clair002

I've kind of avoided this because it's mostly irrelevant to Flat Earth and it just shows a supreme level of stupidity on the part of the person parroting this canard. But it keeps coming up so here we go... The acceleration of gravity on Earth is little g = 9.8 m/s/s The FORCE of gravity is Mass *TIMES* little g You can drop balls from various heights and VERIFY this yourself very easily. Even most cell phones now come with high speed cameras. Unless the mass is acting as a rigid body with other mass then you treat it by itself. Water is NOT a rigid body (the other molecules do tug a tiny bit on each other - so you do have to break the weak surface tension) but for the most part the force of gravity acting on a water molecule (18 mass unit) is 3×10^-23 grams * 9.8 m/s/s So that gives you ~ 2.94×10^-25 Newtons of force. Let me write that out for you: 0.000000000000000000000000294 NEWTONS. 1 Newton is the force on Earth from 101.972 grams of mass. A big rock is closer to a rigid

To be 100% honest I don't know if this is a P900 or some other low-end camera with poor image quality but the results are the same. That's more like 16 miles of towers and about 15.4 to the big tall tower. You can see here that the image quality from listenmullahsb's video is terrible compared to Soundly's images.  If you watch the video the image is completely SWIMMING due to the heat. Here is the full frame image from Soundly  [ Gdrive  - this is IMG_4118]: And here is theirs -- you can tell it's a somewhat hazy day also and theirs is only some fraction of the distance Soundly captured.  Even then we see the tips of the towers falling below the lines of perspective. If we handicap ourselves we sure can make it LOOK flatter. I'm sorry but the two are simply not comparable.  Blurry images are not conclusive. I don't think it was malicious but I think it was an inferior camera and inferior viewing conditions. UPDATE: Here is an image from Soundly (IMG_4043) f

UPDATED - he claims he was 38 inches above the water so I have updated this with that observer height although it SURE looks a lot higher than that to me and I've asked for evidence of 38 inches. However, I also found the distance to that building was only 4.83 miles so I've updated based on these two figures. Here is the source video: His claim is 6.38 miles -- I think that the specific building we use here is closer but I'll go with 6.38 miles for now. UPDATE: That's actually 4.83 miles to the building At this distance and from the approximately 38 inches above the WATER observation height we find that only about 4.7 feet should be obscured ! I took a frame from around 1:38 and another around 3:39 of the building itself and overlaid them. And showing the scale match at 9:13 in the video because 'ForestDweller' challenged it without doing his research -- I scaled the building so the windows lie up and we can see the vertical features line up showing that the

ISS Solar Panels are a " Blatant fraud" At least according to Howard Gilmour of YouTube. Here is his "proof" of this. I see NO significant difference that isn't related to distance, perspective (angles and camera field of view), and lighting. I've even zoomed way in and counted the little dots and looked at the dot pattern. His assertion seems to be they "just look fake" but he cannot say why, other than they look 'photo realistic'. Let's VOTE . Are these solar panels on the ISS a "Blatant fraud" or not? See images here: https://t.co/ydiVXiBIrq — Hapless Dark Star (@ColdDimSum) May 23, 2017 .

I keep seeing this bit of trash make the rounds and while I normally avoid "Moon Hoaxers" (I have enough to do, I leave that to folks like Astrobrant2 ) I thought I would at least take down this one bit of stupidity since it's so easy and it'll make it easier for me to reference later and I get to point everyone to Astrobrant2 :) ... Does Bart Sibrel make money off claiming they didn't? #1 Here is one doing so: #2 And from  Moon Hoax: Debunked!  we see 3 cases where they did: [link to a lot of debunking ]

Ok Globulists What about that Antarctic Treaty!?  You'll NOT escape this wall of text and ice! Wait... You mean this one? http://www.ats.aq  [ 1959 Antarctic Treaty PDF ] Read the whole thing - it's only 11 pages with wide spacing. It very simply establishes that: Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only (Art. I) Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation toward that end … shall continue (Art. II). Scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available (Art. III). And it says that designated Observers from each country are absolutely free to go anywhere and observe (even the activities of other countries) and it establishes It also says: This need to make sure everyone is informed is why you need 'permission' to go there.  Somehow the benefit of such an open process escapes Flat Earthers. But Absolutely NOTHING in the Treaty prevents normal people from going there, indeed there are flights to th

Flat Earth Claim " The (Antarctic) flights proved the inland areas to be featureless in character with a DOME 13,000 feet high at about latitude 80 degrees south "  (You should feel kind of mad right about now?) Reality Here is what he actually said about this: superimposed by a great dome of snow and ice , and toward its center reaching in excess of 13,000 feet elevation. Confirmed by modern elevation maps of Antarctica. Domes are geologic features . We done with Flat Earth yet? I doubt it, their ignorance is fathomless.

Flat Earth Claim Government Document claims you can see mountains despite "56,527 feet" of Earth Curvature. Reality I have to admit, this one surprised me a little bit and I had to do a little research. First of all, Pub 200 Sailing Directions (Planning Guide and Enroute) Antarctica does, in fact, actually say this -- right in the middle of a whole bunch of other stuff about Refraction and extreme conditions and how difficult this makes it to judge distances... Of course, it ALSO shows Antarctica is a small continent that is only about 10,000 miles around which makes it utterly impossible to be the far outside edge of a circle some 12,000 miles in radius! According to the Flat Earth model that should be about 75,000 miles around and concave instead of 10,000 miles around and convex.  So good job Flat Earthers!  Give them a round of applause. Next, look at the text more carefully: There is almost no dust or solid particles in the Antarctic air and the prevailing winds blowing

Flat Earth Claim @joerogan The images you referenced on the show were composites using small area scans. NASA says these are real though. LMFAO #WakeUpJoe pic.twitter.com/YOVdkxMX0i — Nicholas Pitts (@nicholaspitts) May 11, 2017 Reality I assume 'Nicholas' has some kind of issue with the scale of the Moon and Earth -- because I've seen this about 1000 times now. Where to start.   Oh yeah -- THAT IS CALLED PERSPECTIVE YOU WAFFLEBRAINS. Second of all -- that wasn't 1968 (not that it matters) but let's at least PRETEND to do some research if you are going to constantly tell everyone else to 'Do Your Research' (which is what Flat Earthers say when they can't actually respond to a point). That image was from Apollo 11 - July 20, 1969 circa 04:00:15Z (frame AS11-44-6550 , Apollo 11 Index , Apollo 11 Journal , -- and for fun: Apollo 17 Index , Apollo 17 Photography ) You can see here in Celestia where I wound back time to match the original and sure enough, t

Perspective is just Line-Of-Sight -- it doesn't change the lines-of-sight. Perspective cannot make the bottom-half of an object disappear leaving the top in perfect proportion. It simply does not work like this: Figure 1. Flerfspective magically makes the ground rise but not objects! When asked why the object would remain lower, Jack answered: That object is vertical not horizontal — Jack "The Carpenter" (@Adidas68Jack) October 11, 2017 It is because of the angle that Lines-Of-Sight make at the observer that things appear smaller and "lower" in the sky with increasing distance.  But, at no point, does 'perspective' ever change the actual lines-of-sight from object to observer. Figure 2. How it works in reality is JUST simple line-of-sight Mathematically, we can understand perspective is a very simple mapping of a 3D point [x, y, z] into 2D [x/z, y/z] by dividing the x and y parameters by z by taking the SLOPE of the lines (and slope and angle are basica