Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: turbonium1

Anyway…

This never works. But I’ll try….

Now turbo. Let’s take a deep breath, and start small.

Let’s take three cases of the night sky being changed.

Witnesses arrest to, and it’s documented Sputnik, the international space station, and the star link satellites have changed the night sky. Placing man made objects visibly In space. And actively broadcast, or had broadcast from orbit. Is this a false statement.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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...

originally posted by: neutronflux
Have no Idea what you are referring to. The video shows a steady rate of the ship gradually being blocked from view as the ship steams off into the distance.

No, let me show you this, in the image you keep posting....



Notice that the poles appear to RISE, not curve downward, where you claim it DOES curve downward? Same as the WATER appears to RISE upward, NOT curve downward, as you claim it does?

Why do you keep ignoring that, when it is so blatantly obvious to see? Because it destroys your ball Earth fairy tale, of course!

You cannot ignore the parts that don't support your fairy tale claim, and cherry pick what fits in, that's ridiculous!

The water and poles DO appear to rise, you cannot deny that fact, nor ignore that fact, either.

So what is happening? They do not ACTUALLY rise up, right? They do NOT 'curve downward', right? So it is an ILLUSION, right?

Now, if THIS is all an illusion, you have to accept it, and ACCOUNT for it, right? You never have, and never WILL account for it, because it destroys your whole argument, instantly, if you DID try to account for it.


Because it's an illusion based on a FLAT surface, not a CURVED one! A curve would constantly go downward, not upward, as it actually DOES.

The upward slope is an illusion based on large flat surfaces, due to the phenomenon of PERPSECTIVE and VANISHING POINT.

Look at the horizon itself - it is a perfectly flat, straight line across Earth, there is NO 'curve' whatsoever, it is completely straight and flat across.

What this shows is the ACTUAL surface, without perspective in play, as it is with an OUTWARD view to distant objects and horizons, which are always STRAIGHT and FLAT ACROSS EARTH!

I've put numbers along poles, which are ALL visible the whole distance to that point....



That is well over 2/3 of the distance outward, and all the poles are completely visible, over that distance, right?

There is NO curve over that same distance, right? Obviously not, we can all SEE that there's no curve at all, in fact, it is straight, and appears to slant UPWARD over that distance, which is due to perspective and vanishing point over large flat surfaces, as shown here.

The perfectly straight, flat horizon CONFIRMS it is a flat surface, too, and what we see in the distance, is caused by perspective and vanishing point over distances OUTWARD, but NOT when seen from ACROSS this surface, where perspective doesn't act on our view of objects the same way as when viewing them OUTWARD, TO the horizon.

Simply look at these same poles, from a perpendicular viewpoint, ACROSS them, instead of going OUTWARD to the horizon!

Do you realize that such a view DOES exist? Of course it does, but you want to ignore it, as if it didn't even exist at all.

What do you think this perpendicular view would show of these same poles, when they're viewed going ACROSS the lake, ACROSS the horizon, instead of viewing them going OUTWARD, TOWARDS a horizon?

Why don't they show THAT view, as well as THIS view? Why would they ONLY show this view, and NOT a perpendicular view of those same poles, going ACROSS the lake, ACROSS the horizon?

Because they, and you, are dishonest, and know what it would show - a straight line of poles, going across a straight, flat horizon, and that's why you never WILL show it, because your argument is based on deception, and hiding the truth, by ignoring all other views of it, which show it IS flat and straight across, and what YOU always show, is the same, one view, OUTWARD to the horizon, which shows the illusion of perspective and vanishing point, which you hijack, and claim it is a 'curve', ignoring everything else, which shows it's flat and straight.



Imagine these same poles going across the horizon, just below it, instead of going OUT to the horizon, which is all you ever show, for some odd reason!

The horizon's visible distance is about 3 miles OUT, and 3 miles ACROSS, when viewed from the ground.

It is perfectly straight and flat across, for all 3 miles we see from the ground, not even the SLIGHEST curve is seen at all.

But let's assume there IS a curve, which is so slight, it is not seen, or measured, which isn't possible, but let's say it IS possible, for argument's sake. We have a very, very slight, unseen, unmeasurable 'curve', along the horizon!

