Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

Legit question wrote:

The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth.

Here, let me google that for you.

"Astronomical or celestial refraction causes astronomical objects to appear higher in the sky than they are in reality. Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they really are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they really are."

How big is America? NASA screw up

https://ronmamita.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/1-nasa-america-size-changes-with-the-seasons-orbital-photo.jpg?w=918&h=718

A dumb engineer wrote:

not so much wrote:

Ya, if the earth was a sphere, the only way you could see the skyline from there is if the NYC skyline were actually above the earth's surface.

Again, I love this thread so much.

Wrong, do the math.

a. you are not an engineer

b.okay, using the number given above, if the earth is curved, you can see anything above 170 ft (~17 stories), which is a whole lot of the skyline.

Using the equation given, the zero-elevation horizon is 44 miles from a 1283 ft elevation and 16 miles from a 170 ft elevation, which is where the 170 ft comes from.

So I guess I was wrong when I said "above the earth's surface", the math, done correctly by Legit Question btw, actually says the skyline has to be above 170 ft elevation to see it.

btw, the horizon is 52 miles from the top of One World Trade Center.

Over the years NASA has twice changed their story regarding the shape of the Earth. At first they maintained Earth was a perfect sphere, which later changed to an “oblate spheroid” flattened at the poles, and then changed again to being “pear-shaped” as the Southern hemisphere allegedly bulges out as well. Unfortunately for NASA, however, none of their official pictures show an oblate spheroid or pear-shaped Earth! All their pictures, contrary to their words, show a spherical (and clearly CGI fake) Earth.

Since it is the anniversary of The Challenger disaster - another one of NASA's huge conspiracies - I feel like it is only right to share this scientific diagram as proof of what truly happened on that day:

https://thetruthandlight.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/challenger-trageidy.jpg?w=300&h=230

not so much wrote:

A dumb engineer wrote:

Wrong, do the math.

a. you are not an engineer

b.okay, using the number given above, if the earth is curved, you can see anything above 170 ft (~17 stories), which is a whole lot of the skyline.

Using the equation given, the zero-elevation horizon is 44 miles from a 1283 ft elevation and 16 miles from a 170 ft elevation, which is where the 170 ft comes from.

So I guess I was wrong when I said "above the earth's surface", the math, done correctly by Legit Question btw, actually says the skyline has to be above 170 ft elevation to see it.

btw, the horizon is 52 miles from the top of One World Trade Center.

okay, cool

as already noted wrote:

Refraction.

Correct. I've already linked this:

what is the motivation for NASA to perpetrate this hoax on the world?

What is keeping all the people who have worked for NASA over the years to keep quiet?

I received a private email from "Legit Question" stating that he tried the Colonel Friedrich Kraus von Zillergut method that I mentioned in a previous post. Legit Question said he was disappointed that the result showed that the earth was not flat, and was, in fact, quite embarrassed about all his previous posts. His embarrassment is so great that he will not post any apologies; he knows this to be wrong, but the "shame factor" (his words) would be too great.

I suggest that, since we have all made mistakes in the past (even the esteemed Cadet Biegler), that we have sympathy for Legit Question, instead of berating him for his error.

All the Best,

Schweik

Asking again... wrote:

what is the motivation for NASA to perpetrate this hoax on the world?

What is keeping all the people who have worked for NASA over the years to keep quiet?

Start with 2:50 min and watch rest of video from a former NASA whistleblower.

Schweik wrote:

I received a private email from "Legit Question" stating that he tried the Colonel Friedrich Kraus von Zillergut method that I mentioned in a previous post. Legit Question said he was disappointed that the result showed that the earth was not flat, and was, in fact, quite embarrassed about all his previous posts. His embarrassment is so great that he will not post any apologies; he knows this to be wrong, but the "shame factor" (his words) would be too great.

I suggest that, since we have all made mistakes in the past (even the esteemed Cadet Biegler), that we have sympathy for Legit Question, instead of berating him for his error.

