Absolute proof.. can't deny.. the earth is flat

[Shrewd Manager]

I would have to verify your claims, but Flat Earthers often ignore the fact that the atmosphere regularly refracts light. We can see that on a small scale with mirages. I have seen photos where flat earthers misidentified landmarks. And even if they do not there are three factors that one needs to consider. The height of the object being observed. The height of the observer. And the amount of refraction on that day. If one sees something that one does not appear on every cloudless day it is a good bet that what you are seeing is a result of refraction.

That's a world record long distance photo, not taken by a FEer.
443 KM | Finestrelles, Pyrenees – Pic Gaspard, Alps

There are many many similar examples around.

Many atmospheric variables can affect visibility, including heat, water, humidity, elevation, pollution, haze, etc. There's just no basis to deduce that refraction is the only explanation for why an object may be intermittently visible.

By the way, even if accurate those photos would not refute a spherical Earth. It would only refute an Earth with our known diameter. And even if it showed that the Earth was not a sphere it would still not be evidence for a Flat Earth. Do you understand this?

Of course, but at some point it has to curve, if it's a ball. And this should be physically measurable.

NASA is a reliable source. Like it or not I do not need a report for that.

The Nasa Bible eh. Any scientific claim requires verification, no matter what your subjective opinion is as to the quality of its authorship.

False, there is nothing wrong with pictures that use digital imagery. If that is the case you just refuted the image that you posted. Like it or not that is a digital image too. Anything that you see on your computer is digital. There is nothing wrong with that sort of picture. Once again, if you want to claim that they are fake the burden of proof is upon you. I did not reject your picture just because it was digital.

Exactly, I don't put a lot of stock in the Canigou pic, however, it can be independently verified by others going and trying it for themselves. It's about the process. You'll see the observations usually carried out in an FE optical distance experiment include filming the setup, zooming in and out of the object, filming the image in the viewfinder with a local handheld camera, and so on.

No, you like most science deniers do not know what a valid source is. In the sciences honesty is extremely important If someone is shown to be a liar it is the end of his career most of the time. To be reliable in the sciences one must put one's ideas through the gauntlet of peer review. You are projecting. You are the one with cult like beliefs since you do not understand the concept of evidence or how we know what is reliable and what is not.

No source is above verification. Even the Bible teaches us to check and confirm Biblical claims. That's intellectual honesty, not hiding behind reputation and titles.

I did at the end of the post. You do not seem to realize how difficult that is with an immense globe. It is not until one gets to the height of the ISS that the curvature begins to be blatantly obvious.

There are much better scientific means of testing curvature down here than optical methods. Try any line of sight EM technology, such as laser, radio, radar, sonar, microwave...they all propagate much further than predicted on a ball. Even lighthouses are notoriously visible at distance well past the predicted hidden height.

Those pictures do not appear to be easy to fake. Flat Earthers cannot seem to do so.
Where did you get those numbers from? Another Flat Earther? Here is the info that you need. How high the towers are. The amount of the towers that are covered by the curve, and the altitude of the person taking the picture.

I'm taking a wild guess by the extreme curvature shown in the pic. Obviously it implies a far smaller ball than 40k km circumference. If you want to do your own calcs, plug some guesstimates in here:
Earth Curve Calculator

For every single Lake Pontchartrain pic you can show me, I can show you 10 videoed careful experiments from 'all round the world' showing the opposite. A handful of isolated photos is not strong evidence.

 

[ewq1938]

None of them have done a north-south circumnavigation. Wonder why that is. Good to see someone's actually trying to put forth proofs, though!



If you check the logs of the great explorers like Captain Cook, you'll find otherwise (interminable ice walls, not falling off!).



Well, that gives me some hope you'll look into it further.

I have looked into it further. I see no convincing evidence, and find convincing evidence for a sphere planet. Satan wants us to deny God and his Christ and moral laws etc. The shape of the Earth isn't something that would be important, not for Satan nor any government.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

How do you know that? Now I cannot pull up any such circumnavigations without doing a search for it, but by your claim you appear to be able to prove that no such event ever happened. Be careful with what you claim. You just put the burden of proof upon yourself.

You're right, it's been claimed to have been done, on only a handful of occasions. This is a study in itself, because each of the claims has either been debunked or has various problems. It's an area I haven't reviewed for a few years, and can't really be bothered digging up the research again right now.

Citation needed.

