The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

[poptart]

The earth curvature rate is approximately 8" x the distance squared, you couple of COMPLETE clowns!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

To compute the greatest distance at which an observer can see the top of an object above the horizon, compute the distance to the horizon for a hypothetical observer on top of that object, and add it to the real observer's distance to the horizon. For example, for an observer with a height of 1.70 m standing on the ground, the horizon is 4.65 km away. For a tower with a height of 100 m, the horizon distance is 35.7 km. Thus an observer on a beach can see the top of the tower as long as it is not more than 40.35 km away.


Think, 88 and smackaholic.
THINK!!






http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/



Click the links and do yourself a favor for once.

THINK!!

You two have crapped the bed so comprehensively here that it truly boggles the mind.
Un
Real

[Left Seater]

Those flights certainly prove your official flat earth maps as invalid and incorrect.

[poptart]

Those flights certainly prove your official flat earth maps as invalid and incorrect.

I've never produced what I claim to be the valid and official map of the world.

In fact, I've said SO many times now that it is incredible that I have to say it again, but I will...

I don't know for sure what the shape of the earth is.

If you do, and you're sure of it, be happy.
Don't bother with me and go on about your life.


I've already told you multiple times now that I WILL revisit the southern flights issue.
You don't trust me?

I will.

I don't have any further comment now.

[Goober McTuber]

LOL

You post a pic which *FAILS* to show us the 8" per mile earth curvature you assure us is correct -- and you then come back and call me delusional.

Answer the question, trolltart. Does the picture demonstrate the curvature of the earth?

[poptart]

Of course not.

Beyond that, the buildings on the right of the tower are supposed to be COMPLETELY GONE FROM VIEW if your model is right.

We see over and over that it is not the case.


You answer for your failed model.

[poptart]

Smart guy.

Good video.


The ball earth is totally ridiculous bullshit.

[Goober McTuber]

Of course not.

Beyond that, the buildings on the right of the tower are supposed to be COMPLETELY GONE FROM VIEW if your model is right.

We see over and over that it is not the case.


You answer for your failed model.

You do realize that Olcott is well east of St. Catharines and thus the adjacent buildings will not be in the same positions relative to the tower.

The main pod is three quarters of the way up the tower. Therefore, in the Olcott photo the bottom half of the 1800 foot tower is obscured by the water. Explain please, trolltart.

[poptart]

*bong hit*


You are off, and WAY off.




Goobler, the observatory level starts at 1,100 ft.
So the buildings on the right appear to be about 700 to 900 ft high.
Given the earth curvature we are supposed to have, those towers should be -----> INVISIBLE to us.

You've got a problem.
A BIG problem.

A portion of the tower and the buildings on the right are gone from view, yep.

That's why I posted the last video I did.
It's the effect of refraction.

The guy made the video because of misinfo regarding this...



A picture of Chicago from 60 miles away.
lol

With the supposed earth curvature, this obviously could not happen.
So fools immediately stated making excuses for it, even though people report that they've always seen the Chicago skyline like that from parts of Michigan -- far away.

So the video deals with the issue and explains why the excuses m0rons are making for it are, well, m0ronic.


Watch it.

[poptart]

Where be my bitches 88 and smackaholic??

Hiding like cowards?





250 miles (as the crow flies) from CN Tower to Pittsburgh.



"Look back, kids! See the CN Tower. You can still see 90% of it!! Wonderful."





According to the two geniuses!


LMAO!!!


Out
Freaking
Standing
!!

[Atomic Punk]

*bong hit*


A picture of Chicago from 60 miles away.
lol.

The person that took the picture was how high above the water in this one?

[poptart]

LOL

Really determined to 'tard it up tonight, eh?

60 miles away.

Plug some numbers in and see if it really matters in the least in this instance.

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

[poptart]

[poptart]

"Look back, kids! See the CN Tower. You can still see 90% of it!! Wonderful."

you being fucking stupid
You do not understand what you observe. At first I thought it was because you were blinded by a desire not to contradict anything in your Good Book. But now I'm beginning to believe you are just incapable of comprehending the science of the phenomena you observe with your own eyes. I'm going to light a candle for you.
You will probably not be able to appreciate the mathematical issues involved...
You do not understand math. And sadly, these are very simple concepts that can be proven true with a piece of paper, a pencil a string and a basketball or some other sphere.

BWAAAAA HAHAHAHA!!

[Atomic Punk]

*bong hit*


A picture of Chicago from 60 miles away.
lol.

