Our World (The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Immensely helpful, anonjedi2! Thank you. I agree with the sentiments, and I want to open up discussions of these points, which are refreshing ideas to add to the mix.
anonjedi2 wrote:a) The video taken from a balloon which clearly shows the sun casting a hot spot on the Earth directly below it. Dubay believes that this would be impossible if the sun was 93 million miles away. I agree with this point.
Actually, that would be all about (and dependent on) light's behavior. A larger hot spot reflected to the observer's "eye" (camera) would be evidence for a convex (ball) Earth, an identically sized hot spot would be a case for round Earth, and a smaller one would be a case for convexity. Presuming the light source in question acts like a small fire light we are familiar with, which is just as likely not to be the case.
b) Dubay discusses the 1/8th of an inch drop that should be observable after a mile between two points across a flat distance and that one should be able to see a further drop due to the curvature of the Earth over additional miles, yet this is not observable in the real world (Lighthouse example)
This is a great point, but also — again — dependent on light's behavior. We know that light curves and bends and even may slow or accelerate; these at least are amazing but proven facts.
c) Dubay seems to understand that a rocket or thrusters won't work in a vacuum.
That's a great understanding, one that Simon Shack and others have also come to realize.
d) Dubay raises a good point that nobody has ever circumnavigated the Earth from north to south, something I was wondering about myself.
This is a fascinating point, I agree. It could be due to laziness or poor reporting, depending on whom you ask. There are people in this world who claim to have visited the arctic circle and the South Pole, whatever those may be.
e) Dubay also makes a good point when he mentions that you can see a star through the surface of the moon during its waxing and waning phases.
This would be a proof so incredible, we should have photographic evidence from a reliable and trustworthy source. Time for CF members to get out their telescopes (if we actually have any?) or to find and test any images that claim to be evidence of this. I am very skeptical of the "let's look at political flags and abstract symbols as non-politically motivated and non-religiously inspired scientific standards" idea that Sargent and Dubay make.
f) He has a very specific explanation of how an eclipse is possible in the flat-earth model, one that makes sense to me (whether or not it's true, there is at least an attempt to explain this phenomenon).
Yes, one must ask these basic questions and attempt to explain them in 'alternative' models. A good explanation (or at least attempt at one, that seems good) means he doesn't mean to distract and I appreciate that.
g) The parallax change in the stars.
The lack of parallax to be more precise, right? Further proof (along with Michelson-Morley and George Airy, et al) that the stars appear to move as a whole before our eyes.
h) The behavior of the sun, angle of its rays, etc.
More studies of the behavior of light.

To me, what all this indicates is that as we continue to study light we will find it's as slippery and quirky as magnetism — and that they ultimately are related on some level.
ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by ICfreely »

Dear Selene,

With all due respect I think you, given your background in geology, should consider reading through the dinosaur hoax thread before dismissing it as a fantasy. I, too, was initially very skeptical of the dinosaur hoax. After reading every single post on that thread, checking the sources & doing additional research of my own I came to the conclusion that dinosaurs are a hoax. Reasonable people can draw different conclusions from the same set of facts & respectfully agree to disagree.

I choose not to subscribe to any religious or secular belief system because I believe TPTB have intentionally ‘poisoned the well’ in order to confuse, distract & divide us. I have no desire to prove/debunk anything to anyone. I think that, by automatically ignoring/dismissing people with religious or secular points of view, we do ourselves a disservice.