The Ice Wall Must Be Very Tall
Just a summary there in the OP, but you can dig up the actual account if you search a bit more.

You cannot even explain sunrise and sunset with your model.

Of course it's explained. What's hard to understand about a receding object that follows lines of perspective until it apparently disappears over the horizon? Watch a jet plane.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I have looked into it further. I see no convincing evidence, and find convincing evidence for a sphere planet. Satan wants us to deny God and his Christ and moral laws etc. The shape of the Earth isn't something that would be important, not for Satan nor any government.

Think you're wrong about all that. If you can find scriptural or physical evidence of curvature, then you'll be vindicated. And Satan is the compulsive liar who runs the world. Of course the Copernican Principle has his hallmarks all over it (ie the teachings that we're insignificant and the Bible got it wrong).

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a world record long distance photo, not taken by a FEer.
443 KM | Finestrelles, Pyrenees – Pic Gaspard, Alps

There are many many similar examples around.

Many atmospheric variables can affect visibility, including heat, water, humidity, elevation, pollution, haze, etc. There's just no basis to deduce that refraction is the only explanation for why an object may be intermittently visible.

I didn't say it was the only answer. But that distance does not seem to be very much higher than is predicted by an Earth curve calculator. This site gives you the formula to use. Remember, you need to do it twice. Once for the height of the distant mountain and once again based on the elevation of the observer:

Earth Curvature Calculator - Calculate the curve you should see

Of course, but at some point it has to curve, if it's a ball. And this should be physically measurable.

And it has been measured. I merely gave examples you could see or check yourself.

The Nasa Bible eh. Any scientific claim requires verification, no matter what your subjective opinion is as to the quality of its authorship.

You can check the credentials of NASA sources yourself. Your complaint is toothless since you, nor any Flat Earther has the ability to challenge any source that I know of.

Exactly, I don't put a lot of stock in the Canigou pic, however, it can be independently verified by others going and trying it for themselves. It's about the process. You'll see the observations usually carried out in an FE optical distance experiment include filming the setup, zooming in and out of the object, filming the image in the viewfinder with a local handheld camera, and so on.

I just assumed that it was reasonably reliable and put the numbers into the Earth curve calculator. There does not appear to be an unreasonable distance.

No source is above verification. Even the Bible teaches us to check and confirm Biblical claims. That's intellectual honesty, not hiding behind reputation and titles.

The Bible fails quite often when one does that.

There are much better scientific means of testing curvature down here than optical methods. Try any line of sight EM technology, such as laser, radio, radar, sonar, microwave...they all propagate much further than predicted on a ball. Even lighthouses are notoriously visible at distance well past the predicted hidden height.

Any EM technology is subject to refraction. Which means that at times people will "see too far" for a globe of 25,000 miles diametter. But they never see as far as predicted by flat Earth believers.

I'm taking a wild guess by the extreme curvature shown in the pic. Obviously it implies a far smaller ball than 40k km circumference. If you want to do your own calcs, plug some guesstimates in here:
Earth Curve Calculator

LOL, I just linked the same source for you. Too late at night for me.

For every single Lake Pontchartrain pic you can show me, I can show you 10 videoed careful experiments from 'all round the world' showing the opposite. A handful of isolated photos is not strong evidence.

No, you can't. Because for your model you need to be able to see far past variations predicted by refraction. You would need US to Europe distances.

 

[ewq1938]

Think you're wrong about all that. If you can find scriptural or physical evidence of curvature, then you'll be vindicated.

The bible speaks of the Earth as a circle and a sphere is a type of a circle. As others have said, the bible isn't a detailed technical manual for the Earth or science etc.

I was researching the bible for descriptions earlier and found this:

Job 37:12 And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth.


"face of the world: is "פָּנִים (pânı̂ym) תֵּבֵל (têbêl)"

Face:


H6440
פָּנִים
pânı̂ym
paw-neem'
Plural (but always used as a singular) of an unused noun (פָּנֶה pâneh, paw-neh'; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.): - + accept, a (be-) fore (-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront (-part), form (-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him (-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look [-eth] (-s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason, of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them (-selves), through (+ -out), till, time (-s) past, (un-) to (-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with (-in, + stand), X ye, X you.
Total KJV occurrences: 2120


So we have "the face of the world". On a persons head, the face is part of a roundish skull. Not perfectly round but it is spherical. Globalists (ball shaped) do not believe the Earth or any planet or moon is perfectly spherical just like FE does not deny there are valleys and mountains on a non-perfectly flat Earth.

