Jump to content

Comedy Time

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Comedy Time

  1. Erm yes. Where are you seeing this? That square bit on the wing? Yes. I admire your constructive strawman, but if you go back one post and read what I said, it should all be clear to you. "You aren't seeing through anything. You are getting parts that are capturing the motion and parts that are not, leaving behind remnants. F1 cars aren't doing 500 mph." I have bolded the bit that confused you.
  2. Could you possibly please keep your off topic garbage in the other thread? This one is for the fence sitters capable of looking at the evidence and it concerns why the Earth CANNOT be flat. There are 10 or so posts at the start that are all ignored by you - kindly show some integrity and stay away or answer them.
  3. You aren't seeing through anything. You are getting parts that are capturing the motion and parts that are not, leaving behind remnants. F1 cars aren't doing 500 mph.
  4. Anyone who wants them. Originally someone else. I quoted them to show that your argument is old hat. For your future info....on the greyed out bit of the quote at the top in the right corner is a little arrow - takes you to the source of the quote. My quote comes from page 6. Feel free to answer all the posts from back then that were basically totally ignored.
  5. It certainly helps. I watched. It was Richard Hall and his dipshittery circus. A man who gives not a crap about the truth, merely the number of people he can get to watch and contribute to his living expenses. I saw him reading from a sheet of paper. I missed where he verified any of it. I am used to his brand of utter bewilderment with truth and it never changes. Nope. The Boeing 767-20 has a cruising speed of 540 mph. It has a "top speed" of 558 mph. These are manufacturers recommendations. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15407/can-a-boeing-767-200-fly-at-510-knots-at-a-height-of-400-metres "In short, flying a Boeing 767 in 400 m at 510 kts is not recommended, but is entirely possible and most likely even safe when done in calm air and by a calm pilot. It only won't last long, because the engines will not produce enough thrust to maintain that speed. Flying this dive requires guts, but no special skills." It hasn't dealt with it and you haven't provided any evidence. Dickie Hall doesn't count. What evidence. You didn't offer any to refute. As for it falling to bits at REAL maximum speed.... https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-role-of-aeroelastic-flutter-in-the-events-of-9-11.3359/ Tons of refuting content there.
  6. 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. https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/10/04/what-would-happen-if-you-fell-into-a-hole-that-went-through-the-center-of-the-earth/ 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.
  7. Are you aware that a film called September Clues already did this 13 years ago. It was ripped to pieces but still gets regurgitated every now and again. Video cameras are just not equipped to take pictures of things that move so fast and that distance between each frame - this is just video artefacts.
  8. Can you explain PROPERLY how the explosion at the plane impact point went inwards and bent the outer columns in that direction? Since you claim an astonishing amount of work was done to fake this whole thing, why didn't they just fake some black boxes? Fairly simple to do. On the posted picture 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. You stated that the impact was "perfectly straight square and rectangle hole" - how did the two pictures posted not disprove that? Please provide images where the outer columns bend outwards. Can you please, give me a follow up question to "yeah it was an explosion" bearing in mind the reporter knows it was a plane? 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 @singhz312 This crap has been covered before for about 15 years. just so you know.
  9. https://newsinsideout.com/2019/11/us-marine-corps-there-is-no-record-of-a-person-named-randy-cramer-ever-having-served-in-the-u-s-marine-corps/ VANCOUVER BC – NewsInsideOut.com been informed that on November 6, 2019, NASA Astronaut Ken Johnston Sr., a US Marine Corps (USMC) veteran, officially inquired of the responsible US Marine Corps Command Staff Sgt Nelson and Staff Sgt Cartwright at Los Lunas, N.M. Marine Base https://loslunasnm.gov/ and was duly informed that “there is no record of a person named Randy Cramer ever having served in the U.S. Marine Corps.” These USMC personnel first searched for any US Marine named Randy Cramer having served in the USMC between 1987 and 2004. These were the dates of the 17 years that Randy Cramer claims in your book and publicly for the last seven years since 2014 to have served on Mars. These USMC personnel also searched for whether the US Marine Corps has ever has a Captain rank by the name of Randy Cramer in its entire history. This search also came up Negative, when the entire data base of USMC personnel was searched. Assuming that this prima facie evidence is in fact true, that would mean that at the very least Randy Cramer could be found guilty of a federal felony and violation of the Stolen Valor Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/258/ for publicly putting himself forth as a military officer, not to mention the untold damage to Exopolitical research of perpetrating a sustained public hoax and fraud about his alleged participation in the U.S. presence on Mars. Randy Cramer’s apparent hoax and possible Stolen Valor felony as a US Marine Captain and Mars expeditionary force member came to light following a request by author Len Kasten of NewsInsideOut.com reporter Alfred Lambremont Webre of an endorsement of Kasten’s planned book Dark Fleet (2020: Bear & Co.) in which Randy Cramer appears as a major source. [See Letter below]. Don't tell me, it's a secret How amazingly convenient. He says he was in a secret thing and there is no record of him being in the non secret part of that thing. One of the most remarkable things that Cramer and other members of the SSP who have visited Mars say about the planet is that the air is breathable. It's blue atmosphere??????? Oh no it isn't......