Sir Richard Owen FRS did, in fact, coin the term “Dinosauria” (terrible, powerful, wondrous lizards) in 1841.
http://www.forbidden-history.com/dinosa ... -owen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1841_in_paleontology

He was a colleague of Sir Charles Lyell FRS & Charles Darwin FRS. Their belief system & converging interests influenced their work and, as a consequence, our worldview. Knowing what I know now, those gentlemen have absolutely no credibility as far as I’m concerned. With regards to geology, fossils, age dating and evolution I offer you the following links:


Survival of the Fakest
“SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY ABOUT THEIR SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS?” -JONATHAN WELLS, Ph.D. (cellular biology)
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/P ... Fakest.pdf


A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
This was last publicly updated February, 2015. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660


The History of Evolution's Teaching of Women's Inferiority
Jerry Bergman teaches biology, chemistry, and physics at Northwest State College in Archbold, Ohio. He has over 400 publications in scholarly and popular science journals and has written 20 books and monographs.
http://www.rae.org/pdf/women.pdf


In the Minds of Men by Ian Taylor - Ch. 4 – Science & Geology
The order of the geological age names is, therefore, the supposed order of a set of index fossils based on the assumed order of the evolution of life. At the same time, evidence for the evolution of life is said to be seen by the order of the index fossils. This is circular reasoning and should not be claimed to be science. For some years now an increasing number of reputable geologists have begun to realize this and question the whole principle. Writing in the American Journal of Science, O'Rourke has stated: "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism" (O'Rourke 1976, 54).[30]. Now there is nothing wrong with using the names in the geologic column to identify strata containing the same kind of fossil. However, associating each of these names with vast spans of time is not in the best interests of impartial science but, rather, seems to have theological motives, since it has been responsible for very effectively replacing one belief system by another. For example, the long periods of time preclude any possibility of the individual fossil creatures confined within each age name of having been contemporaneous.


Until 1938 the coelacanth was known to paleontologists only by its fossils found in rocks of the Cretaceous and the Jurassic periods. These large, lobe-finned fish were thus believed to have thrived 300 million years ago and then became extinct 70 million years ago -- about the time of the dinosaur extinction. It was thought that the lobe fins were a very early stage in the evolution of legs. Fishing about five miles off the East coast of South Africa in December 1938, fishermen of a commercial trawler hauled up a living specimen of the coelacanth five feet long and steely blue in color. By 1972 a further sixty-six specimens had been caught and examined. The fish was clearly not extinct and had changed very little in the alleged 70 million years! (Ellis 1995, 11).[32]

http://www.creationism.org/books/Taylor ... IMMd04.htm



Dear hoi & anonjedi2,

Here’s my take on parallax:

In 1725 James Bradley & Samuel Molyneux fixed a telescope to the chimney of Molyneux’s house to observe the star Gamma Draconis which passed vertically overhead. Their goal was to prove heliocentricity by detecting parallax.
In other words, if Earth orbits the Sun then the position of Gamma Draconis will make a small circle against the backdrop of (presumably) more distant stars.

They found that Gamma Draconis did, in fact, make a small circle (radius of 20.5 seconds of arc – 20” .5). However, it did not make a circle against the (presumed) backdrop of other stars. All of the stars joined in the motion. So describing the phenomenon as parallax would mean that all stars were equidistant from earth – ancient concept of Stellatum (shell of stars circling Earth). Therefore, parallax was unacceptable given the dominant dogma of heliocentricity.

In 1728 James Bradley coined the phrase “aberration of starlight” to describe the phenomenon thereby ‘proving’ heliocentricity (classic case of confirmation bias). He reasoned that the 20” .5 ‘angle of aberration’ was the ratio of the ‘speed of light’ and the ‘orbital velocity of Earth.’

R.J. Boscovich reasoned that filling a telescope with water would slow down the ‘speed of light’ and increase the angle of ‘aberration’. Therefore if the Earth orbits the Sun a water-filled telescope would have to be tilted more than an air-filled telescope.

In 1871 G.B. Airy attempted to prove heliocentricity by verifying Bradley’s ‘aberration of starlight’ in the method described by Boscovich. Much to the dismay of believers of the heliocentric theory, Airy observed the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. Science historians now refer to it as ‘Airy’s failure’.

