Jump to content

amy G

Members
  • Posts

    344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by amy G

  1. The responses to this from the globurists are few, far between and quite absurd when they even try to explain this away. If Earth were a globe with a radius of 3,959 miles, the above video would not be possible. The video is right there, therefore, the Earth is not a globe with said radius falsifying r again.
  2. Worthing to Birling Gap Distance: 27 miles/43.4 km Thursday, August 6, 2020, 6:15 PM Examine the video at 8:07 Distance: 27 miles/43.4 km Camera: 26 feet above tide level Target - Birling Gap cliff: 223 feet above sea level Based on a sphere with the radius you assume, an amazing 285 feet should be hidden! And the horizon again is beyond everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA8VCCi8Qy0 If Earth were a globe with a radius of 3,959 miles, the above video would not be possible. The video is right there, therefore, the Earth is not a globe with said radius.
  3. Definitions Perspective: Seeing where you stand https://www.npg.org.uk/learning/digital/portraiture/perspective-seeing-where-you-stand/definitions The above is a very detailed read on this topic from the National Portrait Gallery.
  4. The Horizon / Eye Level is the axis around which a perspective drawing is constructed. In perspective drawing, the horizon also happens to be the viewer's eye-level. When we are outdoors we use the horizon as a point of reference to judge the scale and distance of objects in relation to us. In art, we tend to use the term 'eye level', rather than 'horizon', as in many pictures the horizon is hidden by walls, buildings, trees, hills etc. To illustrate the significance of the horizon / eye level in perspective drawing we have added some tourists to our linear and aerial perspective scene. Note how all four figures share the same eye level - i.e. the horizon of the picture. This suggests that they are all the same height and are standing on the same plane. Because the horizon happens to be our eye level, it also suggests that the figures are the same height as any viewer of the picture. As a result, the organization of scale and distance in the drawing makes good visual sense. If you click on the flip icon it should reveal our second image. Although the figures are still the same size, their eye levels no longer have any relationship to the eye level of the picture. As a result, the scale of the figures is totally confused. This demonstrates the importance of the horizon / eye level to the organization of scale and distance in a perspective drawing. It also illustrates the meaning of Leonardo's famous quote that 'Perspective is to painting what the bridle is to the horse, the rudder to a ship'. https://www.artyfactory.com/perspective_drawing/perspective_2.html
  5. Finding Eye Level — Vanishing Point: All of the parallel edges of stairs, columns, ceiling, etc. in the room point to the vanishing point which is on the horizon line/eye level. https://courses.byui.edu/art110_new/art110/week01/converging_lines.html
  6. Basic Perspective: Converging Lines The edges of objects appear to converge or taper as they recede in the distance to a common point on the eye level or horizon line. In Linear Perspective this is referred to as a Vanishing Point. Note: Converging lines are parallel in reality, but they appear to converge because of diminution. In art this is called “perspectively parallel.” Examples https://courses.byui.edu/art110_new/art110/week01/converging_lines.html
  7. Basic Perspective: Eye Level and Horizon Line Horizon Line and Eye Level The terms “horizon line” and “eye level” are often used synonymously. Horizon line/eye level refer to a physical/visual boundary where sky separates from land or water. It is the actual height of the viewer’s eyes when looking at an object, interior scene, or an exterior scene. https://courses.byui.edu/art110_new/art110/week01/eye_level.html
  8. Your answers mean nothing when based in assumptions that you then argue with yourself over. This, while never realizing you have not represented objective reality along with other fallacious reasoning. Let's read #1 again: 1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos. Everyone who has looked at the world knows this is fact, that this is how our eyes and brain work to make images that we can understand. This was explained to you more than once, but you refuse to even try and understand the implications. Horizon line-is always at eye level. Picture yourself at the seashore and looking out at the ocean you notice that the water meets the sky at your eye level. This never changes. You may be in an airplane 1000 feet up and the level that the ocean meets the sky is still at your eye level! Or you may be lying down on the beach and the ocean level drops with you. Think of it as an invisible plane that cuts through everything, that always exists at eye level. http://studiochalkboard.evansville.edu/lp-intro.html Now that we have established the actual facts, let's use simple logic. The horizon, always horizontal, at eye level for all 360 degrees means that curvature does not exist. If we lived on a ball with the imagined radius, a visible 360 degree horizontal horizon would not be possible. A visible 360 degree horizontal horizon is what has been established, therefore the Earth we live on cannot have that radius and r is falsified. You're done... it's over. @oddsnsods, see? You ignored that this was covered in the other thread and went on anyways in your pretend world. Your claim is a meaningless and provably inaccurate piece of garbage..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig9YOyei_hc The above video is open sourced, has been out there since 2017 and there is no debunk. There is the real math. The horizon stays at high level the entire time in real life as shown while the drop is dramatic and obvious if we were on a spinning ball with your imagined radius. I refuse to appeal to the authority of known liars and you know this too. The above is useless as it does not represent observable reality. Keep pulling whatever numbers you like from wherever you like and keep arguing with yourself. It is a fascinating comedy routine. And probably just a coincidence, but every nasa shill script has something about "the Earth is very, very big." How very, very scientific. No, you did nothing of the sort. You just claim that as always and hope that nobody cares enough to check you. 2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it. This is proven above with the actual math. Accusing your enemy of what you are guilty of is a common technique used to stifle discussion and run from truth.
  9. That is not fair at all. He posted a debunking video on the other thread that debunked nothing and this was after the mere mention of this hated work. Anyone who has read it and still believes they are on a spinning ball is either a shill or no longer working. He knew exactly these were Eric's proofs and insinuating that I stole his work is unacceptable. He purposely avoids everything that his script doesn't explain and you will watch this play out. Let's see if that is true.
