Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by peter

  1. While your clutching Zark there are a few straws to the left I think you might of missed
  2. your right about it being explained elsewhere ,so if you truly interested don't be lazy and go look it up
  3. What causes the sunlight to stop abruptly at the edge of the yellow circle also asked many times
  4. If you could prove it with a jet airplane ,why haven't they ,there is plenty of them about
  5. Fair enough , good question though ,I must admit I'm still thinking about it, the only thing that I would ask is if those hills are visible all the time on a clear day at that distance through the camera lens and I haven't been able to find this out. If it is not visible all the time I would have to suggest that something extraordinary happened on that particular day with regards to atmospheric conditions, of course I can't prove it but I don't believe that would fall outside the realms of possibility
  6. Haven't you worked it out yet ,these diagrams are not drawn to scale they are used for instruction, demonstration and theory in a learning environment, the top diagram is a ball tearer, the angle to the target star is even lower than your original post, the second one is even better this is another attempt at subterfuge we all know the star wouldn't be visible if the line of site was below the horizon , but what would happen to that line of sight if the earth was drawn to the correct scale to the star with regards to size and distance, Oh I forget to mention the earth doesn't orbit in that manner it travels above and below the elliptical plane ,that's why we have seasons, so right there could be the reason for the apparent movement of the target star do you think . Anyway in my book you have nil credibility after you last attempt, altering the diagram to fit your narrative, at least your consistent
  7. First of thanks for the question it has really made me think from all different angles Given that the math is correct and the formula is correct in it's application, and I have no reason to believe that their not , this certainly left me in a bit of a quandary. I know that this answer will seem a cop out to a few here ,however at present the only answer I can come up with is choice a in your original post and that being light refraction through the different density layers of the air over that distance. Here is what the gentleman said about the picture To his left, other peaks of the Alps we also seen. Refractive favorable circumstances allowed to view some other peaks, even that more distant than the Barre des Ecrins. Pic Gaspard, 443 Km, is what has given us this time the brand new World Record of distant photograph of landscapes in our planet.
  8. First you admit you altered the drawing and now you say that parallax can happen in the night sky (If your facing the right way), Additionally the original BBC GCSE diagram also implies that all the stars viewable are a cluster at the top ...which is very very odd what I find very odd is that when you altered the drawing for the night you drew the observer facing in the wrong direction YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT OUT MATE
  9. I did write a reply but missed something so I will have to think a bit more on this Whatever the case, the mountain should not be visible if Earth had a radius of 6371 km, but it is, which either means that we’re seeing refraction or the Earth is not a globe. Your choice. I'm still thinking but you shouldn't given me a choice
  10. At the moment it's probably not a good thing to mention flat earth and Bi polar in the same sentence,you need all the help you can get
  11. So , according to you , why was the observer's line of sight at night in the northern hemisphere facing away from the target star ,also did you alter those diagrams particularly the night one as I couldn't find either on the GSCE bbc web site similar but not the same ,what makes me suspicious is the line of site for the observer in the southern hemisphere,for the earth in January appears to have a green line super imposed over a preexisting shorter one Why, if the observer is facing in the correct direction the lines of sight will converge, as the difference of the angles of line of sight between the day and night observer would be minuscule over those distances . Sorry but I certainly have to call bullshit once again . you made the above statement,here is your big chance to explain why you came to that conclusion in your own words
  12. Don't tell us how to do it, plug in the numbers show us the workings of the calculations
  13. 1 these are not drawn to scale, how far away do you think the stars are compared to the orbit of the earth therefore in actual fact the angles of observation between night and day are actually sweet FA 2 with the observer positions at night I understand why the person in the southern hemisphere is looking away from the target star but with the one in the northern hemisphere,why is the green line facing away ,is he or she pissed or doesn't know which way to look. If you get a straight edge and drawn a line from the night time observer's position on the earth in the northern hemisphere to the target star it is definitely still observable( even with a diagram that is so much out of scale) so I would like to know what your actual point is regarding your interpretation of the two diagrams because in reality the differential between the two angles would be measured in small percentages of minuets of angle. only if you have a few under your belt and don't know which way to look
  14. consensus at last,I totally agree I believe that's the reason why you seem to have trouble grasping the subtleties and nuances of theory and basic concepts
  15. How much do you donate to the church I bet its laughing all the way to the bank as well
  16. why thank you , I thought that answer was appropriate, the haarp expert has schooled you well I actually thought that we were discussing new fe evidence and I haven't seen any. OK lets assume there is a problem with heliocentrism theory (well in your eyes anyway) how does that automatically confirm the earth is flat. Would you not find out where the problem lies find what is affecting that certain area of the theory, then work out a way to rectify the incorrect assumption to match observational conditions, I don't know anyone doing serious investigation would say there is a problem with the theory so the earth must be flat, it's just not logical. PS my mind doesn't race it is very methodical
  17. Don't bother I remember what you wrote ,why go over it again, but I'm sure you will
  18. Looks like a 2d reproduction to me, if it was 3d it would be jumping off the page
  19. Bullshit look at what you wrote in point 4, go back and read then think ,who did the experiment , who payed for the material and who went out and built it
  20. You have obviously been taking lessons in debate by the one and only HAARP expert
  21. I was being polite before ,but lets call out bullshit for what its worth, even blind Freddy can see the problem with your diagram, it's so obvious it sticks out like a boil on your ass, personally I'd be embarrassed to genuinely put that up as evidence and ask someone to explain it , like I said before the answer is in the other threads if you are truly interested, but I don't believe you are, this evidence is right up there with your fence analogy, which is self explanatory, look at point 4 you made, I can still remember it and there lies the crux of your answer.
  22. So why do you want me to explain it again then, for the hell of it, as I said its already done and your obviously not interested so why bother
  23. Go and look it up in the other threads I've done it and so have others ,if you are truly interested it's there , why not comment on the other things I mentioned
  • Create New...