In order to save the sacred heliocentric cow they’ve had to come up with a plethora of terms (dragging coefficient, redshift, Doppler effect, Coriolis effect, curved space-time, etc…) to explain one experimental failure after another. It’s actually quite amusing to the neutral observer who doesn’t subscribe to any belief system.

I’ve partially elaborated on why I think heliocentricity is unproven on the ‘gods of science’ thread so I won’t repeat myself here. People can/should decide for themselves. That leaves me with geocentricity (I find it funny that according to MS spell-check geocentricity is a ‘misspelling’ & offers the ‘correction’ – egocentricity!). Even a spherical geocentric Earth does not explain gravity. Imho, the ‘flat Earth’ model is worth considering. But posting random speculations as noho & hoi stated may detract serious critical thinkers from CF which is definitely not a good thing. Due to people’s strongly held belief systems arguments could drag on ad infinitum. Having said that, I think the below book may (and I emphasize MAY) be a good starting point. I’ve only read the first 2 chapters so I, by no means, endorse it in any way.


Zetetic Astronomy - Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham) [1881]
THE term Zetetic is derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. It is here used in contradistinction from the word "theoretic," the meaning of which is, speculative--imaginary--not tangible,--scheming, but not proving.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/


Dear noho,
I agree with your reasoning. That ‘flat earth clues’ video is very superficial & is not a good starting point. Clues Forum is a great source for genuine truth seekers. If you think any of my posts (this one included) may distract or deter anyone from CF then please feel free to delete them. I will not be offended in any way.
Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Selene »

ICfreely wrote:Dear Selene,

With all due respect I think you, given your background in geology, should consider reading through the dinosaur hoax thread before dismissing it as a fantasy. [...] With regards to geology, fossils, age dating and evolution I offer you the following links
ICFreely,

Thank you for the links, interesting. I read the first pdf and will study the other links too. A reaction will follow in the Dinosaur Hoax topic. ;)
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Farcevalue »

The flat earth presentations were compelling at first blush, but in researching Rory Cooper I came across this debunking of Rory Cooper by Mahrai Ziller (whoever that is):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4DF9n3ItB0
[ADMIN: Video removed for being a distraction - hp]

The case for a spherical earth is presented quite solidly in these videos. This is actually the most thought I have ever put into the idea up to this point.

The author could have spared some of the ad hominem comments against the flat earthers, but the math is elementary enough it is understandable how he might have felt it warranted.

There are instances of blind acceptance of space gadgetry, but the references are strictly peripheral. An argument in the "Horizon Problem" (subsequent) video that can be explained without researching mathematical keyboard characters, is that if the earth were not spherical, the New York City skyline would be easily visible from the coast of Africa with a child's 100x telescope (cost GBP 18.72).

The spinning issue was not (or not yet), resolved to my satisfaction, as time lapse photographs of stars defy my expectations of how they should appear. And the questions about atmosphere, wind and the whole gravity thing perplex.

It is interesting that one would even devote any time to this area of inquiry, but at this point there is absolutely no reason to accept any part of their narrative at face value.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Farcevalue, please review this thread in full before posting further.

*
EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS NOTE BEFORE ADDING TO THIS THREAD


We are not looking for the YouTube wars to enter our forum, as nonhocapito and Simon have recently cautioned us about.

Instead, if you'd like to contribute to the thread, I am going to ask people to not just jump in with a cursory examination of a cursory examination (as the videos were above, which I have now reduced to simple links for the purposes of not distracting people with those poor arguments like "toy telescope" and "controlled opposition" nonsense) but truly build up their toolbox of understanding with the brief history of experiments and data we have compiled here or which are located elsewhere on the Internet.

I don't want to lock the thread, but if the YouTube videos continue, I will be forced to do so.

I want to see the next contributions be at least as well-read (if not as in-depth) as posts by scud or ICfreely, please.

I expect this will take y'all some time, and that is perfectly alright with the administration of this forum since Simon presently wants to focus on deconstructing TV fakery. Thanks.
nimblehorse
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:24 am

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by nimblehorse »

apologies for posting the flat earth clues ytube earlier..i agree with Hoi.

