in swallowing the lies of other people without checking.

NASA is not "promoting a globe". That implies they think there is some dispute and that the well understood and proven fact of the spherical Earth needs defending somehow. There is no dispute, other than in the minds of simpletons and the under-educated, and the only thing it needs defending from are dullards who want to drag us back to the dark ages.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Horizons are indeed illusions, because they are not a solid line. The Earth curves continually - the horizon is just where you can't see it any more. How far away that point is depends on altitude, refraction, being able to think in 3D.

Curves do not exist here. Horizons appear to be higher than we are, never LOWER than we are, but they ARE lower than us, right?

You're ignoring that part of the illusion, for some odd reason!

An ocean seen from the coast, appears to slowly, continually RISE UP, until it shows as a horizon, which appears by then, HIGHER than we are, NOT lower. This IS an illusion, of course.

The ocean always appears to be continually RISING UP, until it forms into a horizon, which is perfectly flat and straight across Earth. That is the view you would see from a PERPENDICULAR position. Flat and straight across. That proves it IS flat and straight across, while it appears to rise upward, until it reaches the horizon, or becomes a horizon, looking outward in the distance, which is due to perspective and vanishing point. Proven by the OTHER viewpoint, showing it is flat and straight throughout.

There is obviously NO curve, because it rises up, continually, until it reaches the horizon, which ALSO appear higher than we are. So where would you place your curve along this path to the horizon, which appears higher than us?

We both know a ball Earth has to always curve DOWNWARD, from our position, right? We know OCEANS would have to curve downward, continually, from our position along the coast, right?

Then you know curves would go down, and make oceans go downward, so you also know oceans appear to continually RISE UP, and that means, there cannot be any 'curves' at all.


Perspective and vanishing point cause these illusions, over a large, flat surface, which it is.

originally posted by: turbonium1
No, they are NOT physically blocked from view, the reason we cannot see them beyond a certain distance, say, past 3 miles outward when viewed from the ground, is due to VISUAL LIMITATIONS, whether our eyes, or binoculars, or telescopes are used to view objects in the distance. You don't understand how binoculars, cameras, or telescopes are 'seeing' for us, is based on OUR eyesight, so when WE cannot see objects at a distance, telescopes and binoculars can only magnify what can be seen, in perfect conditions, and nothing beyond what our eyes can see, can be seen by magnification.

But why is it possible to see part of the object that you claim optics and perspective and visual limitations prevent the other part from being seen? If what you say is true is correct, all of the object would be invisible.

You will still see an ocean appear higher than you are, through a telescope, etc. You will still see parallel objects appear to converge in the distance through these instruments, only that they will appear to converge further out than by eye.

Appearing higher is not the same as higher.

Our telescopes, binoculars, zoom cameras, etc.

"Our". pmsl.

are amazing instruments, no doubt about that. They will 'see' far further out, and show more details of what we CAN see, and many other things beyond that. But what you must understand, and you should research for yourself, is that these instruments are based on OUR OWN EYESIGHT, which makes sense, since we have to see what those instruments 'see', is what WE would see, if our eyes had their own 'magnification' capabilites.

And what we see are objects obscured by the Earths curvature.

You say that instruments would be able to see objects far beyond the horizon, if Earth was flat, because they can magnify on objects we cannot see by eye, so they would see objects past the horizon, if Earth was flat, so you believe telescopes cannot see objects past the horizon, in full view, nor anything further out, because the Earth curves downward at the horizon, and objects are 'physically blocked out'.

If the Earth was flat, there would be no horizon.

Again, telescopes and so forth, obviously show an ocean appearing to be higher than we are, or our instruments are, right?

Nope.

How would you explain this? It's pretty simply, isn't it? Why do telescopes, etc. 'see' an ocean, along the horizon, which appears higher than we are?

They don't.

You claim they would see BEYOND the horizon,

No-one claims that, except you.

yet the horizon appears to be HIGHER than we are, through the telescope, because WE see the same thing, with our eyes, too.