Now, the very language of "the face of the world" strongly implies the bible is describing a spherical shaped Earth with a face or important part. If one was in heaven and looking at a distant Earth, the part "facing" heaven would be the "face of the world" but the rest of the world would still exist, just not visible until the Earth slowly rotates. That would be like a moving face and is still part of the rest of a sphere.

This is the strongest evidence of a spherical Earth in the bible using very colloquial language that most people at the time could understand since they knew people have a spherical head with a face in the front. The face can turn and so does the face of the world. Combine that with scripture that uses the term "circle" and the shape of the world is fairly clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're right, it's been claimed to have been done, on only a handful of occasions. This is a study in itself, because each of the claims has either been debunked or has various problems. It's an area I haven't reviewed for a few years, and can't really be bothered digging up the research again right now.



The Ice Wall Must Be Very Tall
Just a summary there in the OP, but you can dig up the actual account if you search a bit more.



Of course it's explained. What's hard to understand about a receding object that follows lines of perspective until it apparently disappears over the horizon? Watch a jet plane.

You need a valid source when quoting.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

And it has been measured. I merely gave examples you could see or check yourself.

Citation needed lol. Seeing digital photos is not believing. With respect, the Lake Ponchartrain is a ridiculous caricature. The apparent rate of curvature would obviously diminish the supposed ball by an order of magnitude.

You can check the credentials of NASA sources yourself. Your complaint is toothless since you, nor any Flat Earther has the ability to challenge any source that I know of.

So Nasa's images are unverifiable, and we should just trust them, right? Simply put, trusting digital images from Nasa is not 'doing science'. It's cultish submission.

The Bible fails quite often when one does that.

'And professing themselves to be wise, their foolish hearts were darkened'.

Any EM technology is subject to refraction. Which means that at times people will "see too far" for a globe of 25,000 miles diametter. But they never see as far as predicted by flat Earth believers.

Prove refraction affects lasers and line of sight radio waves. Or better still, let's talk ballistics. Since when do weapons and flight guidance systems compensate for earth curve? Since never, is the answer.

No, you can't. Because for your model you need to be able to see far past variations predicted by refraction. You would need US to Europe distances.

You'll have to cite some references on how refraction magically bends light around the curve just so much as is necessary in every case. Here's the famous Rob Skiba experiment with the Chicago skyline, where he boats in and out just to prove it's not 'a mirage' caused by refraction/ looming, as was suggested by the MSM. Just flick through it, you'll get the gist. Since then, many other similar experiments have been done to disprove the unproven ad hoc hypothesis of refraction at play in these distance observations.

And as I said, there's no requirement to see all the way to Spain, that's just silly. The atmosphere is far from perfectly clear. It is as through a glass, darkly.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The bible speaks of the Earth as a circle and a sphere is a type of a circle. As others have said, the bible isn't a detailed technical manual for the Earth or science etc.

I was researching the bible for descriptions earlier and found this:

Job 37:12 And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth.


"face of the world: is "פָּנִים (pânı̂ym) תֵּבֵל (têbêl)"

Face:


H6440
פָּנִים
pânı̂ym
paw-neem'
Plural (but always used as a singular) of an unused noun (פָּנֶה pâneh, paw-neh'; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.): - + accept, a (be-) fore (-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront (-part), form (-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him (-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look [-eth] (-s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason, of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them (-selves), through (+ -out), till, time (-s) past, (un-) to (-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with (-in, + stand), X ye, X you.
Total KJV occurrences: 2120


So we have "the face of the world". On a persons head, the face is part of a roundish skull. Not perfectly round but it is spherical. Globalists (ball shaped) do not believe the Earth or any planet or moon is perfectly spherical just like FE does not deny there are valleys and mountains on a non-perfectly flat Earth.

Now, the very language of "the face of the world" strongly implies the bible is describing a spherical shaped Earth with a face or important part. If one was in heaven and looking at a distant Earth, the part "facing" heaven would be the "face of the world" but the rest of the world would still exist, just not visible until the Earth slowly rotates. That would be like a moving face and is still part of the rest of a sphere.

