Flat Earth

[notbatman]

^^^ Albert Michelson, Edward Morley, Georges Sagnac, Alexandre Dufour and Fernand Prunier, that's five scientists not two and they're all big names.



"It's Photoshop but, but it has to be" -- NASA explaining how photographs of Earth are made.

[1714165186]

1714165186

[1714165186]

1714165186

[—]

I have not read the whole thread, but i need to ask a question i have always wondered about flat earth theory. When the earth is flat, then all of the satellite GPS system should render useless. I reckon millions if not tens of millions have to be fully aware that the earth is flat - all aerospace and military occupations - because it would not be possible to use a map to call in artillery barrage or a tactical airstrike.

All Military use correct map,  Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)  or NATO's system, Military Grid Reference Sysytem (MGRS)
https://imgur.com/yI94ewM (zoom in) in 4D it probably works out something like so https://i.imgur.com/PpprLxi.png
https://mappingsupport.com/p2/gissurfer.php?center=14SQH05239974&zoom=4&basemap=USA_basemap


Research 4D (there is no limit of dimensions)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGO12Z5Lw8s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyuRLmCphHc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4ruHJFsb4g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGguwYPC32I
4D Roller Coasters: Explained
And the sell-out Carl Sagan

[BADecker]

^^^ Albert Michelson, Edward Morley, Georges Sagnac, Alexandre Dufour and Fernand Prunier, that's five scientists not two and they're all big names.



"It's Photoshop but, but it has to be" -- NASA explaining how photographs of Earth are made.

They were simply enhancing photos of globe earth. They would have been misrepresenting the photos if they enhanced them to show a FE.

[notbatman]

Why would (((they))) neglect to tell us that California was an island, in school, on TV and in every book and magazine ever printed?

[BADecker]

^^^ But that's not the kind of island that California is. California is a political island. And you fit right in.

[notbatman]

Something's amiss here.

[BADecker]

^^^ And it's way closer to home than you think!     

[BADecker]

Hey! There's a new thread called Next Batman: Robert Pattinson. When are we going to get a new notbatman in this thread?

 

[odolvlobo]

1. Launch a balloon with your own camera attached to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAifzh7_-cg

Watch notbatman rage about fisheye lens or some other weird invented optical illusion that makes the earth appear as round. He refuses to test anything by himself.

But it is a fisheye lens. You can easily see the distortion when the balloon first launches. That video contains no proof at all. A person who claims that it shows that the earth is round diminishes their own credibility.

In fact, pictures from balloons are not good proof of flat or round earth. Even if the image is not distorted, the earth is going to look flat (whether it is or not) at 80,000 ft. At 80,0000 ft. with a "normal" perspective (90 degrees from side to side), the horizon of a round earth is going to deviate from a straight line by only about 4%. You aren't going to see that in a video.

[BADecker]

^^^ The problem with your thinking is outer space. The camera distinctly shows outer space. If the earth were flat in any way that notbatman and his colleagues suggest, you wouldn't see space. All you would see is the white ice and a dome touching down. At worst you would see a haze off in all directions because of the perspective and atmospheric distortions that FE people talk about. But the video shows a distinct division between Earth and space.

If the earth was in any way flat in the video, it would have to be pizza-flat... at best a disk in space. And the camera would have to be directly over the center of the disk to keep it from showing as oblong rather than round.

So, the earth might have a weird shape, but it certainly is not flat in the sense the notbatman suggests. Since the standard shape of things held together by gravity or static electricity in free-fall (as a chunk of not-"glued"-together material in space) tends towards the spherical, probably earth is nearly a globe or something similar.

[Astargath]

^^^ Albert Michelson, Edward Morley, Georges Sagnac, Alexandre Dufour and Fernand Prunier, that's five scientists not two and they're all big names.



"It's Photoshop but, but it has to be" -- NASA explaining how photographs of Earth are made.

So is newton, einstein, etc and you dont believe any of them even though they are far more famous and important, any reason why you believe those ones?

[odolvlobo]

At worst you would see a haze off in all directions because of the perspective and atmospheric distortions that FE people talk about.

That's a good point. A camera at that height would have no FE atmospheric refraction to prevent it from seeing the edge, and beyond.

[Astargath]

At worst you would see a haze off in all directions because of the perspective and atmospheric distortions that FE people talk about.

That's a good point. A camera at that height would have no FE atmospheric refraction to prevent it from seeing the edge, and beyond.

I'm just curious if notbatman even leaves his house at all, how does he know australia is real if he doesn't live there? Could be another hoax by NASA.

[BADecker]

^^^ Everyone knows that notbatman believes that GE posts are placed here by NASA.

[notbatman]

Anybody with a good zoom lens can see for themselves if the Earth is flat, look how easy it is to prove:

Simple Flat Earth Distance to the Horizon Test -- https://youtu.be/X8YrYoCyw0g

[BADecker]

^^^ Video is too unscientifically done to prove anything regarding the shape of the earth.

[notbatman]

^^^ Even if the strictest most scientifically possible setup is employed it doesn't change what is being observed, the horizon is farther than can be explained by a globe. If you want some proof the Earth is flat that can be replicated by almost anybody, well there you go; distance to the horizon.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

https://youtu.be/m4kM5zwxThE

 

[BADecker]

^^^ Even if the strictest most scientifically possible setup is employed it doesn't change what is being observed, the horizon is farther than can be explained by a globe. If you want some proof the Earth is flat that can be replicated by almost anybody, well there you go; distance to the horizon.

Exactly the point... the strictest scientifically possible setup.

Since you seem to rely on things that are just about the sloppiest non-scientific setups, that's why you are having trouble telling where the horizon is.

Nobody wants proof that the earth is flat or globe or anything else from sloppy videos like the ones you present. Why not? Because people absolutely know that they can't even get evidence, to say nothing about proof, from such videos.

[notbatman]

^^^ Distance to the horizon is a test you do yourself with your own camera you goof. If the test in the video(s) doesn't meet your standards then do it yourself!

https://youtu.be/m4kM5zwxThE

 

"Flat Earth rising: meet the people casting aside 2,500 years of science"

So let me get this straight, when I point out that atmospheric refraction was unknown 2500 years ago and reject observations that don't account for the phenomenon [of refraction] I'm casing aside science? I've got an idea, why don't the producers of this video go hang themselves with piano wire?