sickofallthebollocks Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 A very compelling view of Earth from up on high - annoying that they make the effort to go all the way up there - to film with a normal camera that is not a fisheye lens - and the camera only pans a few degrees to the left and right? After all that trouble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickofallthebollocks Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 This lighthouse that is 13.8 miles away is supposed to be hidden (due to the earths curvature) behind at least 80 foot of water, however, it can be zoomed in on using a powerful camera (nikon p1000) Water does not retain a curve. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 4 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said: This lighthouse that is 13.8 miles away is supposed to be hidden (due to the earths curvature) behind at least 80 foot of water, however, it can be zoomed in on using a powerful camera (nikon p1000) Water does not retain a curve. What height is the camera above the water? Without providing full information there's no way that 80ft drop can be calculated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonTV Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaleP Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 2 hours ago, webtrekker said: What height is the camera above the water? Without providing full information there's no way that 80ft drop can be calculated. It is on the ground level. You can see sandy beach at the bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickofallthebollocks Posted February 22 Share Posted February 22 3 hours ago, webtrekker said: What height is the camera above the water? Without providing full information there's no way that 80ft drop can be calculated. Not sure about this Web, as dale mentions, it seems the camera is on some kind of short-medium height tripod just sitting on the sand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 On 2/23/2023 at 12:17 AM, sickofallthebollocks said: This lighthouse that is 13.8 miles away is supposed to be hidden (due to the earths curvature) behind at least 80 foot of water, however, it can be zoomed in on using a powerful camera (nikon p1000) Water does not retain a curve. If the drop is 8" per mile over that distance the total drop is 9.2 ft ,if you apply the equation in both directions you have a drop from each side of the horizon with regards to line of sight of 4.6 ft that is a little shy of 80ft and I see the magical Nikon P1000 has be mentioned for the umpteenth time. You should finish the statement water doesn't retain a curve (IN A CONTAINER) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickofallthebollocks Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 4 hours ago, peter said: If the drop is 8" per mile over that distance the total drop is 9.2 ft ,if you apply the equation in both directions you have a drop from each side of the horizon with regards to line of sight of 4.6 ft that is a little shy of 80ft and I see the magical Nikon P1000 has be mentioned for the umpteenth time. You should finish the statement water doesn't retain a curve (IN A CONTAINER) You're very correct there? The drop according to earth with curvature is 8" per mile? Big error there by the poster and by me for hastily posting this, thanks Peter. Yes I suppose you're right there too (regarding the container statement) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Concerned Citizen Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said: You're very correct there? The drop according to earth with curvature is 8" per mile? Big error there by the poster and by me for hastily posting this, thanks Peter. Yes I suppose you're right there too (regarding the container statement) I thought the calculation was approximately 8" per mile squared. So that would be 13.8 squared x 8" = 1,523.52" i.e. about 126.9 feet. Do correct my calculation if it is incorrect. I am sure the squared term is there and is often forgotten. Edited February 23 by Concerned Citizen extra added 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sickofallthebollocks Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 3 minutes ago, Concerned Citizen said: I thought the calculation was approximately 8" per mile squared. So that would be 13.8 squared x 8" = 1,523.52" i.e. about 126.9 feet. Do correct my calculation if it is incorrect. I am sure the squared term is there and is often forgotten. Thanks CC, maths was never my strongpoint, I'm sure confused here?..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, sickofallthebollocks said: You're very correct there? The drop according to earth with curvature is 8" per mile? Big error there by the poster and by me for hastily posting this, thanks Peter. Yes I suppose you're right there too (regarding the container statement) This poster is very underhanded,where do you build lighthouses ,on a cliff,one would have to ask how tall are the cliffs and how tall is the lighthouse also I checked his math and he has used 8" squared per mile which is incorrect. Lets just say it is correct however, over that distance you would have a drop of 883.2 " or 73.6 ft then he has taken the liberty to round this figure up to 80ft an increase of 6.4ft or 4.71 % nearly one 20th of the total figure. Now if you add the height of the lighthouse and the height of the cliffs together ,we don't know but I would surmise they are a little bit more than eighty feet and therefore even with this great inaccuracy would still be visible. So lets apply the equation correctly ,since we are actually using line of sight from the camera lens to the lighthouse that would give us a mid point or horizon of 6.9 miles,therefore the total drop from the horizon to each point (at sea level) is only going to be 36.8 