8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You have yet to provide the camera's field of view, which is required to complete the calculations,

Yeah, I intend to do that ASAP (bit busy).

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Neither have you explained why you can't see the entire Chicago skyscape from 50 miles away,

I'll look back into this too. I think there are clearer pictures available. Normally, St. Regis and 875 North Michigan should essentially be hidden by the curvature.

16 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Yeah, I intend to do that ASAP (bit busy).

I'll look back into this too. I think there are clearer pictures available. Normally, St. Regis and 875 North Michigan should essentially be hidden by the curvature.

In the photo you provided, only the top half of the tall building was visible, and all the low buildings were below the horizon.

Why is that?

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

In the photo you provided, only the top half of the tall building was visible, and all the low buildings were below the horizon.

Why is that?

What needs to be determined is whether these buildings should be hidden by the curve or not. As I am not familiar with Chicago, this will have to be researched a bit (a little later).

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

What needs to be determined is whether these buildings should be hidden by the curve or not. As I am not familiar with Chicago, this will have to be researched a bit (a little later).

Well clearly you can see most of the buildings from this closer photo do not appear in the photo taken further away, yes?

.

What happens when pilots fly past the edge of the Earth, or are they all in on it as well?

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Well clearly you can see most of the buildings from this closer photo do not appear in the photo taken further away, yes?

.

The picture I posted is not clear enough. I find it hard to correlate landmarks, both pics dont seem to have been taken from the same angle.

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What happens when pilots fly past the edge of the Earth, or are they all in on it as well?

They don't go there and when they do, they are intercepted by army planes. We don't know what lies behind the ice wall because it is forbidden to go there.

[To those who will post a laughing emoji out of ignorance, I love you too… 😄]

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The picture I posted is not clear enough. I find it hard to correlate landmarks, both pics dont seem to have been taken from the same angle.

The angle does not matter, it's clear enough to see the tall buildings, but not the short ones. That's hilarious.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

They don't go there and when they do, they are intercepted by army planes. We don't know what lies behind the ice wall because it is forbidden to go there.

[To those who will post a laughing emoji out of ignorance, I love you too… 😄]

So all the pilots in the world are in on the secret, that's even funnier

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

You’ve just demonstrated Brandolini’s Law.

For anyone not familiar, Brandolini’s Law is simple: the amount of energy needed to refute nonsense is an order of magnitude greater than the effort required to produce it. And that’s exactly what’s going on with Moon landing denial, Artemis denial, and flat Earth claims.

It takes seconds to say “the Apollo 11 Moon Landing was faked” or “the Artemis program is a hoax” or “the Flat Earth theory is real”... It takes seconds to copy and paste memes and excerpts from 'deiners' facebook groups and pages, it takes seconds to copy and pasted in oneliners that sound catchy to the uneducated layman....

It takes vastly more time to walk through orbital mechanics, telemetry records, independent tracking data, lunar geology, satellite systems, and centuries of observational science just to explain why those claims fall apart.

That imbalance isn’t proof of a cover-up - it’s the whole point of the tactic.

It's why I avoid engaging in most scepticism - because you’re exploiting asymmetry. Dropping dismissal demands exhaustive proof in return, the dismissial isn’t critical thinking, it’s intellectual freeloading. You offload all the effort onto everyone else while contributing nothing but doubt.

And the kicker is this: the evidence isn’t hard to find, it’s just hard to ignore if you’re committed to the conclusion first. The data is public, the methods are repeatable, and the verification comes from multiple independent sources across decades.

