Jump to content

Comedy Time

Members
  • Posts

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Comedy Time

  1. I have probably made about 30,000 if you include the old forum and the rant room which didn't add to post count. But thanks anyway. They were ejected at high velocity out of the exit holes. I recall one video showing the engine, I'll see if I can dig it up. You just twiddle your thumbs, do something productive.
  2. Nope, Try to keep up. I called you a "newbie" because you are a newbie. You said you weren't. I showed you were. Exit holes. Why "let alone" a massive engine? It hit at over 500mph it has lots of kinetic energy. If nothing directly blocks its path with sufficient energy to stop it, it keeps on going. Hahahaha..... And you post a picture of the entry point as your idea of where to check for this??? False dichotomy. I am neither deluded as there WERE planes, I am not a shill - there is no need or demand (where do I apply?) and the 3rd alternative the parts went out the exit holes - you know momentum and all that
  3. Just this - this one picture shows the curvature of the Earth.....to anyone with an ounce of honesty and integrity..... Oh wait, there is far more for bflat to ignore.......
  4. Here is a screen shot from one flat nut claiming the horizon is straight. Only when you add some contrast......shoot-in-the-foot.com
  5. You have never posted any "math". You and reality are as far apart as is possible. Totally irrelevant. The visible plane is the line of the camera. Yes. But the oddest thing of all is how you can have the audacity to spam your off topic shite on this thread and avoid the OP totally. You are afraid to debate honestly. And mathematics to show that.. a) It is irrelevant horseshit b) Not true anyway c) Very little difference between a flat view and a sphere view because the Earth size is almost the same as a flat view. It's big you see. Biggy big big.com https://flatearth.ws/high-altitude-balloon Curvature of the Horizon in High-Altitude Balloon Footage High-altitude balloon footage is often abused by flat-Earthers to show us that the Earth is flat when seen from a high altitude. We analyzed more than two dozens of footage taken from high-altitude balloons on YouTube, and we can easily conclude the curvature is there and usually easy to spot, including in the cases where flat-Earthers use the video as ‘proof’ of a flat Earth. The majority of the ‘evidence’ are screenshots taken from these videos. The original videos were usually taken using fisheye lenses. In these videos, there are moments where the horizon appears flat, convex and concave. Their M.O. is to cherry-pick moments where the horizon appears flat and present them as the ‘evidence’ of the flat Earth, ignoring the fact it appears concave and convex in many other moments in the video. To analyze the videos, we try to find a moment where the horizon crosses the center point of the image. In this case, if the horizon is flat, it should appear flat. And conversely, if the horizon is curved, then should appear curved. This method works even if a fisheye was used to take the video. A straight line will always appear straight when it crosses the center, regardless of the lens being used. We analyzed over two dozens of high-altitude balloon footages on YouTube, and the curvature is there every single time. These videos are definitely not proof of a flat Earth. On the contrary, they are evidence that the Earth is spherical. Videos Used in the Illustration These are links to the videos used in the illustration. Space Balloon – hwrmMedia Project Stratosphere – Daniel Teubenbacher Grand Canyon from the Stratosphere – Bryan Chan Toy Robot in Space – troshy DogCamSport Flies to the Edge of Space – DogCamSport Loki Lego Launcher – Winston Yeung Flight to the Edge of Space – J.W. Astronomy Hello Kitty in Space – Lauren Rojas GoPro Weather Balloon Stratosphere Flight – Camillo Schmid Filming in the Stratosphere with a HTC mobile phone – Colin Furze Space Balloon – TBFMania Nos Jouets dans L’Espace – Maëlle et Nicolas Lamorelle iPhone 6 in Space – Urban Armor Gear, LLC High Altitude Balloon – Christian Galli Near Space Balloon Launced to the Stratosphere reaches 100,000 ft – Kevin Hunt Stratospheric Balloon – Saturne Vite
  6. Seems bflat has resorted to mega spam in an effort to cover the items on page 1. Notice he hasn't answered any of them. Refraction is the answer to all the silly flatnut experiments he has posted. Refraction - heat and pressure variances across a large expanse of atmosphere. Great site for adjusting the horizon with variable refraction: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
  7. You really are a waste of time dude. Go to 4 mins 8 seconds and see the curvy laser. Plus I don't trust these lying arseholes anyway. Curvy lasers? Hmmmm whodathunkit. Maybe bflat needs to understand some very simple physics. It takes a 0.217 degree downward variance of the "straight" laser for it to be pointed down at the horizon. So not only can lasers easily "exceed" the global defined distances with simple refraction, some yoootub muppet "accidentally" points the laser down at the horizon and it skips off like a stone.
  8. Hey - you seem to be unable to grasp things no matter how many times you have them told to you. Refraction. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator Observer height 8m / Target distance 43,452m / Target size 68m Just push the refraction measurement into positive about 0.2 and above, watch the object bend into view.