This is the strongest evidence of a spherical Earth in the bible using very colloquial language that most people at the time could understand since they knew people have a spherical head with a face in the front. The face can turn and so does the face of the world. Combine that with scripture that uses the term "circle" and the shape of the world is fairly clear.

Really working hard there brother, and I respect your efforts. However, the term 'circle' can be either 2D or 3D, but more likely a 2D circle. For instance:

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to live in. (Isa 40:22).

Now the term 'above', and the curtain-like heavens like a tent are clearly suggestive of a flat earth. Who's ever heard of a tent on a ball, grasshopper?

Also, Isaiah uses the word 'ball' just a little earlier:

And roll you up tightly like a ball And toss you into a vast country; There you will die And there your splendid chariots will be, You shame of your master’s house.’ (Isa 22:18).

Moving to Job 38:14:

Ever seen a ball of sealed clay? Me neither.

As to the idea that 'face' implies a 3D object like a head, taking the 'law of first mention', we see:

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2)

The deep, the waters. The face has no necessary correlation to a ball, in fact it is here simply designating a planar object.

And behold, Job:

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? (Job 38:4-5)

And then we find, in Proverbs 8:27:

When He established the heavens, I was there; When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,

Now that one has it all. So may I suggest that your attempt to co-opt 'circle' and 'face' into GE has been stretched beyond its limit, sealed up and thrown like a ball into a far country, to become grasshopper fodder. Is it curtains for the ball earth in scripture?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Citation needed lol. Seeing digital photos is not believing. With respect, the Lake Ponchartrain is a ridiculous caricature. The apparent rate of curvature would obviously diminish the supposed ball by an order of magnitude.

Sorry dude, that is not the way that it works. You asked for something and you got it. You do not get to make a caim up out of thin air. If you think that would make the Earth smaller the burden of proof is upon you. .

You just admitted that you lost. We are done until you demonstrate that you can refute the evidence.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You just admitted that you lost. We are done until you demonstrate that you can refute the evidence.

My, you're quick to claim victory on the strength of one photograph, despite the Canigou pic and many many others that you could find if you were diligent to actually do scientific research. Anyway, let me help out.

This video shows the length and line of the pylons in Lake Ponchartrain. The line of pylons is actually curved outwards, and at the viewer height appear to drop, creating an optical illusion of curvature. Demonstrations are given on a table using lego blocks, and photos of Lake Ponchartrain bridge showing how the illusion works. Credits to Professor Zack and Karen B.

Any questions?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You just admitted that you lost. We are done until you demonstrate that you can refute the evidence.

And here's another quick one with a guy finding the same vantage point as your Soundly pic and zooming in with the high zoom video camera.

Enough already? There's more. I remember this furore back in 2017 and am surprised that Soundly pic is still being wheeled out as proof.

 

[Lost4words]

Flat earth believers clutch at straws to 'try' and convince people that the earth is flat.

Common sense and science prove otherwise.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Flat earth believers clutch at straws to 'try' and convince people that the earth is flat.

Common sense and science prove otherwise.

Your bark is sure worse than your bite, lil doggy.

What if your 'common sense' is just a lifetime of programming? Because we certainly don't experience earth curvature or motion on a daily basis. The horizon is level, bodies of water lie flat, we make no allowance for curvature in any of our daily routines.

So whence the common sense, friend?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here's another quick one with a guy finding the same vantage point as your Soundly pic and zooming in with the high zoom video camera.

Enough already? There's more. I remember this furore back in 2017 and am surprised that Soundly pic is still being wheeled out as proof.

That poorly focused work does not disprove my photo. If anything it still confirms it. Do you see the cement supports? Those are all at the same height, but even in that terrible video we can see less and less of them in the distance as it goes over the curve. You only confirmed your loss.

You would need to find a better video.

I may deal with the rest of your fails in the morning. But right now you still have lost.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your bark is sure worse than your bite, lil doggy.

What if your 'common sense' is just a lifetime of programming? Because we certainly don't experience earth curvature or motion on a daily basis. The horizon is level, bodies of water lie flat, we make no allowance for curvature in any of our daily routines.

So whence the common sense, friend?

No, no. You lost. We all know it. You guys cannot even explain sunrise and sunset.

 

[Lost4words]

Your bark is sure worse than your bite, lil doggy.

What if your 'common sense' is just a lifetime of programming? Because we certainly don't experience earth curvature or motion on a daily basis. The horizon is level, bodies of water lie flat, we make no allowance for curvature in any of our daily routines.