The person that took the picture was how high above the water in this one?

You dodged my question pops. I asked how high above water was that picture taken? Having flown over oceans for 8 years, I can definitely tell you that wasn't taken at sea level. If you dodge and deflect again, you then KYOA once again. Also, before you tell me that is a big well-known lake and not an ocean to deflect, the point is the same. It is well above water level as evidenced by the wave patterns as seen below.

[poptart]

you then KYOA once again

LOL


More incredible assclownery.

Willis Tower is 1,700 ft high.
That means that even if we assume this picture was taken from a height of 60 ft (almost at the 6th floor of a building), ALL of the tower should still be hidden from our view.

To have what we have in this picture, we would have to have had this picture taken from at least an elevation of 500 ft -- or near the 50th story of a building.

Is that what you think is going on here?
lol





What is wrong with people?
Seriously?

[poptart]

Let's say you're curvature math is correct, Poppy. How does that support your flat Earth proposition?

Oh, it's correct.
I was correct on page freaking 4.

Since then I've been fending off one dickbag after the next.


My proposition is that the earth shape we've been sold is -----> FALSE.


Do I know the exact shape?
No.

I am exploring.

I believe the Bible.


mmmkay?

[poptart]

Another one of Chicago -- from St. Josephs, Michigan.
61 miles away.
Taken off of this blog: http://discoverstjoseph.blogspot.kr/





Not zoomed in as much as the other one, but it shows the same thing.

What's the elevation, AP?

rotf...

[poptart]

And spare me the "it multiplies geometrically", or whatever the fukk it was you were mumbling. What you are refering to with your moronic drawings has some significance over 60 degrees of change. 30 miles is a damn near imperceptible change.

LMAO!!

Come correct, dickless.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Jay did a shitty job of explaining things.

Well, in a couple of posts, yes I did. However, in my last post on this page, all points were exactly correct. You also notice 'tart had no answer or smart ass comeback for any of them, nor has he responded to last nights blood moon. He can continue to ramble on and on with his 8" math figures, but the round Earth facts are indisputable. AP has used the string and sticks and shadow experiment a couple of time now, which is also a solid proof.

88 using the ships and buildings vanishing below the horizon example is something I've covered as well, though he phrased it much better. Until pops can address these specific points and show them to wrong, which he cannot, all of his bluster is the same bullshit it has been from the beginning.

He says he doesn't know what shape the Earth is. He doesn't know much of anything else either. He believes quite a bit, but his knowledge is non-existent.

[mvscal]

Another one of Chicago -- from St. Josephs, Michigan.
61 miles away.
Taken off of this blog: http://discoverstjoseph.blogspot.kr/

There are only four buildings in Chicago? What happened to all the rest of them?

[Diego in Seattle]

*bong hit*


A picture of Chicago from 60 miles away.
lol.

The person that took the picture was how high above the water in this one?

You dodged my question pops. I asked how high above water was that picture taken? Having flown over oceans for 8 years, I can definitely tell you that wasn't taken at sea level.

Are you saying that you wouldn't have been able to tell that picture wasn't taken at sea level if you hadn't flown over oceans for 8 years???

That definitely doesn't speak well of pilot qualifications...

[Atomic Punk]

The idea that taking a picture from altitude and also at sea level gives 2 different aspects of the visible horizon. The higher in altitude, the farther the horizon. Now if pops thinks that if you go high enough over Lake Michigan, he might say eventually you could see Korea if the Earth was flat from that reference point... which is absurd. Those 2 pictures show a curvature of the Earth which he doesn't understand.

[Smackie Chan]

If you admit that buildings, ships, whatever disappear gradually from view at the horizon as a unction of the distance they are from view, and that these observations appear to be consistent no matter where they occur (e.g., Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan, the oceans etc.), then there has to be a consistent curvature to the Earth in order for these observations to be reconciled with each other. Does your "exploring" allow for that indisputable truth to be acknowledged?

And if you acknowledge that truth, then doesn't that lead you to Earth (or at least the part known to man and evidenced in photographs) being in some sort of three-dimensional configuration that at least features a surface that is curved, at least where it is covered by relatively large bodies of water?

Far be it from me to speak for tart, but I don't think he admits or acknowledges any of that save the math, with which he agrees. His point, as I understand it, is that we would observe something different if the earth were curved based on the math, and since we don't, it isn't curved.