It was only a few hours after posting that i listened to Hoi on Kham Radio

http://fakeologist.com/2015/03/25/ep29-k-ham-radio-2/

& the link to Wild Heretic's site

http://www.wildheretic.com/there-is-glass-in-the-sky/

totally gobsmaked !

If anything, the Mark Sargent video got my attention to the very idea of a flat earth being a credible reality, as I had dismissed the notion of a flat earth or any other shape other than a sphere to be a form of insanity but now after a few days over at wild heretic blog, I am truly astounded.

Also, before i posted, I searched the cluesforum for 'Flat earth' & nothing came up, so I thought i was starting a new tread with the Video post.

:P
bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by bostonterrierowner »

When taking a flying course and learning to navigate they teach you to adjust your position to find so called "true north" supposedly due to the magnetic field of the earth altering compass reading.

If we imagine ourselves on a ball and willing to reach whatever pole all we would have to do is move up or down to get there. Right?

When on a disc however it wouldn't be the case for obvious reasons.

This is one of the arguments in favour of "flat earth" theory ( I don't embrace it as of now but I definitely do not reject it either ) coming from my own real life experience.

BTW

Mikołaj Kopernik ( Copernicus ) couldn't have been a Jesuit as Mr. Dubay claims because he was dead before the order was founded but he was ordained a catholic priest in his early youth. Not that it matters but blunders like this hurt the overall credibility of the researcher.
Serik
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:35 pm

Unread post by Serik »

Question 1: Can you see any sunlight at night ?
Question 2: What lights up the moon then ?

If it's the sun that lights up the moon you should see light between the sun and the moon at night. The only light you see comes from the moon and from the stars, the rest is dark.

*******
ADMIN NOTICE: I have moved this post by Serik from our MOON HOAX thread to this more appropriate thread. (simon)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by simonshack »

Dear Serik,

I must say that it makes perfect sense to me - at this moment in time / and according to my current, personal 'geometric feel' of astronomy - that when the sun (which I believe revolves around earth - as of Tycho Brahe's observations) drops below our horizon (and night sets in, for any given observer) - the sun rays will keep the moon lit, as long as the earth's umbra does not obscure it. I have also reason to believe that, when the sun disappears from my horizon, it will bring daylight to the other side of this planet.

This is just my personal take - and I think that great sky-gazers such as the Greeks and the Mayas would agree with that. Having said that - and for all I know - we (the Greeks, the Mayas and my humble self) might well be wrong - yes, all of us.

We probably need more time to even start understanding this universe we live in. <_<
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

The Concave Earth (Evidence of the Grand "Outer-Space" Hoax)

Unread post by Observer »

First, to visualize what evidence will be presented in this new thread, [EDIT: I wanted to start a Concave Earth thread.]
(evidence of literally the grandest hoax ever: the "outer-Space" hoax)
please watch this 2 minute video, disregarding the maker being crazy:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ua4gi8na9btgy ... 0Earth.mp4

The earth isn't flat. Period. Please post that BS elsewhere. Seriously. :) [EDIT: this sentence is just my opinion.]
None of the serious members of CluesForum think the earth is flat. NONE. [EDIT: this sentence is just my opinion.]
The CluesForum does not want to be associated with the "Flat-Earth" falsity. [EDIT: this sentence is just my opinion.]

A potential bad reason for CluesForum's fear of association with the "Flat Earth" idea would be: 9-11 fakery evidence being sullied.
But the actual good reason for CluesForum's fear of association with the "Flat Earth" idea is simple: the "Flat Earth" idea is WRONG.

"Flat-Earthers" trying to post here at CluesForum are either folks who were NOT placed into the gifted IQ class at age 11, or shills.
The "Flat Earth" idea is proven a fallacy by the fact that planes fly from Sydney to Chile in LESS than 13 hours, plus the Pole "Star".