Appears higher is not higher. Perspective, vanishing point, you know - that kind of three dimensional stuff.

This is a perfect example that PROVES to you, instruments can only 'see', what WE can see by eye, along the surface, which is what we're talking about here - the Earths surface.

That's right - yuou can't make a camera, or a telescope, or binoculars, see what isn't there. You can't make the bottom half of a ship or a distant wind turbine or oil rig magically appear when it is physically hidden.

Instruments see the same illusions WE see by eye, like parallel objects appearing to converge, or an ocean horizon appearing to be higher than we are, AND when they cannot see objects past the horizon, like we cannot, due to that VERY SAME phenomenon - perspective and vanishing point of objects or surfaces in the distance, OVER A LARGE FLAT PLAIN OR SURFACE!

And once again, I've told you many times how to prove objects do NOT go over any 'curve' of Earth, at the horizon.

Tell us all you like, doesn't make it true.

Let me put it another way for you

Do you have to? I mean, it's really not going to help...

- look at a horizon from the ground, out to the ocean, for example. The horizon will always look perfectly flat, and straight across Earth, one side to the other. There is clearly NOTHING curving, in the least.

That's because it IS perfectly flat and straight across, at ANY length across Earth, images from mountain tops, which are NOT EDITED, and use standard lenses, always show perfectly flat, straight horizons. Planes at 20000 feet always show perfectly flat, straight horizons, too. Those other 'images' you like, and post, as 'proof', are all garbage, edited, use special lenses, faked, and so on. We know that, because almost all images show it is perfectly straight, at all altitudes.

See? Wherever you are, the horizon is always going to be the same distance away in any direction. This does not mean that there is no curve.

Trying to claim there really IS a 'curving' along the horizon, but is so very, very, very 'slight' of a curve, it is not seen by eye, nor can this 'curve' be seen.....by TELESCOPES!

In fact, NOTHING can see a curve, there IS no curve to BE seen.

A 200 mile long horizon seen from a plane, is perfectly flat and straight, there is NO curve at all - not even your 'very, very slight' curve, which must SURELY exist, in your fairy tale story, otherwise, the whole pile of crap they've made up as 'real, will completely FALL APART like a house of cards.

So of course, you MUST claim there is a 'curve' - your entire fairy tale DEPENDS on a curve being there!
But clearly, there IS no curve, that's why horizons are all flat and straight across.

No fairy tale here, apart from your version of events.

Math does not lie. It is our eyes, and our instruments, which are ALWAYS 'lying' to us, about what we see in the distance.

So telescopes lie now?

Math would show parallel objects appearing to converge in the distance, is that correct? If you say it does, then math would use an optical illusion to account for it. But you say math doesn't 'lie', so math couldn't use optical illusions, only real objects, real angles, and so on.

Math would show an ocean horizon that appears LOWER than us, yet it appears higher than us, by eye.

Do you understand what I'm saying here? It is not that the math, or geometry, etc. are 'lying' about anything, they are not. What they indicate by equations and diagrams is all true, the angles are all correct, and so on.

But math does NOT show what is seen in the REAL WORLD, by OUR EYES, nor does it account for all the illusions we see.

You cannot keep trying your 'math doesn't lie' argument, to dispute Earth being flat. Math alone, simply does NOT work, as I've now explained to you.

If there is any point I've made about it, which you don't agree with, I can go over it again with you, because it is all true.

Maths allows us to prove things where our senses fail us. Maths prove the Earth is a sphere. Maths allows us to get to orbit and calculate the position of stars and planets. Maths does not lie. Flat Earthers do. Maths does not explain everything, logical argument and evidence also contribute to understanding. Any time you want to provide those would be great.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
But why is it possible to see part of the object that you claim optics and perspective and visual limitations prevent the other part from being seen? If what you say is true is correct, all of the object would be invisible.