I'm trying to keep an open mind (and a straight face), but it seems his takes are based on the buildings that can be seen on the horizon from relatively great distances, the southern flight thingy, NASA's pants being on fire, and Antarctica being closed. None of those individually or collectively sell me because I have issues with more basic points associated with a flat earth, like the existence of seasons, differing lengths of daylight, the sun tracing an east to west path each day rather than also appearing in the north and south, moon phases, lunar self-illumination, eclipses, and...night. Given the crude models he's offered, not sure what would block the sun's rays from reaching any point on the planet's surface, especially those near its center, ever.

But I'm sure there's valid tart science that can explain it all.

[Jay in Phoenix]

"tart science"? That would be known as an oxymoron.

Do all of the "math" you want, but the visual evidence speaks for itself.

If the numbers don't match what science has proven and what your own eyes can see, then there is something off with the math. Time zones are proof of this alone, as was mentioned before. So are the shifting constellations.

Enough of this.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Zetetciism

you'll find this Vice interview with the flat earth society: http://www.vice.com/read/flat-earth-soc ... erview-876

"What do you mean? How far away do you think the sun is?"
"It's about 2500 miles above us."

[smackaholic]

23 fukkin pages?

Let's see if we can run this bitch to 100!!!!

[Left Seater]

Tart - how do you answer this..........

The distance between Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town is 3775 miles,
and the distance from New York to London is 3470 miles.

If the disc theory was correct, it would be something like 4x as far between the Southern Hemisphere cities,
since you'd have to traverse the two points further from the center of the disc (ie the North Pole)

He doesn't Scott. This was posed pages ago and privately. His first response was flights between the S Hemisphere cities must stop and or there are hardly any flights. But then he was given multiple daily flights that don't stop and he is researching it and when he has something to discuss he will let us know. Until then there will be no answer and there will be no timeline for an answer.

[poptart]

As has been the case, it is impossible to answer every question, protest, or criticism.
Simply no time for it.

Stop crying, people.
Incredible.

Why don't you do one of two things?

1. Do your own research if you think the topic merits it. Enjoy doing it a little bit.
2. Just leave the thread alone. If poptart is a wack job, just let him stew in it.


Going back to page 21 to make a couple of comments about this video...

Why do you believe lying Scots?

1. There are things about the sun, equinox, etc. that I am exploring. Both on a flat earth model and a ball earth model. I'm not satisfied with how it (sun, equinox) relates to either ball earth or flat earth, right now.

2. Within the first minute, he speaks of west and east, but that very thing is based on a ball earth model. West and east on a flat earth move as soon as someone moves from their current spot on earth.

3. 7:40 he says, "the sun is very far away." This is his assumption. Then he goes on to talk about how the angle of the sun's rays are different depending on what part of the ball you are standing...

I would submit that the differing angles of sunlight people experience, depending on location on the earth, are that way because they light source (sun) is very close to the flat plane earth.

If you shine a light source on an object (of any shape) from up close, the object will be hit by rays of light coming at different angles.
If you move the light source very far away (like 93 million miles :wink: ) the light that comes upon the object will all come in at a near 90 degree angle all over it, sort of like a cover

[poptart]

Let's say you're curvature math is correct, Poppy. How does that support your flat Earth proposition?

Oh, it's correct.
I was correct on page freaking 4.

Since then I've been fending off one dickbag after the next.


My proposition is that the earth shape we've been sold is -----> FALSE.


Do I know the exact shape?
No.

I am exploring.

I believe the Bible.


mmmkay?

No. You are being mmmstupid.

If you admit that buildings, ships, whatever disappear gradually from view at the horizon as a function of the distance they are from view, and that these observations appear to be consistent no matter where they occur (e.g., Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan, the oceans etc.), then there has to be a consistent curvature to the Earth in order for these observations to be reconciled with each other. Does your "exploring" allow for that indisputable truth to be acknowledged?

And if you acknowledge that truth, then doesn't that lead you to Earth (or at least the part known to man and evidenced in photographs) being in some sort of three-dimensional configuration that at least features a surface that is curved, at least where it is covered by relatively large bodies of water?

And if you acknowledge that indisputable truth, don't you start running out of "exact shapes" that could reasonably and rationally conform to observation due to the amount of land and water that has been explored and observed to date?

