clair002

Flat Earth Claim Railgun shoots Line Of Sight. and Reality Sorry, but US patent 7526988  [ view pdf ] says otherwise. Basically, this one has fins and a flat side so it can steer a little bit instead of being on a fixed arc. Can see the flat side and deployable fins here: So, in classic form, Flat Earthers just flat out lie again . And this page Electromagnetic Rail Gun Proposal Shows the elevation is about 75 ° And the "100 mile" projectiles go 70km and they seem to plan to go 150km up to get 240+ mile range.

Flat Earth Claim The sun is smaller on the horizon proving it's simply further away and nearby: Wow, that's really compelling evidence, right? Reality Do those look like consistent exposures to you? They sure do NOT look consistent to me. Here is what happens when an object is too bright for the sensor (this is the moon, I personally took these images changing ONLY the exposure to show what happens): I've been accused of 'faking that' by zooming in - whatever, I've replicated it several ways and I'll include another example I found online - and more importantly - if you don't believe it then YOU take the pictures yourself. Here you can see the same effect with this lamp.  Brighter light overwhelms the sensor and makes a big white blur. Here is a series I took in an airport: You can clearly see the 'bright spot' is significantly larger from the darker exposure.  This is PHOTOGRAPHY 101 stuff. So I'm sorry but you'll need to do better with

Thanks to @FlatSlugbrains for finding this one on the Copasetic Flow blog . How would you do such a thing on a non-rotating Flat Earth with no gravity? You couldn't even reliably find "down" because, if density determines motion as Flat Earthers claim (and which NO Flat Earther has ever actually shown evidence for, and we know this isn't true from experiments such as observing a density tube in absence of gravity ), then changes in lateral density should cause lateral forces on a body making it impossible to reliably find "down". Arthur H. Compton built such a device and published his results in Phys. Rev. 5, 109 (1 February 1915) entitled "A Determination of Latitude, Azimuth, and the Length of the Day Independent of Astronomical Observations" ( DOI ) [backup link , Google Scholar Search ] His paper details the methods and calculations but for the purpose of this exercise it would be sufficient to simply observe the water consistently rotating i

You'll see a lot of Flat Earth memes that talk about 'Water finds its level" There are hundreds of projects where they use radar altimetry to measure the ocean surface very accurately and this surface, in turn, reveals the shape of the ocean floor. This works because the shape (or topography) of the ocean floor means the gravitational pull is different in that area because of changes in the density -- this is then reflected in the shape of the surface of the water. Scale is exaggerated Image credit:  NOAA: Datums, Heights, and Geodesy So water does indeed fine its level - but that "level" is defined by the spherical gravity of the Earth and all the micro variations therein - and we can measure them and verify those measurements by comparing them with other methods of measuring the ocean floor topography. This map of the ocean floor is one such result of mapping the ocean surface topography: Image credit: NOAA And Image credit: global marine gravity model from Cr

I'll be honest, I didn't put much work into this one as it is blindingly obvious I'm embarrassed for the person who cited this as their 'proof'. This YouTube video  is supposed to 'prove' the Flat Earth.  Looks like a bad remake of Waterworld to me. What kind of non-thinking individual can fail to see that almost the entire city is completely and utterly missing and behind the horizon here.  The horizon is very crisp and nearby reducing a lot of the near-water distortion you would otherwise see: Anyway, here is my quick analysis... We see about 1/2 the tower -- we would expect to see about the 1/2 the tower. WE'RE DONE. With the complete lack of information in the video that's about all we can say and I have no interest in digging further because I've done this over and over now. If you want a more exact analysis give me EXACT Latitude, EXACT Longitude, EXACT Viewer height (not this 'about 6 feet' nonsense -- EXACT height of the center of

No amount of curvature is enough for a Flat Earther.  We can SEE the shoreline disappear, and then the bottoms of buildings.  But since they don't understand the geometry of what they see they cannot properly evaluate it. Flat Earth once again fails to understand WHAT the horizon even is. @captscorch @ColdDimSum @nicholaspitts @CobraElDiablo @UnCastellsMes @twatterfull @sciencegecko @skeptropolis @FlatEarthReal Still waiting on my curve pic.twitter.com/zh2zFXmMVi — JACK (@Adidas68Jack) April 24, 2017 And a copy of the image from Jack just in case (which Jack now deleted). I'm going to admit right here at the start that I do not know the EXACT location from which this photo was taken.  Neither does 'Jack'.  However, we both know the APPROXIMATE location to within a few miles because we can see the nearby buildings and at least their rough orientation. But without a higher resolution image I cannot positively identify the distant buildings, and neither can Jack.

Here is what they claimed - in thousands of places but I found it here: pic.twitter.com/nWnH1fsT85 — Snurds57 (@tsnurds) April 23, 2017 Here is their image in case the above stops working... Here is the original from NASA How dumb do they think we are? It's a fake because Hoaxers FAKED it.

Flat Earthers have made another amazing discovery!  We can cancel all those expensive telescope projects -- all you need is a HAND-HELD P900 with no manual focus and you can image anything! Or... we can add 'basic optics' to the things that Flat Earthers fail to understand... What I want to know is WHY do you believe that blurry, shaky, hand-held images of anything through a lens pushed beyond it's diffraction limit is an accurate representation? When you view the planets and stars through quality telescopes, that are correctly aligned and focused, not being hand-held with shaky, violently moving around images they do not look anything like these images. Why is that? Are you aware that image resolution is limited by the aperture of the optical instrument? A tiny camera aperture can only magnify it's own optical errors, giving you a completely false image. This is why telescopes are made larger and larger every year -- 10-inch, 14-inch, and now up to 32 FOOT wide tel

Another Flat Earth Meme - another pile of lies... It's either a lie because they purposeful get these things are wrong or they are lying about their level of expertise.  I'll let you judge which one but this level of dishonesty/incompetence is inexcusably disgusting. Flat Earth Claim: #RESEARCHFLATEARTH it implores us.  What a load of crap. It seems to be a nearly universal rule that #FlatEarthers never include any reference data to back up their claims.  This meme is full of assertions which are just flat out WRONG. Let's unpack... CLAIM: 4.5 miles of missing curvature If my eye was half-way underwater at ground-level then it would be 4.5 miles of curvature, relative to THAT point from 190 miles away .  Since our viewpoint is NOT at ground-level -- it's some 240 meters up and the mountain (nor horizon) is 190 miles away -- this claim is complete nonsense. These factual differences make a HUGE difference in our view, as I will show below. CLAIM: Mount McKinley I don'