  9. Your responses mean nothing when you have the understanding of a fig leaf. There is nothing fallacious about using mathematics to prove something and a mathematician, which you clearly lied about, would know this. SPAM! You have posted an identical claim and ignored numerous responses. Eric Doyoubuy is a colossal dipshit - his claims are proven horseshit and people who are incapable of understanding mathematics that junior school children can figure out are just noisy time wasters. Instead of taking the maths and proving it wrong, or offering your own, you just ignore it. Pathetic. Nothing you have ever typed has offered me an explanation. Nothing you have ever typed was on a subject where I needed an explanation. You are not the spokesperson for "everyone" and you are impossible to reach. You simply have to have some sort of financial interest in this. You can't even read and understand your own links! Hint Your horizon line always falls at eye level regardless of where you're looking. For instance, if you are looking down, your eye level remains at the height of your eyes, not down where you are looking. Whoa there you very deceitful comedian. We establish facts with proper investigation, not the generalisations from a bloody website about drawing stuff! Horizon reference : http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm Trigonometry reference: http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm You say the Earth is flat. Science and people with brains say it gently curves away. Whichever of the two the horizon will ALWAYS and must ALWAYS be below the level of the eye. This is basic, child's play trigonometry. Example 1: b = height of person and where their eyes are - I used 6ft. h = distance to horizon using the global formula for that height = 3 miles = 15840 ft. Angle theta is 0.217 degree. THAT is how far down the eye needs to look to see the horizon. Nobody has the capacity to discern a difference between that angle and level. Now in your second example: b = height of 1000 ft. h = distance to horizon using the global formula for that height = 38.7 miles = 204336 ft. Angle theta is 0.28 degrees. Again THAT is how far down the eye needs to look to see the horizon. Nobody has the capacity to discern a difference between that angle and level. Let's go really high: b = height of 100,000 ft. h = distance to horizon using the global formula for that height = 387.9 miles = 2048112 ft. Angle theta is 2.8 degrees. THAT is how far down the eye needs to look to see the horizon. Is it possible for somebody to know they are looking down at just under 3 degrees of arc? Doubtful but totally irrelevant anyway. The claim thus proved as bollocks! You are owned. Totally. You have one option - ignore this and make loads of noise....because this is simple, school kid stuff and you can't even understand it. What points within that myopic crap negate the mathematics I just explained to you? The bloke using it is zooming in on a graphic and distorting it on a split screen! I am using mathematics to say exactly what it SHOULD be. It is using a camera - quite how you can establish an "eye line" when the camera is actually the object determining the plane of sight, is rather dumb. Of course there is a debunk. I showed you the figures for each of the altitudes in my small spreadsheet. These were calculated using something you don't understand, trigonometry. Then stop quoting Eric Doyoubuy. NASA are not "known liars" and propping up your bullshit with more bullshit is not cool. It exactly represents reality. It starts with an elevation, the distance to the horizon on a globe, takes a 45 degree segment of the horizon, uses the calculated distance to the horizon and the subsequent distance across given that 45 degree angle. Finally the variance in elevation is worked out against the globe model. I then double it to give a reasonable 90 degree field of view. It's mathematics so I can see why you would be confused. The curvature is small right up to 60 miles high where on an average camera is about 10 degrees of variance across the image. The claim thus proved as bollocks! The phrase is used for the hard of understanding. I am not a shill, I don't work from a script and your audacity in saying something is not scientific is colossal when your whole belief ignores science and entertains buttrinse. Go check - prove me wrong. Or carry on cowardly avoiding it whilst making noise. I actually did number 2 in the post you just quoted....and I just did it again above. Eric Doyoubuy is not my enemy. He is an internet nobody guilty of the dumbest brand of dipshittery known to man. I am not the one continually ignoring posts then claiming I answered them but failing to show where. Hey, you aren't him are you?
  10. Google is your friend. In quotes "Apollo 11 earth images" Matches video showing the Earth very far away being zoomed in. Cloud patterns match with hurricane patterns from weather satellites. Fyi: satellites are things that are launched into space and orbit the planet. People with radio receiving dishes can often connect and track them. People who receive Sky TV use dishes pointed upwards and all at the same satellite cluster....in geosynchronous orbit.
  11. We have hundreds of images of full Earth from Apollo missions 1969-72. We have thousands from the ISS. We have millions of partials from weather satellites. You don't really know anything do you? Aliens yes. Anywhere within hundreds of light years no. An alien is defined in this instance as from another world.
  12. Uhuh. So..... A team to prepare all the plane parts for distribution around New York. A team to go around invisibly dumping parts - hoping nobody sees people unloading a bloody plane engine AFTER two just hit the big buildings nearby. No paper trail for this minor operation - but how many people to be in the loop and kept permanently quiet? Why would you, the objects compared to that shot are less than a pixel. It's grainy, unknown generations of it. You've made 13 posts dude. You're a newbie.You can't guarantee jack. You've been "researching" 911 but didn't know that September clues already did a silly no-plane movie, or that plane parts were found all over the place. You threw your toys out of the pram when I mentioned them and now you arm wave them away with invisible plane part fairies.