Where are you going with this Pop? You are like LTSTRN2 and moving sale insofar as 9-11 is concerned. Despite the mountains of objective evidence that explains exactly what occurred that day, they deny that the "official" explanation is true and then when asked "Well, then what do you think happened that day" they say "I don't know what happened." That is bullshit. And what you are flapping on about in this thread is precisely the same thing. Put up or shut up. A proposition that "the earth shape we've been sold is -----> FALSE" is no proposition at all, unless an alternative explanation is provided that can be tested through independent observation.

If your belief system requires a flat Earth around which a sun passes (reversibly, as noted by Smackie), and a firmament and whatever else you are required to have, explain how that could be. Explain how the observations we make on Earth can be reconciled with that system. Otherwise, you need to STFU. Faith works fine as long as what it relates to is impossible to prove (e.g., the existence of a massless, weightless, permanent soul). But when matters of faith start venturing into the realm of science, it better be right or it will get the fuck pounded out of it in same manner you have in this thread.

You are delusional.

It's amazing that you would approach me in the manner you did with this post -- after having been TOTALLY EMBARRASSED by me over the past couple of pages.

You were very foolish, arrogant, ignorant, rude and most importantly,... WRONG.
Yes?

You had your ass soundly kicked on -----> math and science. LOL
Yes?


Now you approach me with...
You are being mmmstupid.
You are like LTSTRN2 and moving sale insofar as 9-11 is concerned.
That is bullshit.
And what you are flapping on about...
But when matters of faith start venturing into the realm of science, it better be right or it will get the fuck pounded out of it in same manner you have in this thread.

The last one is tits, dude.

-- Better be right or will get the fuck pounded out of it --


Hellooooo...


You should be licking your wounds and not producing more fodder for having your ass kicked by me.

Just some sound advice.



To answer your question -- http://aplanetruth.info/17-if-a-flat-ea ... n-go-down/

Clicky.

[poptart]

Jay did a shitty job of explaining things.

Well, in a couple of posts, yes I did. However, in my last post on this page, all points were exactly correct. You also notice 'tart had no answer or smart ass comeback for any of them, nor has he responded to last nights blood moon. He can continue to ramble on and on with his 8" math figures, but the round Earth facts are indisputable. AP has used the string and sticks and shadow experiment a couple of time now, which is also a solid proof.

88 using the ships and buildings vanishing below the horizon example is something I've covered as well, though he phrased it much better. Until pops can address these specific points and show them to wrong, which he cannot, all of his bluster is the same bullshit it has been from the beginning.

He says he doesn't know what shape the Earth is. He doesn't know much of anything else either. He believes quite a bit, but his knowledge is non-existent.

You've been wrong and have been schooled throughout the thread, boob.

stfu

[poptart]

Another one of Chicago -- from St. Josephs, Michigan.
61 miles away.
Taken off of this blog: http://discoverstjoseph.blogspot.kr/

There are only four buildings in Chicago? What happened to all the rest of them?

Are you really silly enough to follow Gobbler's failed playbook?

I guess. LOL


1. Dude, the buildings should be GONE COMPLETELY from view if the earth curves as you've ASSured us it does.
http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

2. If the earth curves, why isn't there any curvature seen going horizontally? Over that distance we see represented, a curve must be seen. It isn't. It's FLAT.

3.

4. Same link I gave for 88 - http://aplanetruth.info/17-if-a-flat-ea ... n-go-down/

[poptart]

If you admit that buildings, ships, whatever disappear gradually from view at the horizon as a unction of the distance they are from view, and that these observations appear to be consistent no matter where they occur (e.g., Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan, the oceans etc.), then there has to be a consistent curvature to the Earth in order for these observations to be reconciled with each other. Does your "exploring" allow for that indisputable truth to be acknowledged?

And if you acknowledge that truth, then doesn't that lead you to Earth (or at least the part known to man and evidenced in photographs) being in some sort of three-dimensional configuration that at least features a surface that is curved, at least where it is covered by relatively large bodies of water?

Far be it from me to speak for tart, but I don't think he admits or acknowledges any of that save the math, with which he agrees. His point, as I understand it, is that we would observe something different if the earth were curved based on the math, and since we don't, it isn't curved.

I'm trying to keep an open mind (and a straight face), but it seems his takes are based on the buildings that can be seen on the horizon from relatively great distances, the southern flight thingy, NASA's pants being on fire, and Antarctica being closed. None of those individually or collectively sell me because I have issues with more basic points associated with a flat earth, like the existence of seasons, differing lengths of daylight, the sun tracing an east to west path each day rather than also appearing in the north and south, moon phases, lunar self-illumination, eclipses, and...night. Given the crude models he's offered, not sure what would block the sun's rays from reaching any point on the planet's surface, especially those near its center, ever.

