I'm not an FE enthusiast by any means, but I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it- same with the sun after it had gone 'below the horizon'- zoom in flat lensed and up it popped! Thought I was seeing things.
I can't address any other points I'm afraid fren, it really was a very quick segue from usual research, it just stuck in my noggin for some reason.
Not trying to rock the boat (as it were), nor argue a convincing standpoint on FE, just thought it may interest you.
I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it
You can find just about any "camera" evidence you want for just about anything. I consider this to be meaningless. It is too easy to create any evidence you want.
As for the specifics of your argument however; the problem with finding those types of evidence is, light doesn't travel in a straight line. It can be bent by different densities of air/water (or by other diffraction gratings). You can find all sorts of anomalies like that because of these well studied phenomena (I myself have done those experiments).
Physics gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of this type. It gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of any type regarding FE. Physics says that FE is not possible. Do I trust physics? Not even a little bit, despite being a trained physicist. What I do think though, is that it gives a really good argument. Any argument in support of FE HAS to address the really good arguments from physics in a meaningful way or their arguments hold no water.
You can't just go around claiming something, and citing a source that has evidence of C_A origins (Eric Dubay) and expect anyone who has really studied the subject and done real experiments on the subject to give their word any validity when they can't even address the actual evidence in support of a globe.
Indeed, yes, nor would I try to mount an effective argument- it just popped into my head as a vivid memory and thought I'd offer it.
I could think of nothing more excruciating that having my grey matter tied in a dozen knots by trying to debate a proper physicist on the dimensions of our earth, science was never a strong point for me!
I think I read somewhere Dubay has Masonic connections too, an uncle(?), others look compromised too- I tend to research the people involved first if I'm not confident on identifying things as junk science, and yes, they look a bit sus.
Is the NASA footage they showed in the same vids suspect? I'm sure I've seen that in a couple of places- the support wires and VR objects etc. (sorry, slight segue).
How do you explain how the 80 mile long suez canal was dug without calculating for earth curvature
OK, a few thoughts on this.
I don't give a fuck. I have presented arguments against FE and again, no one is willing to address my arguments.
How do you?
Why do you think it wasn't?
The evidence suggests it was first dug a very long time ago by people who knew just as much about such things as we do now.
I'm not an FE enthusiast by any means, but I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it- same with the sun after it had gone 'below the horizon'- zoom in flat lensed and up it popped! Thought I was seeing things.
I can't address any other points I'm afraid fren, it really was a very quick segue from usual research, it just stuck in my noggin for some reason.
Not trying to rock the boat (as it were), nor argue a convincing standpoint on FE, just thought it may interest you.
You can find just about any "camera" evidence you want for just about anything. I consider this to be meaningless. It is too easy to create any evidence you want.
As for the specifics of your argument however; the problem with finding those types of evidence is, light doesn't travel in a straight line. It can be bent by different densities of air/water (or by other diffraction gratings). You can find all sorts of anomalies like that because of these well studied phenomena (I myself have done those experiments).
Physics gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of this type. It gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of any type regarding FE. Physics says that FE is not possible. Do I trust physics? Not even a little bit, despite being a trained physicist. What I do think though, is that it gives a really good argument. Any argument in support of FE HAS to address the really good arguments from physics in a meaningful way or their arguments hold no water.
You can't just go around claiming something, and citing a source that has evidence of C_A origins (Eric Dubay) and expect anyone who has really studied the subject and done real experiments on the subject to give their word any validity when they can't even address the actual evidence in support of a globe.
Indeed, yes, nor would I try to mount an effective argument- it just popped into my head as a vivid memory and thought I'd offer it.
I could think of nothing more excruciating that having my grey matter tied in a dozen knots by trying to debate a proper physicist on the dimensions of our earth, science was never a strong point for me!
I think I read somewhere Dubay has Masonic connections too, an uncle(?), others look compromised too- I tend to research the people involved first if I'm not confident on identifying things as junk science, and yes, they look a bit sus.
Is the NASA footage they showed in the same vids suspect? I'm sure I've seen that in a couple of places- the support wires and VR objects etc. (sorry, slight segue).