The hoax of refraction and angular declination of the horizon.

http://ow.ly/u9ri8

Give it up.

I think you gave up already.

I am not in any way a mod, but I can tell you right now based on previous experience that the “Here is a link: discuss” style of starting threads does not convince anyone and in fact tends to make everyone hate you and, eventually, gets your thread closed. If you have a point to make, make it - don’t just post a link and expect us to do the work for you.

Of course, this was pointed out to you in the other thread already and you ignored it then so I doubt this will make any difference to you. So, fine: some random guy on YouTube is right, the entire scientific community of the world is wrong or lying to us, and your Nobel Prize is in the mail.

Now go away.

Here’s a link. I wrote it. Read then come back and discuss. I think that’s fair and simple.

No. You are not my homeroom teacher to give me a reading assignment.

I’ll bet you’re fun at parties.

If the Earth is hollow, with the sky in the middle of it, and God in the middle of that (because the Bible says the sky is like God’s garment) - that means God is smaller than the world. Isn’t that a bit disappointing?

“I just met you and this is crazy, but here’s a link to a YouTube video explaining why we should totally have sex and if you don’t watch it and refute its points I’m just going to assume that’s how this evening will end.”

Seriously - if I had a dollar for every person on the Internet who tried the “just watch this video and it will do all my arguing for me!” tactic I’d probably have enough money to pay someone to track down all those people and punch them in the gonads for wasting my time with incoherent nonsense.

The link in this thread doesn’t work for me so this could be the one rare exception where someone has put together an airtight case for their position, but based on the OP’s other writings and this thread title I think I’m safe is assuming that if I could watch it someone would owe me a dollar.

Don’t worry - it’s not.

You forgot to mention the refraction and angular declination conspiracy. Very rich and powerful people are behind it.

And don’t get me started on the angular declination shills that infest this board.

No, you wouldn’t. While you would have a lot of money, it would still come to $1 per idiot. $1/per is not enough to track and punch. Sadly.

Not good enough. Show your work.

So is this meant to debunk the pernicious “round Earth” theory, once and for all?

Ah, it’s time for another round of “guess what I’m thinking, and I’ll insult you if you guess wrong. Or if you guess right and disagree with me. Or, really, just if you respond at all.”

If you have some basic reading skills you should easily understand everything.

We’d debate you on this, but we have to go write our *important *stuff somewhere else, just like you.

Debate means bluff in your performance in fact, so…

I find your argument unconvincing.

You seem to say that when I move up in elevation, I should see more sky in my field of vision, but instead the horizon is always right there at the halfway point, so I’m always seeing equal parts land (or sea) and sky. But I’ve been on top of tall buildings and I do see mostly sky when I keep my head flat. But that’s boring, so I tilt my chin down slightly until I can see the much more interesting ground. Did you forget that necks are a thing that we all have? If you want convincing evidence for your theory, you’re going to need some better measuring equipment – say, a camera on a rig with a bunch of levels – and you’ll need to be able to make accurate predictions about how much of the resulting pictures will be land/sea and how much will be sky.

Then you have a gotcha ya! using some online horizon calculator that (gasp) is based on raw math and doesn’t take into account the terrain in between points A and B. Again, make a prediction and go test it, see if your numbers are correct.

Finally, you have a bunch of pictures of mountains from which you make ballpark guesses about elevation and distance, which you then plug into a precise formula to determine that the pictures must have been impossible. I’m not impressed by your ballpark guesses. In some cases, you use the elevation/distance for a city when the photographer is clearly on a hill or mountain outside the city. I think. It’s hard to tell with you.

You’ve been talked to by staff about this before…so consider this a warning for you now.
Do not make topics like this: 1. Without content
2. Start throwing snarky comments toward people who reply.

If you get too many warnings at this board, you will be banned.

This topic is closed, do not make another of these unless you want to actually have something to debate or say or it may get closed again.