  10. It is full of people who are lonely and need to be noticed. An indictment of society as a whole, as well as a glowing example of how social media destroys social people by connecting them direct to a bloody phone whilst they ignore each other. I don't post on these stupid platforms at all - anti-social media would be a better name.
  11. They wouldn't die, they would just keep being added to with the strong chance that others might be hoodwinked. Just like with your stuff. Oh, I've seen all you have to offer and heard all the crazy interviews. Laura and her "feminine gaia" business for example. Take your off topic crap elsewhere please. This thread is about why the Earth cannot be flat, not why some other insane conspiracy theory is true.
  12. @oz93666 You have been making posts on this subject for some considerable time. In all that time, not one single piece of hard evidence has emerged. Not one. But what could one reasonably expect from people who claim to have ridden in flying saucers to the Moon and Mars (and elsewhere). Images of the craft or interior. An explanation of the technology and a way to replicate it. Video or images of the off world bases. Some sort of paper trail for any of it. Construction blueprints. More whistelblowers than this small group of money making charlatans. Quite how you can continue to feed this claim without ever supplying anything other than the account of people making money from it is absurd. https://www.wearethemighty.com/military-culture/marines-on-mars-conspiracy?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4 "Cramer tells stories of deadly battles between Marines and native people of Mars before he was redeployed back to the moon to spend his last three years in service. Allegedly, the two main indigenous species on the planet are Reptilian and Insectoid — Cramer was told they were just dumb, savage beasts. But, of course, he soon found out they were intelligent beings who lived underground in hives and nests. The three eventually signed a peace treaty."
  13. You just fed the thread, which one are you? Being smarter than an "FE er" does not preclude the respondent from also being way smarter than people who for example believe in UFOs, NAZI flying saucers and off world gibberish. Your response is actually extremely rude and provocative and makes unproven absurd claims and assumptions about the mental state of flat earth believers. It also implies that people who take them to task do so, but aren't as "clever" as you .
  14. You can't actually have that both ways ---> 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. Tough one that. "God" gave AIDS to babies. Nice.
  15. Begging the question. And also I don't care what YOU think it is, what any silly bible-preaching crap says it is or what it actually is. Everything is going around the Earth comes to mind.
  16. You appear to have profound reading and comprehension problems affected by your inability to assess evidence contradicting your crazy belief. NOWHERE in your UN-REFERENCED quote did it say fixed stationary Earth. The damn things were used to plot latitude and longitude from star and PLANET positions. Regardless of what they understood of the Earth's relationship to what they were viewing. Source of that quote: https://www.kuriositas.com/2011/04/astrolabe-magnificent-computer-of.html So what does an astrolabe do and how were they useful in the ancient world? Firstly they are problem solving instruments – they compute things such as the time of day according the position of the sun and the stars in the sky. Like a computer, you input information and then you receive output. They were typically made of brass and had a 6 inch diameter, although as we will see much larger ones were made. A lot of astronomical problems, some as simple as finding the time of day or night, could be solved with the astrolabe. The ancients were also able to find out what time the sun would rise and set from the astrolabe. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/tops/astl-hist.html An astrolabe is a two-dimensional model of the celestial sphere. The name has its origins from the Greek words astron and lambanien meaning "the one who catches the heavenly bodies. An astrolabe is an instrument that once was the most used, multipurpose astronomical instrument. Historically, astrolabes were elaborately inscribed brass discs. The portability and usefulness of an astrolabe made it something like the multipurpose "lap-top computer" of our predecessors. With an astrolabe, an astronomer could make quite accurate measurements of the following things: position of celestial objects measure the time of the night (or of the day, using it as a mobile sundial or, more accurately by measuring the altitude of the sun) measure the time of the year, compute what part of the sky is visible at any time, determine the altitude of any object over the horizon, determine the current latitude, and determine (very accurately) the NPS orientation. Now run along and find a way to not keep shooting yourself in the foot and seek guidance from your creator on ways to improve your knowledge, that don't involve ignoring things completely!