While I applaud people who have the courage to say "The Convex Earth model is wrong", the fact is: the Flat-Earth model is wrong.
Instead, the Concave Earth model is correct, not because I say so: examine the undeniable non-opinion-based EVIDENCE posted below.

Hoi is already realizing, due to examining the evidence posted below, the Concave Earth reality - Simon, you simply haven't seen it yet.
Refusing to read the 18-pages of evidence, and claiming "the outer-space hoax isn't a hoax I care to see evidence about" is not logical.

http://www.wildheretic.com/disappearing-stars/
http://www.wildheretic.com/space-machines-do-not-orbit-the-earth/
http://www.wildheretic.com/hubble-and-the-international-space-station-hoax/
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt2/
http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/
http://www.wildheretic.com/there-is-glass-in-the-sky/
http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-sun-a-light-bulb/
http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/
http://www.wildheretic.com/introduction/
http://www.wildheretic.com/equinox/
http://www.wildheretic.com/solstice/
http://www.wildheretic.com/holes-near-the-poles/
http://www.wildheretic.com/electric-sun-mechanics/
http://www.wildheretic.com/electric-sun-effects/
http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/
http://www.wildheretic.com/horizon/
http://www.wildheretic.com/gravity-observations-and-theory/

Some admit media fakery (e.g. proving the JFK parade footage fake) while refusing to look at the evidence of the ultimate fakery ever.
Of all hoaxes perpetrated in human existence, inverting the 12000km ball within the earth as "outer-space" is the GRANDEST hoax ever.
Posts NOT about The Concave Earth (i.e. fools/shills trying to equate Concave-Earth with Flat-Earth) will NOT be allowed in this thread.
[EDIT: Nevermind that "no Flat Earth" demand I wrote, it would only apply if a specialized "Concave Earth vs. Convex Earth" thread was created.
Since this post has been moved to this generalized Universe thread instead, people can feel free to post about Flat-Earth too (to my dismay).]

*************
So is it convex or concave, Observer? Seems to me that you are a bit confused over the two terms. Anyways, I have merged your new thread with this present thread for now. (-simon)


EDIT: Yes Simon, I accidentally (and embarrassingly stupidly) switched the terms convex and concave, thanks for helping me correct that. :)
Last edited by Observer on Sat Apr 25, 2015 12:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Observer »

Here is a video, which proves quite elegantly that we humans can see the bases of boats FARTHER than 8-kilometers away. This experiment instantly disproves, without any room for debate, the mainstream convex ball model which states "a boat 8 kilometers away should have it's base hidden by the convex curvature of the earth."

The mainstream convex ball model labels this "8-kilometer-from-your-eye cutoff-point" as being "the horizon line", but this video proves that anyone with a modern digital zoom camera can zoom right in on the bases of boats FARTHER than 8 kilometers away, it turns out modern layman technology allows anyone to be able to zoom in to ocean distances even 10, 11, 12 kilometers away:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jcisprz6k3337 ... idence.mp4

And here is the illustration showing how the now-proven-much-farther-than-8-kilometers "horizon line" (which we surprisingly see as constant regardless of altitude) is created by: our line-of-sight-deviating-upward within the Concave Earth, which concurrently creates a verge point (a verge point which we label "the horizon line") and behind that verge point a blind spot:

Image
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Thank you very much for sticking to just observations, Observer. It's appreciated.

As per our typical expectations (for those library readers with slow connections or for those who do not wish to expose themselves to a video for whatever reason) can you please explain to us (not just tell us) the best points of the video you've cited? Can you also please summarize the video? (Ignoring the "who" of the video and focusing on the scientific points that any one can understand.)
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Observer »

Sure thing, thank you for kindly helping me remember to follow the rational forum rules. :) Sometimes I jump too far ahead.

