Flat Earth theory / Eric Dubay.

Shouldn't convexity negate the ability to zoom in on an object? That's the thing I can't get my head around.

Where does such an idea that one cannot prove that ships go "hull down" when magnified. They do go hull down, and as someone who has stood lookout watches in the navy, and lived on a beach adjacent to the mouth of major navigable river with much trans-Pacific merchant traffic, I can assert the fact from a good amount of experience.

I will admit to having missed out on Mr, Dubay's thesis, so maybe I can be accused of being uninformed.

The way perspective works it will always give the impression of the hull going down. However if you use long range zooms the hull will appear to rise again, which shouldn't happen.

A question on the pic you took above. Did you magnify a still picture or did you use a camera to zoom in and take the picture?

What if I just used binoculars?

That was not a picture that I took.

I guess I am just narrow minded and old, and having made the mistake of trusting my experience, and maybe applying a bit of common sense too.

Any FEers are invited to make a study of surveying and the problems of drawing straight lines on a rounded surface.

You want to talk Hollow Earth, I am here to engage.

Should be the same with binoculars. If the full ship comes into view then you have to question it.

I've read a whole bunch of nonsense about tests for flat earth and globe earth, most of them based on someones preconceived view, but if you can zoom in on an object in full that is say 15 to 20 miles away I'd say Flat Earth is a viable theory. Clearly elevation is also a factor.

I've done the zoom lens camera thing before and been surprised, but that was prior to all the in-depth reading on the flat earth theories I've now done. I'm also unsure of the distances I was looking over. I need to go somewhere with a landmark that provides me with a verifiable distance that I can then plug into a calculation.

The great thing is that with a $500 camera you can test it for yourself. Nothing else other than a clear day required. It's the simplest and most conclusive test in my view. I've seen a number of YouTube vids showing and claiming immense distances, but clearly we have to validate with our own eyes to believe.

Anyway, with 4 kids and a busy calander it's not always easy to get the downtime to take a picture. Will confirm when I get the chance.

Have a good day.
Sacroff

Incidentally, my kids refer to me as ancient, which clearly beats old .

47 years young here!

Just to start with, it's a bit hard to conceive why any navy would perpetrate such a hoax if there were no advantage in battle or exploration to be attained. So much of the English language comes down from the era of the square riggers. It was this age that took science great leaps forward, where navigation and advantage in sea battles determined the fates of empires. There was a lot at stake; far too much for them to be shitting themselves about the nature of the globe they sought to dominate.

You may well be right, but for me I won't be fully satisfied either way until I test the effect discussed and gain 100% certainty. Too much information and disinformation around to know, but as I mentioned earlier at least the test is a simple one, unlike some other conspiracy theories where it's hard to get the closure.

sacroff wrote: Shouldn't convexity negate the ability to zoom in on an object? That's the thing I can't get my head around.

Light bends

nickzeptepi wrote: Light bends

A tiny amount perhaps.

Although, to be honest, I can't work out how a rainbow shows a perfect semi-circle every time, even after reading the scientific explanation. Shows I'm a dumb ass I guess!

sacroff wrote: A tiny amount perhaps.

Although, to be honest, I can't work out how a rainbow shows a perfect semi-circle every time, even after reading the scientific explanation. Shows I'm a dumb ass I guess!

Anomalies with observational measurements using the eyeball which also bends light does not make the earth flat

creaturehabits wrote: I'd love to see what sources people are digging into to wrap their heads around this one.

First time I heard about Flat Earth was when Greg had Eric Dubay on. My knee jerk instant reaction was hatred. But for some reason I kept looking into it and after 2 years I call myself a Flat Earther. Once you take that step to truly Question it and consider it, there is no going back. Now I can't get enough of it. The other topics just don't ring as true and pale in comparison. I wish Greg had more Flat Earth content.

These Gordon White and Richard Belzer inverviews are awful. I can't stand people who act like they are "above it all" and do absolutely nothing and bash Trump and probably vote for Hillary. Frauds! No more Gordon White. He is awful and seems like a Closet Left Wing cuck boy.

Gregs podcast throws a really wide net, which makes it appealing to me as I get to hear about a broad cross section of conspiracy subject matter, some of which is completely new.

Personally I really like the Gordon White episodes as I think he tackles difficult subject matter in a really engaging and refreshingly honest way. That doesn't stop me being interested in the flat earth topic, which is a favourite read at the moment.

By the way, I think Gordon lives in the U.K., so he's not voting Hilary anytime soon.

My becoming aware of the flat earth has been the greatest discovery since listening to THC. It really does put everything in to perspective.
As a parent I have been lying to my children since birth and will continue to do so until they are old enough to realise the truth. Everyone has gone through some form of parental deception. So why should we expect the truth from someone we don't know?

I listened. I'm still not at all convinced at flat Earth arguments having credibility. The lengths to which one must go to try to imagine the ways some of the "supposed" flat Earth arguments could be possible essentially introduce a lot of suspension of belief of much of reality, logic and basic science that is supported by daily observable life. We all can imagine a fantasy world and write a fiction book about the type of suppositions forward by this thought experiment of "flat Earth". It doesn't mean it's anything more than a fantasy. Perhaps it's the fact that I have a lot of scientific training and I pilot aircraft (with fuel stops) carrying 400 people at a time around the earth many times a year in my life's work that allows me to have the confidence of first person experience that helps me in this case. Flat Earth is an interesting but none the less unsupportable fantasy as far as physical, material existence here on our localized Earth goes. As far as matters of consciousness or deep space anomalies, I think the data and studies in those areas hint at massive potential areas of discovery.