But I'm sure there's valid tart science that can explain it all.

There are many things to explore.

Things I'm sure of...

1. NASA is a totally ridiculous joke - and the moon landing fantasy is so absurd that anyone who believes that B.S. is either a child or has not cleared his mind enough to be able to think for himself.
Take some mushrooms and see if it helps.


2. The earth model we've been given since childhood is WRONG. The ball earth is idiotic.

[poptart]

Tart - how do you answer this..........

The distance between Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town is 3775 miles,
and the distance from New York to London is 3470 miles.

If the disc theory was correct, it would be something like 4x as far between the Southern Hemisphere cities,
since you'd have to traverse the two points further from the center of the disc (ie the North Pole)

I've not produced an earth model that I say is correct, Scott.

As I've said often, I am exploring and I have MANY more questions than answers.

[poptart]

23 fukkin pages?

Let's see if we can run this bitch to 100!!!!

You were dead wrong about your earth curvature rate, 'tard.

Embarrassingly so -- all the while name-calling and mocking me, right?


stfu

[poptart]

Tart - how do you answer this..........

The distance between Rio de Janeiro and Cape Town is 3775 miles,
and the distance from New York to London is 3470 miles.

If the disc theory was correct, it would be something like 4x as far between the Southern Hemisphere cities,
since you'd have to traverse the two points further from the center of the disc (ie the North Pole)

He doesn't Scott. This was posed pages ago and privately. His first response was flights between the S Hemisphere cities must stop and or there are hardly any flights. But then he was given multiple daily flights that don't stop and he is researching it and when he has something to discuss he will let us know. Until then there will be no answer and there will be no timeline for an answer.

Why do you need my answer?

If you're content that it proves that this is your earth...



errr... or one of 'em is your earth, so be it.

Enjoy it.

Poptart does not have to validate whatever you think.


You're worse than a child.

"Mommy, are we THEEEEEERE yet?!?"


You might get your answer from me 2 years from now.
Maybe 4 months from now.
Maybe next week.
Maybe Wednesday.
Maybe 6 years later.
I can't say for sure.
It's under consideration and exploration -- along with many things.

Answers to this (and other things :wink: ) may come VERY quickly.
Don't be surprised.

Forget about what poptart says.
Just fly your little plane around and do your job.
And make sure you keep tilting the nose of the plane down as you circle the earth -- so you don't blast off into space.

:wink:

[Moby Dick]

2. The earth model we've been given since childhood is WRONG. The ball earth is idiotic.

how can you say it's idiotic when there are questions from Lefty you can't answer?

[poptart]

If you think what he's posted proves that the earth model we've grown up with is true, enjoy it.
I think it does not.




L-R in this picture is a long haul.
Not sure how many miles, but for example, over a 30 mile distance, there needs to be a drop of 600 feet.

Is there?
There is no bend or curve at all.
It's flat.



For Seater's question...

Me not being prepared to give takes to his post at this time does not mean that there is no answer.

[Moby Dick]

our distance from the earth to our eyes is what on average? 5 ft 7inches at best?

[Left Seater]

Since Pop is prolly sifting thru the flat earthers sites for an answer to the previous questions, I have been poking at some of those sites myself to see what other flat earth people are saying. Not surprisingly they don't have a plausible explaination and their theories are very amusing.

But while there I stumbled across their explanation of the day/night cycle. Apparently the sun only shines on part of the flat earth at a time. Yet how is this possible if the earth is flat? Any light source overhead would be visible anywhere on this flat earth. Well they have it figured out. The sun is also flat and only projects light towards the earth. Further the sun has some sort of blinders that prevent light from spilling out towards the horizon.

On top of that their model has a hard time dealing with anything south of the equator and real observations. For example places on the equator experience exactly 12 hours of sunlight a day at certain times of the year. Their model can't replicate this. It only gets worse as you move south from the equator. On their model the amount of sunlight will always be less than 12 hours which we can observe to be false.

Pop is right on one thing, you should investigate some of these flat earth sites. The laughs and crazy are worth it, while seeing that they can't explain their own positions.

[Moby Dick]

I started watching a video the other day...and the way one guy explained the sun and moon is that when it got to one point in the sky...it would kinda...."warp" back to the original starting point in the east.


I turned it the fuck off after that.