So now, what happens to a ship, is that it goes OVER that 'curve', and out of view, because it is BLOCKED OUT by a 'curve'!

This ship is sailing ACROSS the horizon, in full view.....



Where would this ship 'curve' down, out of sight, while going across a perfectly flat, straight horizon, which you believe has a 'very slight' curve, which nobody can see, or measure, as a 'curve'?

Please point out where it will 'curve downward', and be 'blocked out' by a 'curve'....




If we saw this same ship, going OUT to the horizon, as shown by the white arrow on the right side here....



That's where YOU always show things from, going OUTWARD to horizons in the distance.

This view distorts what we see, in the distance, due to perspective and vanishing point, when viewing objects at a distance, OUTWARD, towards them!


That's why this viewpoint is all you EVER show, and you ignore a perpendicular view of objects, going ACROSS horizons!

If I showed you images of poles, going across a lake, on two sides, instead of a single line of poles, shown in YOUR images, what would we see?

We'd see them CONVERGE in the distance, just based on those images, and nothing else.

And we DO see them converge in the distance, from those images, alone.

So would you think they DO converge, or would you think it's not enough proof, based on just those images, alone?

What is WRONG with my images, then? They're genuine images, right?

They show objects which are CONVERGING in the distance, do they not?

You see the problem, now?


I'm sure everyone here can see the problem.....even YOU.

a reply to: turbonium1

Your changing the subject again..

You need to address what is in this post.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Turbo. Your ranting again..

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

Two. Zooming in for the flat earth argument should “reveal” the ship.



m.youtube.com...

Zooming only shows the curvature of the earth is literally blocking the ship from view. In the video, the very tall cargo ship finally steams out to sea to be completely blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

Now. You.

How could 'curvature' leave a ship in full view, for the first 2 1/2 miles out, then suddenly come into existence, in the next 1/2 mile out, and 'block out' the entire ship, by reaching this 'curve' that didn't exist over the first 2 1/2 miles of Earth's surface?

Have no Idea what you are referring to. The video shows a steady rate of the ship gradually being blocked from view as the ship steams off into the distance.

Now. How does a object above a plane appear to go below the plane when viewed from above the same plane to be completely blocked physically from view. Well. It’s impossible for a flat plane.



Now. The other part you are ignoring is the sun. In the flat earth delusion. A single point light source always above the plane.



Again. No amount of zooming “reveals” the part physically blocked by the earth’s curvature.

Again. A flat plane earth would be dominated by right angle math / geometry. And the sun would never appear on the horizon with a zero viewing angle. The math isn’t there. Much less appear to go below the horizon.




Now. We know the setting sun is physically blocked by the earth’s curvature because night fall is literally the shadow from the earth’s curvature blocking the sun’s light which would be impossible on a flat earth with the sun always above the earth.

Now. Again…

And proven by experiments that take away the illusion of prospective.

The Rainy Lake Experiment
Saturday, July 20, 2019 - 00:50 | Author: wabis | Topics: FlatEarth, Knowlegde, Science, Experiment

walter.bislins.ch...

Backs the flat earth experiment on

Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

BY ANDREW WHALEN ON 2/25/19 AT 5:04 PM EST



www.newsweek.com...

Campanella devises an experiment involving three posts of the same height and a high-powered laser. The idea is to set up three measuring posts over a nearly 4 mile length of equal elevation. Once the laser is activated at the first post, its height can be measured at the other two. If the laser is at eight feet on the first post, then five feet at the second, then it indicates the measuring posts are set upon the Earth's curvature.

In his first attempt, Campanella's laser light spread out too much over the distance, making an accurate measurement impossible. But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.

Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.

a reply to: turbonium1

Notice that the poles appear to RISE, not curve downward,

One. Except they drop down from the vanishing point.

Two. You zoom in. The bases are still physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth.

Your argument is out of ignorance and plane wrong

Your still a long way from your statement of “ The bottom part of the ship doesn't 'vanish' at all”

a reply to: turbonium1

What’s wrong..

Don’t want to post about “rockets” any more? It takes you a whole week to craft your dribble?