  13. Your video is shite and you haven't responded to a post I made showing the problems with video recording and transfer. September clues did this nearly 15 years ago and that was shite as well. Debunked to death. You don't know much do you. In the space of 2hrs you went from 99% to 95% - keep going and you may even reach the truth. Planes. Big fast planes.
  14. Answered already and ignored by you. 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..... "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? This is a curvature plot by altitude I did: 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." I also did number 2 as well.... "This is just bullshit spouted by flat earthers as if they know what they are talking about. Since the distance to horizon is almost identical to a flat earth vanishing point due to the Earth being very very big, the horizon would always be below the observer eye line for both and IS. But by how much on this video? Altitude 20 miles using kilometres is 32 km. Distance to horizon at that altitude is 641.2 km. Angle from eye line to horizon is.........2.82 degrees! You would need to look down 3 degrees from level to see the horizon. Oooooooh - you see when you put in the ACTUAL figures, all this flat earth hyperbole suddenly becomes meaningless piffle." There is always an angle from eye level DOWN to the horizon. At sea level it would be a downward angle of 0.217 degrees - 6ft and 15840 (3 miles). It gets bigger the higher you go, but not much as seen from the example in italics. First and second "proofs" from Eric Doyoubuy - both bollocks. The man is an imbecile.
  15. I already answered it, perhaps you were too stuck up your bottom to notice or to click the link!! You just ignored every post in this thread and splattered spam already answered on the last one. That Eric Dubay is a real arsehole - perhaps you should stop listening to such mind numbing crap and get back to your "applied mathematics"
  16. You are a disgraceful liar. None of the items presented are straw man arguments. You pretty much evaded the whole damn lot of them with a notable exception being possibly the most insane explanation for perspective ever presented. The Sun vanishing full size at the vanishing point Comedy time indeed. You are afraid to answer because we live on a globe. I strongly suspect you know this and probably have some sort of financial scam going on. Hopefuly this thread will stop a lot of punters being sucked in to it. P.s. The middle paragraph above? We are on a globe....what brainless thought led you to believe I thought otherwise?
  17. 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. You continue to cowardly avoid the posts in this thread. Do so one more and it is more than enough to qualify as trolling. I don't assume we are on a ball, I know we are. Answer the posts. Answer the Moon inverted one or the Everest one. Come on Maths proponent, what are you afraid of?
  18. And you deny they all exist....ergo the bit I wasn't joking about.... Now galaxies either don't exist and all those space pictures from massive telescopes and long exposures are faaaaaake and a cast of millions are in on it. Or it is a truly dumb claim.
  19. I need to be banned for debating with a newbie raking up shit that has been covered already about a thousand times? Dude, if you really aren't aware of all the bloody plane parts you haven't been very observant. Oh wait...... Plenty more......for anyone who has paid even scant atention. I watched your piddly film dude, it's been done before and way better. You missed the boat by 15 years. Lies you say? Those pictures above say you are full of it! I said how come the building exterior is blown inwards. Your useless answer doesn't address that. Try again....you may not use the words "magic explosives" though I am seeing what the official account says and only YOU seem to dispute that there were plane parts found all over New York! Or you know fuck all about it and just made yourself look quite clueless.
  20. Magnesium and lots more than the daily dose. https://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/journal/2010-05/effect-oral-magnesium-supplementation-asthma
  21. I have assumed nothing whatsoever. I will not be patronized by somebody with your incredibly inept understanding who has about 10 posts alone on this thread that they cowardly avoid......A person who then spams the workings and lies of an imbecile - Eric Doyoubuy. https://flatearth.ws/eric-dubay If you cannot answer anything posted avove then kindly go back to the other thread where you can carry on evading proof almost every post. Free speech sadly allows people to speak and then place their heads back up their bottoms to avoid responses.
  22. SPAM. Answered in the other thread. Are you just going to ignore that list then? I've trimmed it down for you... Can you explain PROPERLY how the explosion at the plane impact point went inwards and bent the outer columns in that direction? An astonishing amount of work had to be done to fake this whole thing, why didn't they just fake some black boxes? Fairly simple to do. On the posted picture by me of an impact test where a jet hits a wall and breaks into tiny bits, why shouldn't the 911 plane do the same? How many people to plant it all, how were they paid, paper trail etc. Do you have evidence for planted wreckage, any dodgy pictures, witness accounts etc.? Do the multiple images provided show severe fire damage and lots of the plane now gone after it has landed at low speed and not impacted anything
  23. Is that a flounce? You going to ignore my little list?
  24. Do you mean the square bit? Notice the resolution issues with this? Then the issues associated with capturing such a fast object at 25 frames a second, then the problems associated with converting a video tape to a digital computer file, then the number of times it has been uploaded or shared, then the problems associated with formatting and compression. Are you aware of any of those potential issues? What rectification and checking have you performed on this and what methodology have you applied to the image to discount any of those issues? If there was no plane, where is the original plane and passengers, who mangled and distributed the burnt bodies and sprinkled dna around the area, who distributed the plane parts around New York, how did the explosion go inwards!! and basically that list of bullet points you ignored. I eagerly await your full and detailed rebuttal.
×
×
  • Create New...