  17. My blog: https://penguinsfalloff.blogspot.com/2017/06/as-internet-debates-go-one-concerning.html As internet debates go, the one concerning the shape of the Earth sits right up there with the truly bizarre. Unless you are insulated from reality or don't follow the trends on Youtube, you can't possibly have failed to notice the number of rather strange individuals who are claiming this lovely planet is in fact flat! Now, maybe you are like me and laugh to yourself at such claims, but in all seriousness, these people need to be educated in a few basics that without any effort at all, destroy their whole case. I'm going to start with the most obvious of obvious things. Namely the observable action of the Sun. It sets it rises, it never changes size. That in itself is simply impossible on a flat Earth model. Basic trigonometry using the flat Earth model for the Sun distance makes a complete mockery of the model itself. Shall we look at it? The actual verifiable angular diameter of the Sun viewed from anywhere on the planet, at any time of day and every day is 0.5 degrees. It varies very slightly by a small fraction, but that is what the human eye sees. It can be verified simply by viewing the Sun through clouds or a filter. The flat Earth model uses a quite ludicrous solar distance of 3,000 miles. It must do this as an inept attempt to explain day and night cycles(it fails miserably, but that is another story!). Using trigonometry, try not to laugh here, 3,000 miles and 0.5 degrees makes the Sun diameter 26.2 miles. Now at any given point where the Sun goes directly overhead(near the equator), that would be the nearest distance to the Sun at zenith, but not as it lowers or rises. So let's examine the Sun at say 45 degrees to the observer. 3,000 miles to zenith and a 45 degree angle to actual puts the Sun now at a distance of 4,240 miles. So, we have the Sun diameter at 26.2 miles and the distance is now 4,240 miles, it gives an angular diameter for the Sun at 0.35 degrees. Whoah there! A 45 degree elevation of the Sun returned a 30% reduction in its size compared to directly overhead. But folks, it gets way worse than that. Let's put the Sun down near the horizon at 15 degrees elevation(75 degrees off zenith). An angle of 75 degrees and 3000 miles to zenith puts the Sun at a distance of 11,600 miles. Now, this is where the crap hits the air conditioning system. The Sun diameter of 26.2 miles and a distance of 11,600 miles gives the angular diameter at 0.129! That is very slightly more than a quarter of what we actually see at 0.5 degrees. We're done already and that was just the first point! If you really want to kick the FE model whilst it's dead, how about the simple revelation that when the Sun is at 75 degrees from vertical it is 11,600 miles away! Standing on the equator in Singapore, the Sun still visible and not set yet, it sits 1000 miles short of zenith above the opposite side of the world! Even small children know it's the opposite on the other side of the world, ie. night time. If we move on to things like starfields rotating in opposite directions in Australia compared to the United Kingdom, there is no way for a flat Earth to explain this. Stars that are visible only in the Northern and Southern hemispheres exclusively. We also see the Lunar phases inverted in the Southern hemisphere. This has an "explanation" that is also quite ridiculous. It goes something like this: place a picture of the Moon on the ceiling, look at it from opposite sides of the room. Voila. Sadly, that is just nonsense. Here's a good way to show why: Imagine you are on a track that goes around the Earth at the same speed as the Moon on the same path it follows(on the FE model). Always you view the Moon just rising. At what point does it suddenly flip over! Another thing about the phases shows the sheer impossibility of the FE model. The Sun and Moon doing these great circles and one catching up the other. That's how they "explain" the phase changes. However, this creates a nasty and unavoidable problem. The Moon is visible at any one time across several thousands of miles of night sky. With a fixed position of Sun and Moon at any given time and a simultaneous visibility as stated, the crescent area of the Moon illuminated by the Sun, visible at opposite ends of this wide section, would be significantly different to each other. Clearly they are not! Speaking of the Moon, over many decades, Radio hams have bounced radio waves off of the surface and timed the returns. Just from an approximation of the time taken, it puts the Moon at a quarter of a million miles away. Yet all humans see the Moon pass in front of the Sun during eclipses. The "explanation" is that the radio hams are all lying or mistaken. This broad-based claim runs quite frequently amongst the FE fraternity, who quite frighteningly claim that all space travel is also faked, including the highly visible International Space Station! Put those dark