WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Flat Earth

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
264
302
#1
Why can people see things that should be far below the curvature using the science as we know it?

8 inches per mile squared. That's 8 inches times number of miles multiplied by itself.

So 10 miles = 8 inches x 100 for 800 inches.

So the pictures and videos (there are thousands with more every minute) showing objects and locations clearly at 60 miles, 100 miles, and even 189 miles, which should be many thousands of feet over the ball, sometimes miles and miles below visual range, and Yet... no problem seeing it.

Lighthouses don't work on a globe for the same reason.

I'm NOT a Flat Tard, but I've learned to ask questions, plus NASA was founded by Luciferians (provably) and then staffed by actual Nazi's (provable) so I have a hard time taking NASA seriously. I prefer the round Earth model.

But WHY can we see things too far away for the curvature to be remotely right? I've DONE IT MYSELF on the coast. 13.8 miles away, at a 6 foot height, I could see the bottom of boats that should have been 127 feet below the curve, but I could see the bottom of 9 foot tall boats. It's IMPOSSIBLE, and the only reason I have serious questions about this.

So let the Inquisition commence. I dared to challenge basic science with facts and repeatable observation! Bring It.
 

BrIONwoshMunky

EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY!
Staff
9,695
1,311
387
#2
What means did you use to verify the 13.8 miles and your 6' viewing height? You're using exact measurements without exact observation.

How was the 13.8 miles calculated/observed?

Your 127 feet only takes into account the fall if you were veiweing from the horizon point of a perfect sphere, which we know the earth is not.

If you use your 6' viewing height, the distance below the horizon of your 'hidden' object at 13.8 miles from you, would be only 77.8 feet. The distance to the horizon itself would be 3 miles.

If you were standing on the beach, that is obviously elevated from the rest of the ocean else, it WOULD BE OCEAN.

Tides have to be taken into account, as elevation changes as much as 2 feet on open water. Assuming that the ocean is 'flat' is erroneous. So, you know, there's that.

Then, you need to take refraction into account, which isn't simple.

Sometimes, seemingly simple things... aren't.
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
264
302
#3
Hey Monkey!

Yeah, I get that. However, there are now many legit pictures and videos, from history and today that are from MUCH farther away, and no amount of "refraction" can explain how something miles below the possibility of being seen, are very easily seen. Only atmospheric conditions change the viewing distance.

It's more like people using the Cultist mentality of Scientism seem to just explain away Glaring problem. They dismiss any challenging of their world view with "Nuh uh da scientists are smurt and already know that". Obviously not if the Very Basic idea "proving" Round Earth falls flat. (pun intended)

The more you look into this ONE idea, simply the evidence goes against the established view, but is simply dismissed, or Now I've seen all the scrambling to make up things to confuse this simple idea, and the endless "debunking" videos which just do not prove their point.

It's amusing that it's "refraction" when you can see things too far away, but it's "proof" when ships sail away and seem to disappear over the horizon. But then you zoom in proving the ships do not go over the horizon, and once again it's "refraction" or "your calculation are wrong" or "you just never picked up a science book have you?"

8 inches per mile squared is FAKE. So is the Earth huge? Is it flat? Why is this BS continued to be used as proof when it's anything but?

Edit: Oh yeah, this was over water near S.F. I have it all written down at home I can find that after work. Only the waves made any of the ships bottoms go away, the rest was very visible and 13.8 miles is NOTHING compared to the vast amounts of other people's pics and vids.
 

Crazizniac

Particinator
824
184
62
#5
Oh wow! A real throwback to Aristotle. Listen J the wheel you are trying to envision was jacked out of the park by Copernicus circa 1500. Please quit being silly. Yes I've spent plenty of time on a sailboat off of the coast of California. No you can't see anything unexplained. Yes you are confused about what can be explained and what cannot.
 

BRiT

CRaZY
Founder
11,797
2,446
487
#6
Yes I've spent plenty of time on a sailboat off of the coast of California. No you can't see anything unexplained. Yes you are confused about what can be explained and what cannot.
Mermaids. Mermaids, I tell ya. They're real! Just ask @Jane Deere
 

Crazizniac

Particinator
824
184
62
#9
Right. Felix Baumgartner might have the most convincing perspective for real earth shape. That guy is my hero.
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
264
302
#10
Sorry folks. There are pictures and videos of the Earth being Curved from up there, and ones with it being perfectly flat up there. I don't care about photoshop or CGI. I really only care about why can we see things too far away on the surface of the Earth for the Pythagorean theorem to be real. Something I can do myself, which I have. Something where I don't have to trust that someone else is telling me the truth.

So the 13.8 mile view was from the shore of San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge south towards the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Could see the base of the bridge as well, easy. Unless light magically bends around the world when convenient to support the Scientism view of the world, I should not have been able to see a 9 foot wind surfer, the supports of the bridge, or even the bridge itself from there. Still could.
 