No, when an object on the surface reaches high enough ABOVE the surface, that part will be seen beyond a horizon, but only when it is still NEAR the horizon, not further out. Like if you saw a drone fly above the ocean about 30 feet in air, it would be seen a little bit PAST a horizon, because it is high enough above the surface to BE seen.

Remember, we are referring to objects on the surface, and objects high enough are visible on the top area, beyond a horizon, like a drone at 30 feet in air would be. They are BOTH 'above' the surface, high enough to be seen past a horizon, but only when NEAR it, not further out.

Objects in air, or objects that REACH high above the surface, like a ship's mast might be high 'above the surface', like a drone in air, above the surface. It's that simple.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
If the Earth was flat, there would be no horizon.

So, there would be NO perfectly flat, straight horizons, on a flat Earth - is that what you're saying?

Okay, I'll play along - please tell me what we WOULD see on the flat Earth, if we wouldn't see flat, straight horizons?

I can't wait to hear it!

And what makes oceans appear to continually rise up, and what makes horizons appear higher than us, on your ball Earth?

Can't wait for that one either...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
But why is it possible to see part of the object that you claim optics and perspective and visual limitations prevent the other part from being seen? If what you say is true is correct, all of the object would be invisible.

No, when an object on the surface reaches high enough ABOVE the surface, that part will be seen beyond a horizon, but only when it is still NEAR the horizon, not further out. Like if you saw a drone fly above the ocean about 30 feet in air, it would be seen a little bit PAST a horizon, because it is high enough above the surface to BE seen.

Because of curvature.

Remember, we are referring to objects on the surface, and objects high enough are visible on the top area, beyond a horizon, like a drone at 30 feet in air would be. They are BOTH 'above' the surface, high enough to be seen past a horizon, but only when NEAR it, not further out.

And the bit hidden is...where exactly?

Objects in air, or objects that REACH high above the surface, like a ship's mast might be high 'above the surface', like a drone in air, above the surface. It's that simple.

And the bit of the ship on the water surface is...where exactly?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
"If the Earth was flat, there would be no horizon."

So, there would be NO perfectly flat, straight horizons, on a flat Earth - is that what you're saying?

No. It isn't.

Okay, I'll play along - please tell me what we WOULD see on the flat Earth, if we wouldn't see flat, straight horizons?

I can't wait to hear it!

You would see an endless ocean, or land surface, going on forever until you get to whatever imaginary edge you think is there. Nothing would be hidden. You are still failing to grasp the fact that the horizon is the same distance away whichever direction you look. That is not the same as it being flat.

And what makes oceans appear to continually rise up, and what makes horizons appear higher than us, on your ball Earth?

Did the grown up reading this to you not get to the bit about "perspective and vanishing point"?

Is this going uphill?

Or this?

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Magnetic_Hill,_New_Brunswick.JPG

Learn to work in 3D.

can't wait for that one either...

You wouldn't have had to wait at all if you actually read the posts you reply to.

a reply to: turbonium1

I have a question for you. Why can you see further from the ship's mast than the deck of the ship? If the earth is flat both should see the same distance but as a sailor can tell you they don't. On curved earth, this is easily explained.

a reply to: CrazyFox

You

Dude you gotta address that a compressed image is not absolute proof of squat

Well. Here’s the list that has been repeatedly posted. This “relying on photos of the earth” is complete BS by you. Practical and demonstrable proof the earth has been provided numerous times.

Your list still grows.

Demonstrable proof the earth is spherical.

TONGA VOLCANO ERUPTION SHOCK WAVES DETECTED IN CHICAGO

abc7chicago.com...

"The eruption was so powerful that the waves actually propagated all the way around the globe and then back again," meteorologist Gino Izzi said.