glasses on, don't look through your telescope, here it comes over the horizon. You have to laugh at the madness really. The mantra is repeated to encompass literally million of human beings as complicit in the space travel "hoax". In addition to the ISS, smaller satellites are visible, trackable and exactly where their orbital paths say they should be. Those pesky radio hams pick up all sorts of signals from the satellites as they lock on and track them across the skies. Tens of millions of dishes all across Europe and North Africa, aim at TV satellites in geostationary orbit. These provide highly directional signals that simply stop being picked up outside the span of the transmission. There have been some 8,000 space launches recorded, including probes throughout the solar system. The number of people to be fooled or involved is astronomical, considering data is being received in massive volumes on a daily basis. This includes weather satellites for every country and data coming down in gigabytes per hour! Now one of the key issues the flat earth crowd complain about is not seeing the curve. If you use simple trigonometry and take a bog standard visual span of 90 degrees, at sea level head height, the human eye will simply be unable to detect the 4 hundredths of a degree of variance. At 1000 metres it's still a paltry 1 degree and by the time you get up to cruising altitude for a jet it has only mustered over 3 degrees. Just about visible. Going higher, at 100 kilometres it is still only 10 degrees variance. The Earth is very big, that is why we don't see much curvature. Here is a simple plot of the curvature : As you can see, the actual visible angles at very high altitudes are quite small. Cameras with wider angle than the effective visibility of the human eye will exaggerate this curvature. In addition, due to the way the light path changes as it crosses over the centre of the lens, it can invert the visible curve. During the transition between the visible curve and the inversion, it flattens. The flatties tend to have kittens when they see this occurring and make lots of noise, but they always fail to mention that cameras on weather balloons, filming this very thing, always pick up the obvious partials of a spherical layer of a full Earth. On a flat Earth, that is simply impossible. Second of the key issues is the complaint that we see things we shouldn't based on the curvature figures. Pretty much the standard reply to this whole thing is refraction of light as it passes through the atmosphere. There is also the effects of heat inversions that cause mirages and other variances. The most telling thing about this issue is that quite clearly, the bottom of these distant objects is missing. Numerous videos now reside on Youtube showing boats disappearing hull first, but rather than concentrate on that let's view Chicago from a variety of distances: The question is not why can we see more than we should, but where have the bottoms of the buildings gone! Over the curve of the horizon. Simple. So far we have discussed just simple things that should stop this flat Earth nonsense from even being raised, but never let facts and evidence get in the way of a good conspiracy. A conspiracy of millions over thousands of years, when poor old Richard Nixon couldn't keep the Watergate scandal quiet and worse, Bill Clinton couldn't silence the oral habits of female interns! Lunar eclipses. Another slam dunk of the FE theory. Quite simply put, the Earth moves between Sun and Moon and causes an eclipse. This is where the flatties get ridiculously amusing about what we are seeing, because clearly the flat Earth model has a major brain fart on this matter. Both Sun and Moon are visible in the sky! They claim some invisible object moves in front of the Sun's path to the Moon and blocks out most of the light. This is an object nobody on Earth can detect, even when it is doing the blocking! These lunar eclipses are predicted to the millisecond by astronomical data that goes back and forward as many years as is needed. Yet the flatties claim this is all made up because that isn't what we are seeing. Night and day, a fairly easy to understand occurrence for us all, is another nail in this dead duck coffin. The Sun is claimed to be 3,000 miles away on a path that mathematics prove is gibberish, illuminating in a way that is not consistent with basic physics or reality. With very little effort, it can be proven that the Sun illuminates half the globe at any given time. With refraction, this incursion creates zones of twilight. From the FE model, we have this circular flat earth and a Sun doing some bizarre unexplained rotation around the equator. A quick diagram showing this: It doesn't take much thought to see the problem here. The circular area of illumination does not create a 50% illumination of the Earth. In fact the only way to get the correct illumination is from a light source that creates a magic straight line