Your's - this isn’t some brave challenge to orthodoxy. It’s simply a textbook case of Brandolini’s Law: minimal effort to assert maximum noise, maximal effort to correct - you’ve mistaken that imbalance for having a point.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

I beg to differ. While I do occasionally josh a little, or post a meme, it is essentially to keep the temperature down and make it consistently clear that I don't take myself too seriously. These science-centric debates tend to devolve into standoffs where each side will defend their belief as if they were guarding a sacred citadel…

Asking questions is good as it often allows for knowledge expansion. For example, a few pages back, I asked why the ISS doesn't capture any satellites in its livestream. Of course, some will be a little irritated as they know Rattlesnake doesn't even believe the ISS exists and is therefore making insinuations, laying pre-loaded debates on the table, etc. True, I am to some extent, but the question is an honest one. I had the ISS livestream on for two hours on a second screen, and didn't see a single satellite, though there purportedly are 10,000-15,000 of them, of which several thousand are the size of a school bus, in lower Earth orbit.

• Hummin said his knowledge of video allowed him to assert it was normal: they can't be captured for technical reasons, he claims;

• Yellowtail said they do appear once in a while, but the area is so huge that it is bound to be a rare occurrence (to which I asked how long the stream would have to be watched in order for it to be mathematically impossible to not see a single one – still to be determined);

• gamb00ler suggested it could be related to height, i.e. the ISS and satellites could not be on the same level (an astute remark which we still need to look into).

In any case, you have three people who are on the same side of the debate coming from different angles. Once we have figured it out, everybody will be more knowledgeable and therefore these threads are not the abyssal depths of ignorance you sometimes imply they are.

We are not talking about beliefs here. We are talking about proven, established science. Those are two very different things.

I do entertain the philosophical idea of a designed simulation, and to me it is a far better theory than flat Earth and many other explanations people reach for, both about the world and about personal experience. But it is still only a theory, a belief, and not something proven.

However, I will never argue that we live in a simulation, invent science that does not yet exist, or claim something is proven when it is not. And I will not follow self-proclaimed simulation-creationist “scientists” who confuse belief and speculation with actual proof.

Oh, and why when I fly from New York to Bangkok, why do we not fly over the North Pole?

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

I beg to differ. While I do occasionally josh a little, or post a meme, it is essentially to keep the temperature down and make it consistently clear that I don't take myself too seriously. These science-centric debates tend to devolve into standoffs where each side will defend their belief as if they were guarding a sacred citadel…

Asking questions is good as it often allows for knowledge expansion. For example, a few pages back, I asked why the ISS doesn't capture any satellites in its livestream. Of course, some will be a little irritated as they know Rattlesnake doesn't even believe the ISS exists and is therefore making insinuations, laying pre-loaded debates on the table, etc. True, I am to some extent, but the question is an honest one. I had the ISS livestream on for two hours on a second screen, and didn't see a single satellite, though there purportedly are 10,000-15,000 of them, of which several thousand are the size of a school bus, in lower Earth orbit.

• Hummin said his knowledge of video allowed him to assert it was normal: they can't be captured for technical reasons, he claims;

• Yellowtail said they do appear once in a while, but the area is so huge that it is bound to be a rare occurrence (to which I asked how long the stream would have to be watched in order for it to be mathematically impossible to not see a single one – still to be determined);

• gamb00ler suggested it could be related to height, i.e. the ISS and satellites could not be on the same level (an astute remark which we still need to look into).

In any case, you have three people who are on the same side of the debate coming from different angles. Once we have figured it out, everybody will be more knowledgeable and therefore these threads are not the abyssal depths of ignorance you sometimes imply they are.

The ISS 'is a satellite' by the way - and like many other satellites it can be seen withthe naked eye on a clear night - when conditions are right and the reflectin of the solar array is just right.

I've seen it many times. Just as I've seen starlink.

So - why would you think 14,959 satellites (according to latest info) are in orbit - but one of them isn't ????

And they do show up on the ISS camera at times - as specs.... but just like your iPhone isn't designed to catch an ant flying past at mach 5 when taking a photo of the missus... the cameras on the ISS aren't designed to pick up something we already know is there because...