Tidal waves

Rivers that periodically flow backwards from tidal waves

Tidal bore: “ Bores occur in relatively few locations worldwide, usually in areas with a large tidal range (typically more than 6 meters (20 ft) between high and low water) and where incoming tides are funneled into a shallow, narrowing river or lake via a broad bay. “
www.beachapedia.org...

Sun shines from bottom to top of clouds at sun rise.

If the earth was flat, there should be a visible gap between the horizon and clouds when there is no rain / fog present. The clouds should never be blocked by the horizon when there is no rain / fog present.


Meteorite impact craters on earth.

Satellites tracked by radar.

Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun
If Zuma is still up there, these are the people who might spot it.

BY MARY BETH GRIGGS JANUARY 12, 2018

www.popsci.com...

Lake Pontchartrain Power Transmission Lines: Evidence of Earth’s Curvature

flatearth.ws...

Math associated with right triangles proves it’s impossible for objects like the sun and North Star to appear to set beyond the horizon

Earth’s movement and gravity backed by the theory of relativity, and shown in how it measurably impacts time/clocks. And ring laser gyroscopes.

Parabolic Motion of Projectiles

The blast from the Tsar nuclear bomb resulted in seismic waves and atmospheric pressure waves that circled the earth three times.

Distance to the sun measured by parallax

The way comets pivot around the sun.
Solar and lunar eclipses.
Comets pulled into the sun or Jupiter.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC
Earth's Curvature and Battleship Gunnery
Phases of Venus
Third party verification of Sputnik
Third party verification of moon missions
Third party / amateur verification of satellites in the hundreds. If not thousands
Star parallax
Earth based photos of the International Space Station.
Map projection
Great Circle paths
Long bridges and tunnels need to take in account the earth is curved.
Geodetic Survey.
Bouguer anomaly/survey

a reply to: turbonium1

You

No, they are NOT physically blocked from view,

Hello. Then why can’t I bring the North Star back into view with binoculars or a telescope once it’s blocked from view by the earth’s curvature in the Southern Hemisphere. A single point light source above the earth.

The same for the sun. Why can’t I bring it back into view with binoculars or a telescope once it’s physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

We know it is blocked from view because the earth’s curvature is literally blocking the sun’s light to obstruct the view of the sun to create night fall.

If the ship is not physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth, please post a zoomed version where the ship that is physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth is “revealed”.




******Man. We are a long way from your original statement of

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Now turbo. Don’t change the subject and move goalposts.

Your original statement “ The bottom part of the ship doesn't 'vanish' at all!”





Your just a sore loser

If you move through the whole video, the zoomed ship moves far enough out the curvature of the earth eventually completely blocks the ship physically from view.

——-you mean like how the video starts zoomed out showing the seascape. Zoomed in to find the ship. Then stays on the ship until the ships streams out and increasingly becomes blocked physically from view by the curvature of the earth until it is completely blocked from view.

ANS STOP MOVING GOALPOSTS. AND STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT. It just makes you look like a sore loser.

a reply to: CrazyFox

Now. Why would you lie about no satellite coverage in the ocean. When my experience as a sailor with first hand experience shows your full of crap.

I do have plenty of crap. Fitting I dump it in this skunky thread.

a reply to: neutronflux

a reply to: CrazyFox

You just got debunked and called out for the flat earth lie of no satellite service in the ocean, and that is all you have. In the face of a list of demonstrable proof of a spherical earth, where it’s practical and more efficient to treat the earth for the sphere it is. Where if my sub treated the earth as flat we would get dangerously lost, lose tactical advantage, not meet transit times, and take life out of the core by not being as efficient in our transit navigation?


My own experiences from having a satellite dish in the backyard in the 90’s, my own observations from Star gazing/having a telescope, and my experiences from being in the military. And being to Australia, Guam, Japan and back again.

a reply to: CrazyFox

Care to address the lie of no satellite service for the ocean. Or you just going to run from actual evidence, personal evidence, cited facts like all the other lying flat earthers. And keep changing the subject from the blatant falsehoods repeated by you.