  10. Your idea of proof and mine are not the same.
  11. Has David ever made mistakes? Have you? Take his material as an entire work and you might understand. Spamming twice? Comedy posted the same stuff on the first page several times across the other thread and you said nothing? He wanted his locked thread. He will reap what he has sown and you will watch it happen as he is forced to go off script.
  12. You habve lied many times about many things here, so I'm not taking you at your word anymore. That said, I mentioned that he is not perfect and I know that he has woken many. What I find interesting is how nasa shills are constantly claiming how mauch flat earthhers make and how they are in it for the money. I have explained already that that is false completely and in Eric's case, he amazingly has all his material available for free. He has several books published in numerous languages. I believe that 200 proofs is now published in over 20 languages. All of it is free, His PDFs to all his books, his videos (many of which are finally back up), and his fantastic collection of audiobooks. You certainly cannot say that about the shills that youtube and facebook promote who are banking huge off the gullible. You should seriously watch how comedy responds as I go one by one with him through all the difficult questions that his script cannot respond logically to.
  13. Your words, we can goo one by one. 1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos. Many in the flat earth community agree on several things, but certainly not everything. It is why it is all the more comical watching comedy routine claim the fe people say this or that, while never quoting a specific poster. Nobody is perfect, he definitely makes errors, but Eric crushes. He has read everything there is and his explanations are wonderful as he uses facts and logic to shatter heliocentrism. Comedy does his little routine to argue with his own imaginary arguments and this was pointed out to him on the other thread. How many times for how many of his points did I previously point out that he was arguing with himself? Watch comedy's responses to the globe shattering points and decide for yourself what makes more sense.
  14. I guess from your refusal to give reasonable explanations for the 10 stand alone proofs that we are not on a spinning ball.
  15. They were all debunked and just because you posted them several times after does not change that. That is what you just did. Why are you afraid of difficult questions? If we are not on a plane or on a globe, what do you think we are on? You assume everything, just as you did with all your straw man arguments you pretend have not been debunked.
  16. You have just done it again in the post I quoted and always do. Just above you posted a link with this pic: And yet we have dug only 8 miles down. You were asked about earth and you immediately assumed you were on a ball. Not very scientific I must say. Now you have 10 stand alone proofs on this thread that you have just cowardly avoided.
  17. And I just thought of something else. If are not on a plane and we already have hundreds of published proofs that the earth is not a spinning ball, then what the heck are we living on? 1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos. 2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it. 3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense. 4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico. 5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers. 6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level. 7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature. The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. 9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle” 10) The London and Northwestern Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad’s highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curving 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising over a mile, a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool. We have ten right here!
  18. I see that again you have assumed a spherical earth and then used it as your proof. This is the same logical fallacy you continue to employ and it keeps you from even understanding the questions.
  19. Great thread and thanks for all the information. Since you seem to have so much knowledge in this area, may I ask what would happen if hypothetically you started digging a hole through the Earth? If you could make it to Australia for example, would you pop out head first or feet first and then what would happen?
  20. This is a comedy routine. You 'two' argue andf then come to the conclusion that there's nothing to see here. Well, here's 3 minutes, must be zero-G, must be real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGJA9i18Co&list=PLd5VuhCH5NezAb-ZzTH9gZr8XYGGx94Z7 Note to casual readers: nothing in the above is taking place in a zero-G environment unless you understand that we live in zero-G.
  21. There is some fantastic dot connecting going on here for you dot connectors. For those out there who might feel a little bit like nothing makes sense, this might help fill the gaps. I am sure many here are aware at least to some 'degree' of this groups global power, but I'm willing to bet that the extent of this power remains mostly hidden. Enjoy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PJuU65-nI0 https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z8r5waJXCuE5/
  22. Freemasons love dick like their obelisks where they believe their sun god Ra resides.
  23. https://www.google.com/maps/search/antarctica/@-3.1597115,-88.1089482,3z/data=!3m1!4b1 If link does not work, go to Antarctica on google maps. Please make sure to go to satellite view and zoom in as close as you like.
  24. There is not a shred of evidence that moon rocks exist. These freemasons do nothing but lie. They take our best and brightest and waste their lives. Quick multiple choice for anyone who wants to play along. What makes the most sense? A. End world hunger B. Pay nasa ove 50 million a day for CGI images and all the rest of their absurdly obvious lies
  25. Stop buying the latest conspiracy theory. If our posts seem similar, it is because the flat earth community shares information and many, if not all of us have come to the same conclusions for many of the same and obvious reasons. Our atmosphere cannot exist next to 'space.' If we lived on a ball I would not be able to shoot a laser over a lake. Water lies flat on top regardless of the container. All of nasa's documents are based on a flat and non-rotating earth. Freemasons are behind it all and I have the evidence to prove that as well. If I were you would be far more concerned with nasa mouthpieces on here claiming this is real: But that is just my take.
×
×
  • Create New...