The video I posted on April 25th: does NOT have any spoken words (thank goodness), it is the best Concave Earth animation,
showing the "matching what our eyes see" aspect of the Concave Earth with surprisingly small sun, moon, and "space" inside.
This video answers the initial reluctance to look at the evidence, since folks ASSUME Concave Earth would appear different.
This video shows that what you yourself see using your own eyes everyday indeed matches exactly the Concave Earth reality.

Here is that video again, and here is a good screenshot (but the sun & moon movement shown really deserves to be watched.)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ua4gi8na9btgy ... 0Earth.mp4

Image

The video I posted on April 26th: is the easily repeatable experiment of a layman standing near the ocean looking at ships,
in which "lo and behold" this simple man armed with merely a plain digital video camera zooms in on ships behind an island,
and we are able to see the base of the ships farther than the supposed "8-kilometer limitation caused by convex curvature."
In fact, in addition to still being able to see the base of ships 10 kilometers away, we can even see water behind the ships.
Which means that the mainstream "8-kilometer limitation caused by convex curvature" is disproven by simple zoom ability.

Indeed, the mainstream "8-kilometer limitation caused by convex curvature" is based on the camera being 4.84 meters high.
Thus, if the camera were at 1.84 meters, the convex belief claims a "4.8-kilometer limitation caused by convex curvature".

I have fallen in love with this video of Concave Earth experimental evidence, repeatable by ANYONE with a video camera,
because anyone can easily test "Put a camera 4.84m above the water, the false convex claim is: the horizon line is at 8km"
and now the equivalent fact: "Put a camera 1.84m above the water, the false convex claim is: the horizon line is at 4.8km"
Try either, see for yourself, as in this video: cameras can zoom-in to ocean BEYOND that false convex "horizon line" claim.
For those who need confirmation that the "convex 'horizon-line' claim" is indeed so absurdly short, here is their calculator:
http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

The convex claim is: "Ships 4.8 kilometers away have their bases 'cut' by convex curvature, seen by a 1.84-meter-tall eye."
That convex claim only works when nobody checks for themselves, and when people don't have cameras that can zoom-in.
Now, anyone who wants to do this experiment, with a video camera that can zoom in, can disprove the old convex falsity.
What makes this video especially good, is the island in front of the ships proves the ships' minimum 10-kilometer distance.

Here is that video again, and here are some screenshots (but this video should be watched as well, to check for any fakery.)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jcisprz6k3337 ... idence.mp4

Image Image Image Image Image Image

But as always, don't simply believe some supposed character who supposedly recorded these supposed ships, go try and see! :)
Hold a camera 4.84 meters above water, zoom in on "the horizon" 10 km away, and you will have disproven the convex claim. :)
Or, hold a camera 1.84 meters above water, zoom in on "the horizon" 5 km away, and you will have disproven the convex claim. :)
HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by HonestlyNow »

Observer.
What is a mirage (wikipedia)?

A mirage is a naturally occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays are bent to produce a displaced image of distant objects or the sky.

Why aren't these mirages?
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: The 'cold' of space and our Universe that isn't

Unread post by Observer »

First off, you are trying to imply that the ship's shape is being distorted by the mirage phenomenon, like in your wikipedia link, but...

Image

...unfortunately for your first attempt at implying this video DOESN'T disprove the convex model, your claim is wrong in two ways:

Image

Number one, the ship's shape is NOT being distorted, as every honest neutral observer here with good eyesight will agree. Download the video to see for yourself with motion.

(By the way, I uploaded this video to Dropbox so all interested CluesForum readers can simply right-click the mp4 link which you see in blue right here https://www.dropbox.com/s/jcisprz6k3337 ... idence.mp4 so that after you download it to your computer you can watch it with your favorite player, for example VLC or whatever. There is no need to use the Dropbox site's choppy online player (which you could do by simply doing the standard left-click.) I recommend you go the extra mile and Right-click the link and save it to your computer, so that you can use your own player to watch this convex-disproving experiment in slow-motion, going frame by frame, looking for any evidence of fakery.)