Swah

Meet us @ IRC! Join the channel #wtfcom
Staff
7,945
1,981
387
#11
Honest question about your observations: Have you taken into account the refraction of light through the earth's atmosphere? You know, that thing that makes the sun appear more red/orange when it's on or near the horizon, and bright yellow/near white when it's high up.
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
264
302
#12
Oh wow! A real throwback to Aristotle. Listen J the wheel you are trying to envision was jacked out of the park by Copernicus circa 1500. Please quit being silly. Yes I've spent plenty of time on a sailboat off of the coast of California. No you can't see anything unexplained. Yes you are confused about what can be explained and what cannot.
I'll just believe you over my own experience, oh wait, how about no. Just because you haven't looked into this doesn't mean it isn't a "thing". Sorry. Quick dismissals come from Cultists of Scientism.

Real Scientists would look at the evidence and not dismiss it out of hand. Real science doesn't mind challenges to basic ideas. Real science is being done out there, and amazingly, once you take the monetary controls off... the results change. Amazing.

Cultists assume Science knows far more than it claims to, the Cult of Scientism is alive and well and captured the minds of so many people who sadly believe they are "highly educated". LOL Yeah, educated to be fools. Cultists believe "Science" is pure as the driven snow, and in no way can it be influenced by money or politics. No way they'd lie, and then have others back up their lies. Nope. Impossible.

I'm just willing to question anything. I don't assume because some people I never met wrote something in a book, it must be true because the teacher said so. It's the same thinking religious people have.

Honest question about your observations: Have you taken into account the refraction of light through the earth's atmosphere? You know, that thing that makes the sun appear more red/orange when it's on or near the horizon, and bright yellow/near white when it's high up.
I didn't. Zoomed out I couldn't see the bridge or any boats that far. Zoomed in I could. I was just "testing a theory" at that time and wasn't 100 percent scientific. I was on the shore with a tri-pod at eye level hence the 6 feet height.

Still 127 feet of drop, 9 foot boat.

Occam's razor.

Plus my example is literally one of many tens of thousands now. So refraction is responsible for this, over land and sea?

f4b.png
 

Swah

Meet us @ IRC! Join the channel #wtfcom
Staff
7,945
1,981
387
#15
I didn't. Zoomed out I couldn't see the bridge or any boats that far. Zoomed in I could.
You know, I'll bet that you actually could see the bridge AND the boat on the zoomed out picture, had the resolution been high enough. At this point I blame pixels.

Unless of course you can show the pictures using varying levels of zoom. And I mean zoom with the camera, not on the pictures.
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
264
302
#16
You know, I'll bet that you actually could see the bridge AND the boat on the zoomed out picture, had the resolution been high enough. At this point I blame pixels.

Unless of course you can show the pictures using varying levels of zoom. And I mean zoom with the camera, not on the pictures.
I think you're right. The lack of high definition has allowed them to keep this under wraps for a while.
It wasn't my camera, but I should find another and do this up all professional. I just wanted to "know". Luckily there's endless pics and videos now, videos showing the slow zoom in. I should do one too and add it to the pile.

Edit: Adding illustration for comment

 
Last edited:

Swah

Meet us @ IRC! Join the channel #wtfcom
Staff
7,945
1,981
387
#17
I think you're right. The lack of high definition has allowed them to keep this under wraps for a while.
It wasn't my camera, but I should find another and do this up all professional. I just wanted to "know". Luckily there's endless pics and videos now, videos showing the slow zoom in. I should do one too and add it to the pile.
You're welcome. Also, I'll bet if you get one with a really good zoom, you should be able to see Alaska, Australia, or the ice mountains from your beach. In fact, that would be the best proof of a flat earth ever.
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
264
302
#18
You're welcome. Also, I'll bet if you get one with a really good zoom, you should be able to see Alaska, Australia, or the ice mountains from your beach. In fact, that would be the best proof of a flat earth ever.
Well that pesky atmosphere wont allow unlimited range viewing.
 

Swah

Meet us @ IRC! Join the channel #wtfcom
Staff
7,945
1,981
387
#19
The image is interesting, but I think you should find one with a fairer representation of the globe as we know it. This just logically emphasizes the points I've made about the pictures you took. At least, I'm assuming it was meant as a means to show your point of "how could I see the other side of the water".
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
264
302
#20
The image is interesting, but I think you should find one with a fairer representation of the globe as we know it. This just logically emphasizes the points I've made about the pictures you took. At least, I'm assuming it was meant as a means to show your point of "how could I see the other side of the water".
It's just thinking at this point. I loved Star Wars and Star Trek, I MUCH prefer the idea of infinite space.

I went into this area to make fun of it and debunk it. Sadly there is some wonkiness to how far away we can see things. Doesn't prove flat or round, but it is a question that if True makes the established view questionable.

This should be simple as hell. The math is hundred's of years old. We should see this curve, it should be obvious, yet.....

Most of the photos being used for finding the curve were taken by people with no interest at all in anything but photography unaware of what their pictures actually show.

We were lied to about everything, so I'm keeping an open mind.
 
Last edited: