![Flat Earthers [750x1076 - 93KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/6DmM0h.jpg){kind=link}
It is Chicago. From the point indicated on the picture.
Asking for concrete when you literally just used Photoshop to "assume" measurements. Priceless.
And exactly what concrete measurement is "starting"? Starting == 1 foot? 100 feet? 1000 feet?
At about 8 miles. It was included in the sentence... From standing on the earths surface a human should not be able to see the horizon beyond ~8 miles. And if you use the official math to calculate the distance to the horizon depending on viewing height its even less.
d² = h² + 2rh
distance² = height² + (2 * radius * height)
You aren't going to get a fantastical debunk on me...
Nobody knows and I do not claim to be one that does. There is evidence that supports both arguments. The fact everyone is busy fighting about it instead of being angry that those who do know and are not transparent in their findings is the issue I pointed out.
Asking for concrete when you literally just used Photoshop to "assume" measurements. Priceless.
Since all I had to work with was your picture with no information, I used what I could to make comparisons. I made a line the height of the tallest building and used that line to measure across the picture. Assuming the height of the building was 1000 feet (just a guess since I didn't know the city), I found that there was about 35 lines across the picture. How much more concrete could I get with what you provided? What would you do differently?
I notice you didn't say anything about where the land was. Why isn't there any visible land? Where did it go? Why didn't you answer that question? You're not going to simply dismiss my work on this just because you chose to avoid answering that question.
You need to provide something better than "those who do know and are not transparent in their findings is the issue I pointed out" when a picture like this doesn't have anything to do with anyone who might "know". Are you suggesting this image is fake then?
The bottom 50ft are not missing from those buildings. Maybe 10/20, but not 50. Another thing is I never claimed the earth was flat. I made an observation. If you cant use math and common sense to acknowledge that there is more of that picture visible than what they say should be then IDK... You do you.
I made an observation. If you cant use math and common sense to acknowledge that there is more of that picture visible than what they say should be then IDK
I made an observation too, with measurements and calculations (which uses math, in case you didn't know that). Why is your observation valid but mine not?
There's pretty much what I would expect there to be in that picture. All the smaller buildings are missing. You claim they are there but not in focus, but you should at least see something fuzzy above the waterline if that were the case. You can't see shit except for the skyscrapers. You refuse to acknowledge that despite your source picture (that you posted, not me) showing nothing of what you claim.
Be honest in your assertions lest you be no better than those you claim are hiding the "truth".
(post is archived)