Number two, the ship's shape has nothing to do with this. The conVEX model states: the bottom half of the ship should be CUT-OFF by "the horizon."

Not only is this ship plainly NON-distorted, and NOT being cut-off by "the horizon", the best part of this video is that "the horizon" is even FARTHER AWAY than this ship (you can see that the ocean's "horizon line" is ABOVE the ship) which means:

This 10-kilometers-distant ship NOT having its bottom half cut-off by "the horizon" is sufficient to disprove the convex model,

AND

as a bonus, "the horizon" itself is even FARTHER than this 10 kilometer distant ship (the 10 kilometers is well-defined by the island.)

In fact, the island itself, according to the conVEX model, should be half cut-off by "the horizon", and yet the island is NOT being cut off, AND the ship BEHIND the island is not being cut off, AND "the horizon" itself is FAR behind the ship (ha,ha, far ABOVE the ship, in fact.)

"The horizon" is defined as the point where the convex curvature of the earth creates 'a corner you can't see around', and the convex curvature of the earth calculation states that if your eye is 4.84 meters above sea-level you physically can NOT see the bottom of things which are 8 kilometers away. http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

And yes, while you allow the absurd CLOSENESS of the convex cut-off claim of "the horizon line cuts-off things that are merely 8 kilometers away when your eye is 4.84 meters above sea-level", prepare your brain for the even MORE absurd closeness of the convex cut-off claim of "the horizon line cuts-off things that are merely 4.8 kilometers away when your eye is 1.84 meters above sea-level". http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

The conVEX claims are now plainly disproven by this video which shows the island being not cut-off, the ship ABOVE the island being not-cut off, and "the horizon" being ABOVE the ship means that "the horizon" is at least 11 or 12 (or more) kilometers away.

Notice in the final zoom-out that if one didn't have a zoomable camera, one would miss all these subtle points. Here's a screenshot of the final zoom-out:

Image

When the camera is totally zoomed-out, it appears that the island is in fact resting on the horizon, but when one zooms in thanks to modern technology (technology almost ALL of us have in our possession these days) suddenly we can see that the 10-kilometer-distant-island has a ship ABOVE it, and the ship has "the horizon" above that. All of which went unnoticed back when we didn't have this zoom-in ability. Thank goodness for zoom-in ability combined with recording ability combined with the internet allowing us to share our experiments, combined with the open-minded-curiosity of a small-but-growing percentage of humans living in Earth. :)

The "mirage" debunking attempt was an interesting first try, but I think you would be better off attempting to claim this video is fake.

If you really are earnest about demolishing ALL your old incorrect belief systems (all of them, even the "we are living on the outside of a convex ball, because, uh, all of the authorities from Copernicus to NASA tell us so") then please DO find an island near YOURSELF, an island known to be at least 4.8 kilometers away from the shore, an island which appears to be sitting right on "the horizon" when you look with your naked eye with the water lapping your toes, and then do the unthinkable: press the zoom-in button on your digital Sony handicam, and watch how suddenly you can see BEYOND that island, you can see objects BEHIND that island which the convex model told you you can not possibly see, and then if you keep zooming you can see the "horizon line" is even BEHIND (and ABOVE) those objects which are BEHIND (and ABOVE) the island.

Please say "this video is fake", that would be fine with me, but THEN you must promise yourself to go TEST what this video shows YOURSELF!

Which brings us back to the Concave Earth understanding that the "Horizon Line" is a misnomer. There isn't a "Horizon Line created by convex curvature of the Earth", not at all, what exists is this:

Our line-of-sight-deviating-upward within the Concave Earth, which concurrently creates a Verge Point (a verge point which we label "the horizon line") and behind that Verge Point is a blind spot. I'll re-post the illustration here since this drawing is the best illustration I have found on the internet of what the Verge Point and the Blind Spot look like. This illustration really does say a million words:

Image
Post Reply