- Start Here
- First Questions Asked?
- Jesuits; Rulers of Evil
- History of Geocentric Theory
- The Heliocentric Globalist Theory
- Reasons to Doubt the Earth is Truly a Sphere
- Reasons to Doubt Everything NASA
- Moon Hoax Images
- Moon Hoax Videos
- Trusted FE Links
- Other Author Websites
- The F.E.S.S. Forum
- Flat Earth Videos
- Flat Earth Library
- Flat Earth Gallery I
- Flat Earth Gallery II
- FE Memes I
- FE Memes II
- FE Music Vids
- New! FE Maps
- Flat Earth Book Now On Sale!
I believe the claims of this video are inaccurate due to selective editing, and misinterpretation of facts describing how “models” are created to achieve their calculated results.
The visibility of mountains at “300 miles” is in a section titled “Optical Phenomena”. There is no actual claim of a direct line-of-sight visibility of mountains at that distance, but that atmospheric conditions can lead to this phenomena. The very next section of the document is titled “Mirages—Abnormal Refraction”, and immediately follows the distance quoted above. It includes this explanation: “Objects below the horizon may actually become visible and this effect is known as looming. If the images are also stretched vertically, this refraction phenomenon is known as towering.”
The next 2 examples misunderstand the subject material. The first sample is self described as a “model” based on derivations of data under a fixed set of assumptions. These assumptions include, besides a “flat non-rotating earth” the following: “rigid aircraft of constant mass flying in a stationary atmosphere.” It the flat earth part is taken as fact, then the rest should also.
However, no aircraft has constant mass (due to fuel consumption), the atmosphere is not stationary, and it is possible that moving aircraft parts (wings, tails, etc,) would violate the rigid aircraft condition. Since 2 of the total 4 conditions are not facts but assumptions for calculating purposes, it is quite likely all 4 are as well.
At a minimum, research into models and these kinds of statements would need to be done to understand what this rather precise and awkward set of statements really do mean. We should not simply assume these are everyday sentences and attempt to read them as such.
The last sample includes a reference to the mathematical model being simplified, after stating the model assumptions. Once again, unless we know how modeling scientists describe their work, we can’t guess at the meaning using everyday word definitions.
In short, this is just cherry-picking something that might sound like what the initial conclusion starts with, instead of using actual evidence, in context with a known meaning, to reach a conclusion.
p.s. – at the bottom of the last sample, below the red rectangle, the text does refer to the elliptic earth, as a flat earth assumption can’t be used for trajectory propagation (whatever that is – scientific stuff I’d guess).
Perhaps you have a good explanation of how the assumptive phenomena originated. Did it appear before the US navy at that time purely by chance, with the Antarctic mountains in exactly the right direction? How about the city of Chicago being seen across 30 miles of sea. A boat journey across the water, keeping the city in sight proved it was no phenomena. Thanks for your input.
First of all, just because someone put up a youtube video does not mean something has been proven. It’s really really silly to go around saying something has been “proven” because you watched a six minute video on youtube. Get real.
Secondly, FE people repeatedly deny the existence of refraction, just like they deny gravity and a lot of other things – always without offering any proof whatsoever of their claims. Refraction of light is very much real and you can see evidence of it all around you each and every day.
FE theory is pointed at people who dont have reasonable analytic skills. Sadly, I was also fooled for a short time. If you actually dig down and apply your common sense, you’ll see that FE people are lying. Some of them do it for glory or ego, and some are no doubt doing it for profit. It’s your choice as to whether or not you are fooled by these liars.
Harmony, you mentioned Eratosthenes proving the earth a globe, and a seeming 1.5 foot drop in Folsom Lake as proving the round earth. Please see the FE position on the proximity of the earth to the sun below.
Also consider that when using the same math that the Folsom Lake calculation was based on when applied to Lake Victoria we have almost a mile high wall of water in the center of that lake if the earth is indeed a globe. It seems that would be a little more noticeable but it escapes my vision and everyone else’s.
Also you have used the words lies and liars in at least two or three of your posts now. Calling someone a liar assumes that person not only knows all the relevant facts but the truth of those facts.. I have asked you now two or three times for true proof via the scientific method that the earth is a tilted, rotating and revolving globe. I am still waiting.
In the meantime what truth was it that convinced you to join the FE camp, and what truth prompted your repudiation?
Eratosthenes was wrong. We live on a FLAT EARTH.: http://youtu.be/fk_NzMejP-0
IDK, can you elaborate, maybe provide a few sentences, to explain the specific details you would like to know more about.
The phrase “assumptive phenomena originated” might have a variety of perspectives, and I don’t think someone guessing what you intended and were referring to by this would be particularly effective.