Again. Tonight’s topic is….

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Anyway…

This never works. But I’ll try….

Now turbo. Let’s take a deep breath, and start small.

Let’s take three cases of the night sky being changed.

Witnesses arrest to, and it’s documented Sputnik, the international space station, and the star link satellites have changed the night sky. Placing man made objects visibly In space. And actively broadcast, or had broadcast from orbit. Is this a false statement.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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...

a reply to: turbonium1

Poor turbo. Has to ignore arguments. Has to change the subject. And ignore basic facts. And just makes flat earth look stupid, and not able to explain certain things. Like…

Tides and tidal bores? What does high tide seek?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Demonstrable proof the earth is spherical, and your argument destroyed. You have to change the subject

Anyway…

This never works. But I’ll try….

Now turbo. Let’s take a deep breath, and start small.

Let’s take three cases of the night sky being changed.

Witnesses arrest to, and it’s documented Sputnik, the international space station, and the star link satellites have changed the night sky. Placing man made objects visibly In space. And actively broadcast, or had broadcast from orbit. Is this a false statement.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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...

Nobody has to 'prove' anyone's claim of seeing something, or NOT seeing something, your argument is completely ridiculous!

I could get 30 people to swear they saw a flying pink elephant in the skies, one in Montana, another in Alaska, two in France, at the same time, and so on. It's easy to find 'witnesses' for something, for ANYTHING, in fact.

Signals which come to Earth, MUST be from 'outer space' - whatever THAT's supposed to be!

I'm sure it could NEVER be FAKED, or anything!!

They cannot let anyone on Earth, SEE a rocket, after the first 3 or 4 minutes, at the launch area, and ONLY at the launch area, but that's okay, they TELL us what happens after that, because it's very, very DANGEROUS to go anywhere they tell us it's dangerous, not like at the launch area, where they say it's very SAFE for us to go!


I'm sure they're very concerned with public safety, when the launch pad is off limits within a 5 mile radius, which makes sense, any closer than 5 miles away, is considered dangerous, a rocket could explode at launch, while debris shoots in all directions, and so forth!

Based on that, making a 200 mile area long, 50 mile wide area, 'off limits', out in the ocean, over 5 miles BELOW a rocket, not because it may EXPLODE into bits, but for 'debris', floating down from over 100,000 feet altitude, with parachutes attached to it!

After all that crap, trying to argue about signals being 'tracked' from 'space', is simply a joke!

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Nobody has to 'prove' anyone's claim of seeing something, or NOT seeing something, your argument is completely ridiculous!

Your ignorant…

Satellite mega-constellations risk ruining astronomy forever
There are some solutions that could soften the blow, but none will fix the problem outright.

www.technologyreview.com...

What are these changes to the night sky?

DRAMATIC VIDEO SHOWS SPACEX STARLINK SATELLITES BURNING UP IN THE SKY

futurism.com...

I seen the starlink satellites for myself. What was I looking at?

a reply to: turbonium1

You

I could get 30 people to swear they saw a flying pink elephant in the skies,

Awkward silence.

Uh… ya… but I included documentation of the actual effects the starlink satellites are having on astronomy/ the night sky…

a reply to: turbonium1

a reply to: turbonium1

Now that there is videos and photograph documentation of the phenomena in question with eyewitness accounts….

Let’s take three cases of the night sky being changed.

Witnesses arrest to, and it’s documented Sputnik, the international space station, and the star link satellites have changed the night sky. Placing man made objects visibly In space. And actively broadcast, or had broadcast from orbit. Is this a false statement.

Well. looks like 'Faking space' is bowing out, on telegram at least.

t.me...

This guy has done some excellent work on waking people up, hope he continues somewhere.

He has highlighted many issues related to this, by the controllers. Give it a scroll-up, nae-sayers, if you want to have a heart attack !

All related to the biggest one, of course, and this threads existence.

Paid shills, carry on. See you in the next life.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

I'm sure it could NEVER be FAKED, or anything!

How To Align A Satellite Dish

www.smartaerials.co.uk...


Azimuth (East & West) adjustment


Your satellite dish needs to align to the correct position for the satellite TV services you wish to receive and this is represented in degrees off due south, not magnetic south like compasses will give you. The most common satellites in the UK are the Astra 2 satellites at 28.2E and Eurobird at 28.5E, this will allow you to receive either Sky subscription-based services or Freesat, which is a non-subscription service.



Other common satellites of use here in the UK are, the Astra 1 satellites at 19.2E which provides TV from France, Germany and other countries within that region and Hotbird at 13E which provides satellite TV from Poland and satellite TV from Italy, as well as other countries in Europe and North Africa.

10]

1964 Summer Olympics Edit
The Tokyo 1964 games were the first to be telecast internationally. The games were telecast to the United States using Syncom 3,[11] the first geostationary communication satellite, and from there to Europe using Relay 1, an older satellite which allowed only 15–20 minutes of broadcast during each of its orbits.[12][13] Total broadcast time of programs delivered via satellite was 5 hours 41 minutes in the United States, 12 hours 27 minutes in Europe, and 14 hours 18 minutes in Canada. Pictures were received via satellite in the United States, Canada, and 21 countries in Europe.[14] Several broadcasters recorded some sports from Japan and flown over to their countries.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Your entire argument comes down to proving there IS 'curvature' of Earth's surface, as the ball Earth must show 'curvature', to prove it's a ball-shape, of course.


'Curvature' is the base of your ball Earth argument, it cannot work WITHOUT any 'curvature' existing on Earth's surface. It does NOT exist, that's the whole problem.


Why would you have to show only ONE viewpoint of things, in the distance, while pretending there IS no other viewpoint, which could POSSIBLY matter to this issue, because YOU act like it doesn't even EXIST, or matters at all, anyway!

What kind of people, who believe Earth is actually a ball, don't realize, or pretend they don't realize, showing images or videos from only THIS SPECIFIC, EXCLUSIVE VIEWPOINT, while IGNORING ANY OTHER VIEWPOINTS, are either morons, or liars, or living in total denial of the reality.

I've told you what you're doing, what they're doing, showing the same viewpoint of things, in the distance, is deliberately misleading, and is slimy behavior.


Because you only look at it from the one viewpoint, ignoring all other viewpoints, and that's complete BS. I've explained that using this one viewpoint all the time, doesn't work, it creates illusions, like a surface appearing to rise, a horizon looking higher than it is, parallel objects appearing to converge, because that's what happens from that one, specific viewpoint, outward to objects or surfaces in the distance.

When we look at them from a SECOND viewpoint, perpendicular to the first viewpoint, this is why we know that parallel lines or objects don't converge in the distance, they remain parallel throughout.

That's how we knew that the surface doesn't rise up in the distance, either. We looked at it from a perpendicular viewpoint, and saw it wasn't rising at all - it was always the same, throughout.

It's a good thing that your ball Earther's weren't involved in this, showing the same viewpoint of parallel objects appearing to converge in the distance, or showing the same view of surfaces appearing to RISE in the distance, over and over and over again, while IGNORING all other viewpoints, which show they are ILLUSIONS! You'd be claiming they DO converge, and the surface IS rising up in the distance, same as you claim objects go over a 'curve' on Earth, when out of sight in the distance, now!

Ignore the perpendicular viewpoint, keep showing images from the same viewpoint, over and over again, act like I haven't
'addressed it yet', and that it couldn't happen if Earth was flat, only if it was curved!

Maybe it could happen in your fairy tale world, but certainly not in the real world.

a reply to: turbonium1

Your trying to change the subject again? And your blabbering again incoherently.

Then why is the sun physically blocked from view in this photo?



Zooming in on the photo shows it’s still physically blocked from view by the earths curvature.

You do understand night is literally the shadow cast by the earths curvature? Blocking out the light from the sun, and physically blocking it from view.

If it was “prospective”, then zooming in would bring the sun back in to view. And there would be no curvature to create the shadow we call night.

a reply to: turbonium1

And again…

Poor turbo. Has to ignore arguments. Has to change the subject. And ignore basic facts. And just makes flat earth look stupid, and not able to explain certain things. Like…

Tides and tidal bores? What does high tide seek?