across a diameter of the flat Earth circle. Blatantly impossible. All this whilst the spotlight disappears/reappears over the edge of the horizon and doesn't change size whatsoever. Don't forget that the Moon also does this exact same thing with no size change. All in all, observational evidence that slaps the forehead of every flatnut! Take a look at the FE model Earth from the picture above. The equator is provably 25,000 miles around. However the distance from the southern tip of South America all around to Tasmania is a circle that is double the distance of the equatorial circle. South America to Tasmania becomes 25,000 miles. Don't laugh. You can actually look at that idiotic map and show that only the pole to pole distances will match reality. The ones around in a circle most certainly do not. We're getting near the end of this dismantling exercise. Sadly I don't expect it to break through the hard shell of resistance routinely exhibited by flat Earth conspiracists, though hopefully it will stop those approaching the edge and about to fall off with the penguins! We haven't even touched on gravity, yet another thing denied by these barmy people, because there is no way it can work on a flat Earth. We also haven't discussed the mysterious forces that make the Sun and Moon magically revolve around the flat Earth in their thus proven impossible paths. Ah well, maybe another day.
  18. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11367986&postcount=369 Originally Posted by AcesHigh they can´t even give you a map of Earth. if you point the big problems with their map model (like me pointing out that Australians and Brazilians can see the Southern Cross at the SAME INSTANT while both look south), they claim "nobody claimed it´s a precise model" or "I didn´t give any map". then you ask a precise model and they say "we don´t have one, the ones who have it, like NASA, hide it from everybody else" They also cannot explain how, when you travel to Antarctica (and I have) that the Sun travels around the horizon and remains above the horizon 24/7 for at least several weeks, while at the same time, a person in The Arctic does not see the Sun at all over that same period. I have put this to a number of flat earth suckers believers over the years, and not one of them has ever been able to come up with an answer, or at least, one that didn't totally break all their other ridiculous explanations. ETA: But if you really want to blow their tiny little minds, point out that the midnight sun travels to your right in the Arctic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJe_SVgFBh0 ....and to the left in the Antarctic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-WlTaG7WY Ask them to explain why then sit back and enjoy all the bluff and bluster.
  19. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11375341&postcount=568 If the sun is 2500 miles above the earth's surface, then from 6000 miles away from the point directly beneath the sun it will appear at 22.62° above the horizon and be 6500 miles distant from the observer. So how big is the sun? The angular size of the sun varies between 0.545° and 0.5267°. Let's take the average of 0.53585° and round it to 0.536°. Now if we are at a position to observe the sun at the local zenith, directly under it, and we have the values of 0.536° for angular size and 2500 for distance, then we can determine that its actual size is 23.4 miles in diameter. But someone standing 6000 miles from the point directly under the sun should see the sun's angular size shrink to 0.206°, a 61% reduction. But, of course, everyone on earth sees the same angular size for the sun at the same time. (Sure, technically someone at the point closest to the sun sees it slightly larger than someone standing at the terminator, but the difference in distance is only about 0.004%.) For the observer 6500 miles from the sun to see it with an angular size of 0.536°, it would have to be 60.8 miles in diameter. The zetetic model just doesn't work. Then there's the problem of the moon. Everyone on earth sees virtually the same face of the moon at the same time. Two people seeing the moon from opposite sides of the earth at the same time will only see a rotational difference of 1.9° between them. But for the moon to be closer to the earth's surface than 2500 miles, let's say 2490 miles, Then the difference in angle for two observers standing 6000 miles apart would be a whopping 67.5°! From the earth, we'd be able to see most of the moon's surface, rather than slightly over half of it. And the moon would still have the same problems as the sun in regard to angular size. And there's still the problem of what compass heading people see the sun at from various locations, and the apparent motion of the stars from the southern hemisphere. Sorry, but the zetetic cosmology is just a gnostic cult for people who can't do basic geometry, but want to think they're among the world's cleverest thinkers.
