Already have.
I was merely trying to address another one of the assinine "proofs" of a flat Earth you keep switching to once you've lost the the argument about a previous one.
Being called stupid by a wacked in the head flat Earther is a compliment. If I appeared smart to you, I'd be in serious trouble.
I already did. I said tat in response to your asinine question about hovering helicopters.
No, you do and have consistently in all these fe threads.
So now you're claiming intent is what matters? That one cannot find fault with evidence intended to support an argument? So then, by extension, someone claiming a photo as proof of flat Earth cannot be disputed...because the intent was to show the Earth is flat?
Yes. In the case of this subject, the intent of flat Earthers is to deceive.
No. Nothing wrong with finding fault, if that fault is valid and is not being misrepresented.
No. Flat Earth bs should always be disputed, because it is typically presented in an a dishonest and unethical manner.
You are the one doing mental gymnastics in your attempt to poison the minds of others with flat Earth propaganda.
What part of, "the guy who took the pic did so in order to show an example of atmospheric refraction", are you incapable of understanding?
It is what it is, but your dogma appears to have blinded you to reality.
That would depend upon local conditions at the time.
Is that all you got? You are getting pretty pathetic.
They don't, that's a myth. Spin direction is determined by toilet design...not location of the toilet.
Any proof? Why should I accept what you say, rather than what I can observe? How far can a human see on Earth at an altitude of 8 feet? If not 3.46 miles...then how far? Do you deny maths?
The guy that made the vid said @:22
Yet you proposed a theory about how the air sphere allegedly stores momentum for later retrieval in direct violation of Newton's laws of motion?!?
Observational evidence shows that those oil platforms are normally not visible as you are presenting them.
Then why can't it be true that extreme conditions is the only reason those platforms look like that in your cherry picked photo?
A photo of someone photographing? Are you referring to your Chicago pic? If so, everything I've said about it is relevant. It's a fact that buildings are missing.
Because of the refraction silly. It makes the area around the platforms appear closer than they actually are.
You know how it is calculated. Do you really need your hand held on everything?
You are the only one ignoring observational evidence. Otherwise you'd have been able to see what your pic of Chicago clearly shows to everyone else who hasn't polluted their mind with flat Earth bs.
These?
www.google.com
These?
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
What I'd like is for you to show some measure of consistency in your prattlings spewed forth to defend your spinning water ball religion. You conveniently avoid mathematics that prove you wrong, claim "refraction" at every turn, but you refuse to quantify any of it. How far can light bend around your spinning air covered water pear? Here are photos showing objects 3x the distance observable due to alleged curvature and your excuse for ignoring them is "refraction".
Awww...you had your feewings hurt by my free speech? I better stop discussing problems with your religion then so I don't further trigger you. lol
Go jam two sticks into the ground and watch what happens ....then STFU already.
Everything I've posted relative to the amount of curvature of the Earth's surface, has been absolutely consistent with what you'd find on a 7901 mile diameter sphere.
Which mathematics you talkin' 'bout, willis?
As far as local conditions allow at the time.
Because atmospheric refraction is a real thing. Even the flattard who made the vid acknowledges that.
Again, is that all ya got? I was trying to answer your assinine "why can a helicopter hover" question.
From the perspective of someone motionless in space, your question would immediately be seen as being dumb, because said observer would instantly see that the Earth is round.
So no answer then...as usual joking? You could simply have chosen one randomly and had a 33.3% chance of being right. lol
Just asking simple questions about that which we all allegedly "know". Weird how nobody seems to respond to questions that point to problems with the spinning space ball model. Joking tries bless his heart, but then he gets burned inventing new theories he cannot substantiate to ignore the numerous problems with the spinning space fruit model. He's already thrown Newton and Einstein under the bus to ignore falsifying evidence.
No doubt the excuse whipped out to ignore that particular problem with the ball Earth model will be...refraction. After provably wrong grabbity magic...light refraction is the next most used excuse for why problems with the spinning water pear model should simply be ignored. Interestingly light refraction is a consequence of changes in the speed of light due to differing mediums...yet the same people insist that the speed of light is constant.
www.livescience.com
It's always 50% illuminated. The only time that 50% can be seen from Earth is at a full moon.
Of that, I have no doubt. lol
...which of course you cannot prove, but are perfectly comfortable assuming, likely because your NASA heroes told you so. I think they even have a fake AF video they claim they took of the moon passing in front of Earth. Total amateur hour CGI stuff.
Guess it was time to make up some more bs, so they tossed in a single inconsistent angle. I believe they're claiming the Earth is technically a tri-axial ellipsoid. The same guys(NOAA) also have a different definition of where space/time begins than anyone else I've checked. It's almost like there are no objective facts with this spinning ball Earth model at all. Sometimes Earth is also a geoid according to ball Earth pseudoscientists.
Look around. The Earth is a living, breathing, entity, always in motion.
