Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 May '17 18:13
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Oh dear...
    That's not an answer...
    is it?
  2. Standard membersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    16 May '17 19:36
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Goodness, it is painful explaining such rudimentary things to a man who has been alive seven decades.

    They're not tall enough.

    How are you able to distinctly make out those stacks in the pics, when they should be completely out of sight?
    I though you said we lived on a flat planet. Maybe I am wrong but I have this distinct feeling you have been saying that. So on this flat planet, I should be able to see even a minor mile high mountain with a scope at 1600 miles. We see the moon quite clearly and it is what, over 3000 miles away. Also, why are there totally different stars visible in the southern hemisphere? Why can't I see the southern cross for instance from Pennsylvania? Like NEVER?
  3. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 May '17 19:56
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I though you said we lived on a flat planet. Maybe I am wrong but I have this distinct feeling you have been saying that. So on this flat planet, I should be able to see even a minor mile high mountain with a scope at 1600 miles. We see the moon quite clearly and it is what, over 3000 miles away. Also, why are there totally different stars visible in the so ...[text shortened]... thern hemisphere? Why can't I see the southern cross for instance from Pennsylvania? Like NEVER?
    DID YOU SEE THE PICTURE I PROVIDED WHICH SHOWS THE TWO STACKS OF THE POWER PLANT 31 MILES AWAY?
    THE STACKS WHICH SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE ON A ROUND PLANET BECAUSE THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE BEYOND THE HORIZON AND CURVATURE?

    DID YOU?
  4. Standard membersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    16 May '17 20:52
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    DID YOU SEE THE PICTURE I PROVIDED WHICH SHOWS THE TWO STACKS OF THE POWER PLANT 31 MILES AWAY?
    THE STACKS WHICH SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE ON A ROUND PLANET BECAUSE THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE BEYOND THE HORIZON AND CURVATURE?

    DID YOU?
    you don't have to shout. I can actually read lower case. But if that is because your blood pressure has gone up, GOOD.

    I saw a photo you posted and all I saw was an indistinct picture of a boat and a lot of water and maybe some kind of tiny thing that might be a pointy building or some such in the distance, on that image it was what, one millimeter long? How am I supposed to make anything out about that?

    Like I said, do those photos with a telescope.
  5. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 May '17 20:57
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    you don't have to shout. I can actually read lower case. But if that is because your blood pressure has gone up, GOOD.

    I saw a photo you posted and all I saw was an indistinct picture of a boat and a lot of water and maybe some kind of tiny thing that might be a pointy building or some such in the distance, on that image it was what, one millimeter long ...[text shortened]... m I supposed to make anything out about that?

    Like I said, do those photos with a telescope.
    You are deluded.
    In the picture, you can CLEARLY see the boat, the white cloud to the right and further away in the distance to it.
    You cannot see the two stacks unless you zoom in on the area where they are, which is just to the right of the white cloud coming from the salt flats.
    But when you do zoom in, you can clearly make out the two stacks.
    Those two stacks should not be visible at all.
    That is a problem for your globe earth.
    And you don't understand why it is, do you.
  6. SubscriberC J Horse
    A stable personality
    Near my hay.
    Joined
    27 Apr '06
    Moves
    52768
    17 May '17 06:33
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    My guess is that there isn't anything tall enough on the shore you're looking toward to stand out with enough distinction over that distance.
    That would be true on a round world.The problem is with those structures you claim to see over the water. In another thread you said repeatedly:

    "I don't need a telescope, because I can see the entirety of the objects."

    If you can see the bottom of them, why can't I see any of France?
  7. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    17 May '17 12:18
    Originally posted by C J Horse
    That would be true on a round world.The problem is with those structures you claim to see over the water. In another thread you said repeatedly:

    "I don't need a telescope, because I can see the entirety of the objects."

    If you can see the bottom of them, why can't I see any of France?
    Not standing on that shore, I couldn't tell you.
    My guess is, there isn't anything tall enough to stand out from that distance.
    But now I'm just repeating myself.
  8. Standard membersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    17 May '17 13:58
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Not standing on that shore, I couldn't tell you.
    My guess is, there isn't anything tall enough to stand out from that distance.
    But now I'm just repeating myself.
    You never did say why we can't see the southern cross from the north, anywhere in the USA. Why do we have to go to say Argentina to see it if Earth is flat? We should ALL be able to see it anywhere on your flat planet.
  9. SubscriberC J Horse
    A stable personality
    Near my hay.
    Joined
    27 Apr '06
    Moves
    52768
    17 May '17 14:27
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Not standing on that shore, I couldn't tell you.
    My guess is, there isn't anything tall enough to stand out from that distance.
    But now I'm just repeating myself.
    Why does it have to be particularly tall? You said:

    "I don't need a telescope, because I can see the entirety of the objects."

    So, you can see from the base to the top. You would be able to see them if they were half as tall, or a quarter. Why can't I?
  10. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    17 May '17 14:32
    Originally posted by C J Horse
    Why does it have to be particularly tall? You said:

    "I don't need a telescope, because I can see the entirety of the objects."

    So, you can see from the base to the top. You would be able to see them if they were half as tall, or a quarter. Why can't I?
    What is your point, exactly?
  11. Standard membersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52874
    17 May '17 14:48
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You never did say why we can't see the southern cross from the north, anywhere in the USA. Why do we have to go to say Argentina to see it if Earth is flat? We should ALL be able to see it anywhere on your flat planet.
    Noted. You have no idea why we can't see the southern cross. Maybe its part of the vast international conspiracy, it's fake too?

    You commented on seeing ISS in the sky and you said you see SOMETHING but are there people inside? I think that was the gist of your statement.

    So you admit we CAN put stuff into orbit, right? That 'thing' we call ISS is in orbit, right?
  12. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35947
    17 May '17 14:51
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    What is your point, exactly?
    Is he speaking too slowly for you?
  13. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    17 May '17 15:00
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Is he speaking too slowly for you?
    It's okay: I just read it fast to make up for it.
  14. SubscriberC J Horse
    A stable personality
    Near my hay.
    Joined
    27 Apr '06
    Moves
    52768
    17 May '17 15:281 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    What is your point, exactly?
    My point is that when you said, "I don't need a telescope, because I can see the entirety of the objects.", that was untrue. In the real world we call such a thing "a lie". So we wonder what else that you have said is untrue. Is the world really not flat? Were the moon landings not faked? Going back to the disgusting assertion which started this thread, are the Challenger crew not still alive? Say it ain't so, Joe!

    I have previously called you an idiot. You have responded by calling me the same. So we're both idiots, which is probably true to some extent - we've all done idiotic things in our time. We need to decide who is the bigger idiot. I'll nominate you. At best, you're a complete crackpot. That's assuming you actually believe the stuff you post here. I reckon that is something else which is untrue.
  15. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    17 May '17 15:39
    Originally posted by C J Horse
    My point is that when you said, "I don't need a telescope, because I can see the entirety of the objects.", that was untrue. In the real world we call such a thing "a lie". So we wonder what else that you have said is untrue. Is the world really not flat? Were the moon landings not faked? Going back to the disgusting assertion which started this thread, ar ...[text shortened]... g you actually believe the stuff you post here. I reckon that is something else which is untrue.
    And you know that I cannot see the buildings on account of...

    If the world is round, and a sphere's curvature can be measured, how is it possible to see ANY part of the buildings at all?
Back to Top