All the Best,

Schweik

Actually, it was you that emailed me.

Asking again... wrote:

what is the motivation for NASA to perpetrate this hoax on the world?

What is keeping all the people who have worked for NASA over the years to keep quiet?

I haven't researched this much, as I just really became aware of this theory because of this thread, but it seems as if most of the "flat-earthers" take a very literal reading of the Old Testament and also the apocryphal Book of Enoch which describes the Earth, firmament above, waters above, heaven, etc.

Therefore if NASA could confirm that such a design was true, it would prove the existence of God, the creator. So NASA must not want to prove the existence of God. Whatever control they and the governments of the world had over the inhabitants of the planet would be considerably reduced if we all knew that our existence is more or less as it is described in the Bible.

But then again, I'm only a few days into this.

hear ya go wrote:

as already noted wrote:

Refraction.

Correct. I've already linked this:

http://surveying2012.blogspot.ca/2014/06/error-due-to-refraction-and-curvature.html

Wouldn't the NYC skyline be tilting backwards?

as already noted wrote:

Legit question wrote:

The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth.

Refraction.

Tall buildings. If they would be hidden behind 170 feet of curved Earth then anything over 170 feet would be visible. I think New York has one or two of those.

dumb engineer wrote:

Wouldn't the NYC skyline be tilting backwards?

At 60 miles, you'll be lucky to identify the building let alone what angle it's tilting.

maybe the flat-earthers do claim their belief is backed by the bible, but that's a minority view. It's kinda amazing what the bible does not say - it doesn't have the earth held up by turtles or the moon carried by a fish. What it says about the earth roughly lines up with what we know (not taking about creation timing, just about the physical earth situation). In fact, some bible people claim the bible says something about the earth being round. It definitely does not say anything explicitly about it being flat.

I'm sure there are athiest blogs out there that will pull something out and say the bible does say the earth is flat, but I've been deep in the bible people world for many years and many denominations and flavors and I've never heard anyone imply that the bible says the earth is flat.

dumb engineer wrote:

not so much wrote:

a. you are not an engineer

b.okay, using the number given above, if the earth is curved, you can see anything above 170 ft (~17 stories), which is a whole lot of the skyline.

Using the equation given, the zero-elevation horizon is 44 miles from a 1283 ft elevation and 16 miles from a 170 ft elevation, which is where the 170 ft comes from.

So I guess I was wrong when I said "above the earth's surface", the math, done correctly by Legit Question btw, actually says the skyline has to be above 170 ft elevation to see it.

btw, the horizon is 52 miles from the top of One World Trade Center.

okay, cool

Can you show me a picture from the top of Bear Mtn that shows the NYC skyline and the ocean behind it? If its flat, the ocean should stretch for miles behind the city.

maybe the flat-earthers do claim their belief is backed by the bible, but that's a minority view. It's kinda amazing what the bible does not say - it doesn't have the earth held up by turtles or the moon carried by a fish. What it says about the earth roughly lines up with what we know (not taking about creation timing, just about the physical earth situation). In fact, some bible people claim the bible says something about the earth being round. It definitely does not say anything explicitly about it being flat.

I'm sure there are athiest blogs out there that will pull something out and say the bible does say the earth is flat, but I've been deep in the bible people world for many years and many denominations and flavors and I've never heard anyone imply that the bible says the earth is flat.

There you have it, a flat earth proves the bible wrong, it's the Christians behind NASA covering it up.

Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth. They claim that because the Earth is so massive, by virtue of this mass it creates a magic force able to hold people, oceans and atmosphere tightly clung to the underside of the spinning ball. Unfortunately, however, they cannot provide any practical example of this on a scale smaller than the planetary. A spinning wet tennis ball, for instance, has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball-Earth!

Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unknown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in allowing the spinning wet tennis ball-Earth to keep every drop of “gravitized” water stuck to the surface. When such an unproven theory goes against all experiments, experience and common sense, it is high time to drop the theory.