- Satellites are too small to see from the ISS at typical distances

- ISS cameras are set for Earth views, not tracking tiny objects

- Satellites move extremely fast (~28,000 km/h) - they zip past in milliseconds

- Orbits rarely line up - most are nowhere near the ISS view

- Lighting is poor for spotting them - low contrast in space

- Many satellites are above or below the ISS orbit (~400 km)

- You’d need high zoom + tracking cameras to reliably see them

- Occasionally they do appear - but as brief dots or streaks

The satellites re just not visible with the kind of cameras on the International Space Station - thats not proof of the absense of either the ISS or satellites.

This again - is another example of Brandolini’s Law - you ask what on the surface appear like perfectly logical questions - but highlight great ignorance, which you could educate yourself beyond in a very quick time frame - you don't because you'd rather taken on the debate than dig into facts and reasoning - its why refuting your comments takes time and effort - its almost like a form of trolling.

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh, and why when I fly from New York to Bangkok, why do we not fly over the North Pole?

Because its so cold there - carrying the extra jumpers, scarves and coats would increase the aircraft payload - it would require additional fuel and increase the price of air-tickets....

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

They don't go there and when they do, they are intercepted by army planes. We don't know what lies behind the ice wall because it is forbidden to go there.

[To those who will post a laughing emoji out of ignorance, I love you too… 😄]

So all the pilots in the world are in on the secret, that's even funnier

Its a different reality - the planes don't actually fly - they just 'jump' for varying amounts of time, upwards, inwards or outwards and allow the flat disk to spin underneath them... with incredible timing, they get it right and fall back down at the correct spot....

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

They don't go there and when they do, they are intercepted by army planes. We don't know what lies behind the ice wall because it is forbidden to go there.

Admiral Richard Byrd

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So all the pilots in the world are in on the secret, that's even funnier

Nobody would need to be 'in on' anything under this model, they follow established paths.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Nobody would need to be 'in on' anything under this model, they follow established paths.

On your map - you must be having a laugh - if an Australian goes to the ice wall which we know as Antarctica and an Argentinian goes there they should be on opposite sides of the flat world. But both countries have collaborated in Antarctica. Flights have gone from Australia to Argentina over Antarctica. Hmm.

14 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

On your map - you must be having a laugh - if an Australian goes to the ice wall which we know as Antarctica and an Argentinian goes there they should be on opposite sides of the flat world. But both countries have collaborated in Antarctica. Flights have gone from Australia to Argentina over Antarctica. Hmm.

Yeah, this is one of the instances where the path is similar on both models.

Globe model:

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Nobody would need to be 'in on' anything under this model, they follow established paths.

You seem think everyone is stupid. The pilots follow established routes, but they would have to notice that the distance on the flat-earth map is much further than it should be, and they have to fly in the wrong direction.

Thai Airlines had a Bangkok to New York nonstop, and there was not a commercial airliner with the range to make per the flat-map.

Quantas has a nonstop from Johannesburg to Sydney using a B787 in 12 hours.

The range of the B787 is less than 9,000 miles.

The distance on the flat-map is 18,000 miles, twice the range of the aircraft,

The pilots would have to know that are going over 1,500, twice the speed of sound, so two sonic booms The pilots have to know they are going the "wrong" direction.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Thai Airlines had a Bangkok to New York nonstop, and there was not a commercial airliner with the range to make per the flat-map.

oh... but thats where your logic is broken - once they get to the middle, centrical force throws them out - plus its little bit down hill.... In fact - we should be complaining - clearly there's a fuel scam going on !!!!

... so forget about the flat earth argument - what about this dirty great fuel scam ? all these pilots claiming all these excess litres of fuel disappearing - bet not one of these pilots has an EV...

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Quantas has a nonstop from Johannesburg to Sydney using a B787 in 12 hours.

The range of the B787 is less than 9,000 miles.

The distance on the flat-map is 18,000 miles, twice the range of the aircraft,

The pilots would have to know that are going over 1,500, twice the speed of sound, so two sonic booms The pilots have to know they are going the "wrong" direction.

ah.... that’s where Theory of Relativity comes in. As the Boeing 787 Dreamliner accelerates, spacetime politely compresses the route ahead of it, so Johannesburg and Sydney become much closer mid-flight.