ft,and remember these are highly inflated figures,and no I haven't taken the height of the lighthouse and camera lens into account as these are unknown ,on purpose I would imagine Edited February 23 by peter 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaleP Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) It says 'ancient', bound to be right. And if NASA is saying the Earth is a globe, it is bound to be a lie, you can be sure of it. They've been lying to us all this time, why change anything? Now my question is..... you hear about earthquakes caused by the tectonic plates movement. How does that work in the FE model? Furthermore, I have a problem with the above model. We are back to zero..... why the water above the firmament is spherical? What keeps it? Another firmament? Edited February 24 by DaleP 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexa Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 4 hours ago, DaleP said: Now my question is..... you hear about earthquakes caused by the tectonic plates movement. How does that work in the FE model? Furthermore, I have a problem with the above model. We are back to zero..... why the water above the firmament is spherical? What keeps it? Another firmament? Good questions here Dale. IMO -Earthquakes are caused by the expansion/the growing of the earth & after the firmament are the Heavens, I've no idea why the Ancients would depict the waters as spherical. You've got me here Maybe space as we know it is all water and is what the whole earth floats in. As it tells us in scriptures, He hangs the earth upon nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 54 minutes ago, peter said: If you can't beat them join them, with utube I mean MOD NOTE: I thought you didn't do YouTube. No excuses in future when asked to give some evidence!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 1 hour ago, Bombadil said: MOD NOTE: I thought you didn't do YouTube. No excuses in future when asked to give some evidence!!! It was about why people believe in a flat earth and exclude all evidence to the contrary , if it was a bit close to home and rattled a few cages sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadil Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 1 hour ago, peter said: It was about why people believe in a flat earth and exclude all evidence to the contrary , if it was a bit close to home and rattled a few cages sorry No it was because, historically you have refused to use videos to back yourself up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) 6 hours ago, Bombadil said: No it was because, historically you have refused to use videos to back yourself up. No that is not entirely true ,I have said that I don't do videos either for or against because I like to think for myself, however since I have said the very same thing previously in this thread a long time ago with regards to flat earth beliefs and religion,I thought the video was valid,like I said if it was a bit close to home ,sorry Edited February 24 by peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperstarNeilC Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexa Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 29 minutes ago, SuperstarNeilC said: Thanks for this video Superstar, spot on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexa Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Hugo Talks - In this video he talks about Flat Earth @ 9:36. Is he wrong or is he right ? I would say half & half see my thread Embryonic Earth; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webtrekker Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Crazy how this thread continues while no one has answered my post from ages ago that entirely refutes a Flat Earth. So, once again - where can I obtain a Nautical Almanac for accurate navigation on Flat Earth? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 5 hours ago, webtrekker said: Crazy how this thread continues while no one has answered my post from ages ago that entirely refutes a Flat Earth. So, once again - where can I obtain a Nautical Almanac for accurate navigation on Flat Earth? Don't feel singled out ,no one has answered any of mine either, I could put up a list ,but I would be wasting my time I haven't seen one, however if they do indeed exist I would try Gone Bonkers ,Silly Sollies,King Kong or any other $2 discount store. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexa Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 6 hours ago, webtrekker said: Crazy how this thread continues while no one has answered my post from ages ago that entirely refutes a Flat Earth. So, once again - where can I obtain a Nautical Almanac for accurate navigation on Flat Earth? I thought your question got answered a few pages back by @Diesel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaleP Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 6 hours ago, webtrekker said: Crazy how this thread continues while no one has answered my post from ages ago that entirely refutes a Flat Earth. So, once again - where can I obtain a Nautical Almanac for accurate navigation on Flat Earth? I agree on this occasion. alexa has posted a Simpson's video which indicated the firmament and water above so that should have concluded that FE is true. I guess people missed that post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaleP Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 On 2/25/2023 at 5:03 PM, SuperstarNeilC said: On 2/25/2023 at 5:35 PM, alexa said: Thanks for this video Superstar, spot on alexa gave so I'll watch it later when I have calmed down. btw, SuperstarNeilC...... it's possible that I am having a Mandela effect moment.... I thought your name has always been SuperSonicC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.