Throw this in too. 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.

a reply to: turbonium1

You've been given many different views of the same thing that illustrate Earth's curvature. All that happens is you dismiss them, or ignore them, just like all oif the countless pieces of evidence that proves inconvenient to your delusions.

Slimy behaviour is where you cherry pick quotes, pretend you never said things that you did, ignore evidence you've been given and deny you were given it, make stupid and ridicxluous claims then pretend you never made them, demanding proof but never providing any.

Remember when you posted a picture of the Pontchartrain road bridge and insisted it proved there was no curve in it, but completely ignored the different perspective of it:

Your arguments have all been addressed, over and over again. Your failure to understand those arguments is not our problem.

a reply to: guidedbyblake

Good riddance.

Prove anyone's paid.

a reply to: turbonium1

Still conveniently forgetting this photo I see:

It's a composite of several images of a starlink launch taken from my house in the UK shortly after its launch from the US, exactly as predicted in the publcly available information.

Still forgetting about the supernovae that have appeared in the 'never changing' sky, still forgetting that BArnard's star moves all over teh place.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Your trying to change the subject again? And your blabbering again incoherently.

Then why is the sun physically blocked from view in this photo?

Zooming in on the photo shows it’s still physically blocked from view by the earths curvature.

You do understand night is literally the shadow cast by the earths curvature? Blocking out the light from the sun, and physically blocking it from view.

If it was “prospective”, then zooming in would bring the sun back in to view. And there would be no curvature to create the shadow we call night.

How would the Sun be blocked out by this perfectly straight, flat line across Earth, wouldn't exactly support a 'curve', only support it as FLAT, as it's clearly a straight, flat line across Earth, nothing at all is curving here, so where would you ever get the idea it helps your 'curve' story?


It obviously shows that the Earth is FLAT.


You're still confused about how large flat plains or surfaces ACTUALLY work, and how they create illusions that appear to us, as being real, but in fact, they are NOT at all real.

Do you think these illusions are based on curved surfaces, and curved lines? And how could you ever DRAW it, because I'd love to see you try it,....that's for sure!

Examine any drawings that show perspective, and depth - there's countless examples available.


They all have STRAIGHT lines, and FLAT surfaces, to indicate perspective, depth, and vanishing point. I've shown you one example, already.

It's the same with your image of those poles going across the lake - when it appears that the lake is RISING UPWARD, it is actually flat, while appearing to rise upward, isn't it? Sure it is.

It obviously is not CURVING anywhere, while appearing to rise upward, right?

It's also confirmed as flat, by the perfectly flat, straight across HORIZON, at the end of it all, where it appears to have risen to it's highest point, at that line across Earth, known as the horizon.

Horizon itself means a straight, flat, horizontal line, so it makes perfect sense that we call it a 'horizon', obviously!


What you don't seem to grasp, is when you show images from the same, single viewpoint, like all ball Earthers do, while NEVER showing it from any OTHER viewpoint, then you're being dishonest, and deceptive, since these views DO exist, and would show a flat surface, and that there is NO 'curve', at all.

The horizon is always a straight, flat line across Earth, and is absolute proof that Earth is flat.

To see if your claim of being a curved surface is true, you try showing things from a specific viewpoint, and ignore all the illusions it shows, and pick the one you believe supports 'curvature', a 2 1/2 mile surface shows the entire object, but it suddenly 'curves' in the last 1/2 mile distance, because it remains in FULL view up to that point!
,
And it somehow appears to be RISING UP, before it hits a 'super curve', right at the perfectly flat, straight line across Earth, until a 'curve' suddenly appears out of nowhere, and makes things 'plummet' over it, within a half-mile or so!


Why would anyone ever claim that this supports 'curvature', is truly baffling. When you finally have reached out far enough, to suggest there IS 'curvature', you have a magical 'curve' which only appears at the last half-mile out, which cannot happen, anyway.

Anyone can make an argument that ignores something that would instantly shred it apart. You've mastered it.

You can try to ignore all other viewpoints, but one, claim it shows 'curvature', but it's STILL just a pile of crap!