Jump to content

amy G

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by amy G

  1. 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'.



  2. 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.”


    Converging railroad trackshttps://courses.byui.edu/art110_new/art110/week01/converging_lines.html


  3. 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. 




  4. 3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

    Answered already and ignored by you.

    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.



    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?



    3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

    There has to be something wrong with somebody who ignores the entire first page and then spams a load of Eric Doyoubuy shite. The claim is a meaningless and provably inaccurate piece of garbage.....

    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.....



    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.


    3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

    "The ISS shows curvature as do all the images taken during the Apollo missions. If you are just going to cry faaaaake, what's the point?

    I refuse to appeal to the authority of known liars and you know this too.


    3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:



    The Earth is very, very big. At aircraft cruising altitude you will only see 3.2 degrees of variance and that if you can see a full 90 degrees of span."

    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.


    3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

    I also did number 2 as well....

    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.


    3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

    First and second  "proofs" from Eric Doyoubuy - both bollocks. The man is an imbecile.

    Accusing your enemy of what you are guilty of is a common technique used to stifle discussion and run from truth.

  5. 3 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

    You are spamming Eric Dubays proofs as your own above yes & you are claiming Comedy is posting from a script. You dont see the irony.

    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.


    4 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

    I admit my mistakes.

    Let's see if that is true.


  6. 2 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:


    Youll love this.




    The only one here with the script as proven above now twice is you, spamming Eric Dubays questions.


    Im waiting for a proper response to my previous posts you keep ignoring.


    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.

  7. 2 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

    Like his giant plughole at the North pole controls the waves theory, he stole from the hollow earth, which relies on two poles. Put the crack pipe down ffs.

    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.

  8. 2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

    I already answered it, perhaps you were too stuck up your bottom to notice or to click the link!!

    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.


    2 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

    I thought you didnt like Eric Dubay @bflat?

    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.




    3 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

    Listen very carefully. I assumed NOTHING. I have already listed 10 posts or so that PROVE the Earth is a sphere. You cowardly ignored them all the first time round and subsequently are now cluttering up this thread with diversionary bullshit.

    They were all debunked and just because you posted them several times after does not change that.


    5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

    You continue to cowardly avoid the posts in this thread. Do so one more and it is more than enough to qualify as trolling.

    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?


    6 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

    I don't assume we are on a ball, I know we are.

    You assume everything, just as you did with all your straw man arguments you pretend have not been debunked.



    3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

    I have assumed nothing whatsoever.

    You have just done it again in the post I quoted and always do.


    Just above you posted a link with this pic:

    diagram of core of earth

    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.

  11. 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!

  12. 58 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:


    Well since you ignored it all the first time I hardly find that sincere!



    I don't "seem" to have so much knowledge in this area. I actually do have the knowledge. 






    Start head first - arrive head first and vice versa. What would happen? Guinness would contact you for your endurance to digging, pressure and heat and you would get ridiculed for having a crappy Cricket team.



    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.

    • Like 1
  13. 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?

    • Like 2
  14. 9 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

    Okay I found some footage nly a minute long. So admit I am wrong on.

    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.



    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.

  15. 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.








  16. 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

  17. 19 hours ago, kj35 said:

    Now I know you're bflat. Mr freemason this and freemason that.. I feel quite disappointed . Never mind. I'll learn to discern who is for real and who is a paid disinformation person.

    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.

  18. 1 minute ago, Comedy Time said:


    Wow, noise generation at full blast. Thousands all lying because the flat earther says so.


    ANY accredited geologist can examine an Apollo sample. You are lying.



    Really, this is your claim to knowledge is it, the biggest whackamole crap ever. I answered this utter horseshit about a dozen times on the now disappeared old forum and about 3 times on the now hacked new one. It was ONLY discovered to be a piece of petrified wood when an actual geologist examined it.




    Piss poor reporting….but this time the conspiracy theorist has no problem believing the MSM account!!

    The rock was given by the US Ambassador to a former Dutch prime minister. It was a gift that Drees had seen in the US inventory and liked the look of it. It was never given as a Moon rock. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that NASA would hand out such a massive rock to a complete nobody, weeks after they brought back such invaluable samples.

    On the Goodwill Tour, astronauts handed tiny fragments encased in plastic on mounted wooden presentations with Gold inscriptions. They handed one such fragment to Queen Juliana.



    Drees died in 1988, the rock was donated to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and put on display: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

    The whole thing was a balls up by the people who were given the gift. No way was it from NASA…all explained here:







    1. NASA would not hand out valuable lunar samples to a complete nobody.

    2. They handed out tiny fragments to Queens and prime ministers

    3. They handed out gold embossed engraved plaques with each sample not some crusty comp slip.

    4. It was a gift from the US Ambassador - he confirmed it.

    5. Drees had seen it long before and commented on it, that was why it was given to him.

    And yet another obviously scripted response.

  • Create New...