So whence the common sense, friend?

Not from flat earth believers thats for sure!!

 

[Torah Keeper]

IIRC, St. Basil said something about the circumference of the Earth being 22,000 miles, although he seemed unsure of it. Still, that's not bad for the 3rd century AD.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Citation needed lol. Seeing digital photos is not believing. With respect, the Lake Ponchartrain is a ridiculous caricature. The apparent rate of curvature would obviously diminish the supposed ball by an order of magnitude.

Okay I had my breakfast and coffee. So let's tackle this again. I already explained how you lost this argument. You would need to prove that this makes the Earth much smaller. But I do have to note that you just refuted your claims that we should be able to see the curve. Which one is it? I acknowledged that it is very hard to see the curve unless one has clear markers that do not occur in nature. Sorry, but this picture alone still sinks you, even with your poor video that only showed that the incompetent cameraman did not know how to use his tools properly. Here is a clue for him next time. Try a tripod.

So Nasa's images are unverifiable, and we should just trust them, right? Simply put, trusting digital images from Nasa is not 'doing science'. It's cultish submission.

No, we can verify that they come from NASA. We can verify that NASA is a reliable source. Right now you are losing by have mere denial. If you want to claim that they are "fake" then you would need to prove that.

'And professing themselves to be wise, their foolish hearts were darkened'.

Oh my. Abusing the Bible. That may be reportable. Your abuse of that verse is the same as me abusing the verse that says "There is no God". Quoting the Bible out of context is a no no.

Prove refraction affects lasers and line of sight radio waves. Or better still, let's talk ballistics. Since when do weapons and flight guidance systems compensate for earth curve? Since never, is the answer.

Dude! This is elementary school level science. You even used the term "EM". Do you know what EM stands for? It is electromagnetic, like light. Radio waves are a form of light. Light refracts when it encounters media of different density. We see that very often. In the atmosphere that can cause a mirage. And you are quite wrong. For long distance ballistics the rotation of the Earth is taken into consideration. Even for the relatively short distance of over a kilometer one needs to begin to take into account the rotation of the Earth for sniper fire. For naval cannons it is a must. Here is an article on the corrections for long distance rifle fire:

Ballistics App Tips: The Coriolis effect - Lapua

And one for naval gunnery:

Earth’s Curvature and Battleship Gunnery

If you talk to any navy officer that was responsible for aiming and firing guns you will find that this is a must.

You'll have to cite some references on how refraction magically bends light around the curve just so much as is necessary in every case. Here's the famous Rob Skiba experiment with the Chicago skyline, where he boats in and out just to prove it's not 'a mirage' caused by refraction/ looming, as was suggested by the MSM. Just flick through it, you'll get the gist. Since then, many other similar experiments have been done to disprove the unproven ad hoc hypothesis of refraction at play in these distance observations.

There is no magic involved so I do not see how I could do that. Perhaps you could ask properly. And sorry, but a half an hour YouTube video is not evidence. You would need to pay me first to watch it.

And as I said, there's no requirement to see all the way to Spain, that's just silly. The atmosphere is far from perfectly clear. It is as through a glass, darkly.

Yet you believe that sunlight goes ridiculous distances at sunset and sunrise. So yes, you should be able to see to Spain. The problem is that you do not have a consistent model. Flerfers will try to model one aspect of the Flat Earth but those models are always contradicted by other aspects of their supposed Flat Earth. There is one consistent model for a spherical Earth. Until you can come up with one consistent model that explains what is observed your beliefs fail.

 

[JacksBratt]

What would be the point in explaining it, since you'd simply reject the optics science? It's like... explaining why the moon looks bigger when it's on the horizon. Speaking of which, do you think the moon gets bigger and smaller as it passes over the sky?

But seriously, it's kinda silly for you to ask for explanations, considering you don't accept any explanations from science, and consider all scientific evidence to be fake.

So, you don't want to explain why we can actually see things... in plain site that should be over the curve of the globe... if it is the size we are told?

You want to ignore these facts? I mean really.. If the ships go over the curve.. so be it.. But if they don't and are actually visible and can be photographed.. Or, mountain ranges, hundreds of miles away, are perfectly visible... and you want to say it's like the moon in the sky?

That's like seeing a moose walking across a lake, taking a picture of it and then someone denying it and saying that there are no moose here.

Who is denying facts now?