It’s a well-known aviation effect - far more noticeable at cruising altitude because gravity is slightly weaker, so relativity really gets going. On the ground you barely notice it, but at 35,000 feet the continents practically lean toward each other...

The pilots don’t mention it because the cabin crew would have to explain why passengers briefly age a few nanoseconds less than their families back home, and that sort of thing causes unnecessary paperwork.

Also explains why there are no sonic booms - the aircraft isn’t exceeding the speed of sound, the sound is just taking a more “philosophical” route through curved spacetime.

Perfectly standard stuff...

@Hummin, I came across this and thought it might be of interest to you.

35 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

@Hummin, I came across this and thought it might be of interest to you.

Joe Rogan is all over the place, and this is exactly the pattern I mean: a bunch of boys getting high, chasing “deep” ideas, and convincing themselves they are uncovering hidden truths, when most of it is just intoxicated speculation dressed up as wisdom.

Have you paid attention to his channel, and what do you think of it?

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Have you paid attention to his channel, and what do you think of it?

I'm not particularly a fan of Rogan (I'm not really part of the 'social media' generation, I'm 45 years old and more of a book reader than anything else), but I think he is part of an array of 'influencers' who encourage their audience to question things and be more independent-minded, which (whatever you think of it) constitutes a radical break from the previous generation, who would read the paper or watch the news and believe whatever they read/saw unquestionably.

To me, this is a positive development, and therefore I have a favourable opinion about Rogan (which does not mean I necessarily agree with everything he says).

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

We don't know what lies behind the ice wall because it is forbidden to go there.

Forbidden by whom?

36 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I'm not particularly a fan of Rogan (I'm not really part of the 'social media' generation, I'm 45 years old and more of a book reader than anything else), but I think he is part of an array of 'influencers' who encourage their audience to question things and be more independent-minded, which (whatever you think of it) constitutes a radical break from the previous generation, who would read the paper or watch the news and believe whatever they read/saw unquestionably.

To me, this is a positive development, and therefore I have a favourable opinion about Rogan (which does not mean I necessarily agree with everything he says).

The fine tuning is knowing what bias is, why bias exists, and how to think for yourself without mistaking independence for expertise.

Yes, it is healthy to question things. Yes, it is good not to swallow everything from papers, television, or authorities without reflection. But being critical does not mean rejecting established science before you have evidence strong enough to challenge it.

You can hold a private opinion, and you can share an opinion, but once you speak to a large audience, responsibility changes. Then it is no longer only about your freedom to speculate, but also about how your words shape the thinking of the masses.

That is where much of modern “independent thinking” has gone wrong. Everyone now wants to be an expert, while fewer people seem willing to do the hard work expertise actually requires. In that sense, this has become an insanely stupid time to live in, when we could have been growing smarter instead.

And yes, sometimes it does start to look like a perfect rule-and-divide environment: flood people with noise, make everyone doubt everything, flatten expertise, and confusion does the rest.

8 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The angle does not matter, it's clear enough to see the tall buildings, but not the short ones. That's hilarious.

For your point to be valid, the exact same photograph needs to be taken from far away and close up.

I intend to look ino this, but will not be able to do it before this weekend.

8 hours ago, johng said:

Admiral Richard Byrd

Yes indeed, John.

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

For your point to be valid, the exact same photograph needs to be taken from far away and close up.

I intend to look ino this, but will not be able to do it before this weekend.

Just tell me why the bottom half of the tall buildings, and all the short building in you photo are gone.

5 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

For your point to be valid, the exact same photograph needs to be taken from far away and close up.

I intend to look ino this, but will not be able to do it before this weekend.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how on a flight from Johannesburg to Sydney, a B787 goes twice the speed of sound and double the range in the wrong direction.