  20. Point 3 below proves the Earth is not flat all on its own... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11348378&postcount=117 There are three enormous holes in his explanation. 1. The vanishing point. If the Earth really is flat, the vanishing point of the observer's point of view is at the observer's eye height above the ground. If the observer is six feet tall, the vanishing point is six feet above ground level. If the observer is on top of a 10,000 foot mountain, the vanishing point is 10,000 feet above ground level. The video shows the sun BELOW his vanishing point (6pm), something that he himself implies is impossible, then he ignores the fact that his diagram shows exactly that. 2. The apparent diameter of the Sun. If the Earth really is flat, and the sun really is 3,000 miles above the surface and travels parallel to the Earth's surface, then it would appear to get smaller as it got further away from the observer. The difference would be dramatic - at twice the distance, the Sun would be half the apparent size it is overhead. By the time the Sun reached the horizon, it would appear little more than a small spot of bright light. 3. Relative angular velocity of the Sun. The Sun tracks across the sky at a rate of 1° every 4 min (15°/hr). This is an undeniable, observable fact. Taking the starting point as the Sun overhead the observer, if the Sun was travelling at a constant speed on a flat Earth, it would appear to get slower and slower as it approached the horizon. The only way to reconcile this with the ob served facts is for the Sun to accelerate as it approaches the horizon.... and it would never get there because in order to do so, it speed would need to reach infinity.
  21. If you are a fence sitter, genuinely curious or are falling into the abyss of flat earth belief....the following videos absolutely annihilate the notion. Yes they are a bit derogatory in places, but very informative at the same time. Don't be afraid to watch these if you need help.....
  22. From Sydney to North Pole is 8,560 miles. Though of course any flat earther can simply deny this without offering the real distance saying "I don't know"!! But according to the flat earth map distances from pole to pole are the same as for the globe. Circumference at Sydney is 53,790 miles. Perth 115.8605° E Sydney 151.2093° E Difference is 35.35 degrees a tad under 10% of the circumference. Sydney to Perth on flat earth map is 5,300 miles rounded down. http://distancebetween2.com/sydney/perth#:~:text=The total straight line distance,to Perth is 2045.2 miles. Only it it's just over 2000 miles!!!
  23. https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362 Behind the Curve One of the more jaw-dropping segments of the documentary comes when Bob Knodel, one of the hosts on a popular Flat Earth YouTube channel, walks viewers through an experiment involving a laser gyroscope. As the Earth rotates, the gyroscope appears to lean off-axis, staying in its original position as the Earth's curvature changes in relation. "What we found is, is when we turned on that gyroscope we found that we were picking up a drift. A 15 degree per hour drift," Knodel says, acknowledging that the gyroscope's behavior confirmed to exactly what you'd expect from a gyroscope on a rotating globe. "Now, obviously we were taken aback by that. 'Wow, that's kind of a problem,'" Knodel says. "We obviously were not willing to accept that, and so we started looking for ways to disprove it was actually registering the motion of the Earth." Despite further experimental refinements, Knodel's gyroscope consistently behaves as if the Earth is round. Yet Knodel's beliefs seem unchanged when discussing the experiment at a Flat Earth meetup in Denver. "We don't want to blow this, you know? When you've got $20,000 in this freaking gyro. If we dumped what we found right now, it would be bad. It would be bad. What I just told you was confidential," Knodel says to another Flat Earther in attendance. 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. Campanella's proposed laser experiment, as seen in Flat Earth documentary "Behind the Curve," now streaming on Netflix.DELTA-V PRODUCTIONS 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's proposed light experiment, which seems to invalidate the Flat Earth theory at the ending of documentary "Behind the Curve," now streaming on Netflix.DELTA-V PRODUCTIONS 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.
  24. There is no explanation for this on the flat earth. If anyone wants to post the nonsensical claim used to "explain" this, I shall destroy it with the simplest of diagrams.
  • Create New...