Flat-Earthers' Cruise Will Sail to Antarctica 'Ice Wall' at the Planet's Edge. Right.

Live Science ^ | 3/22/2019

[Gamecock]

Organizers of an annual conference that brings together people who believe that the Earth is flat are planning a cruise to the purported edge of the planet. They're looking for the ice wall that holds back the oceans.

The journey will take place in 2020, the Flat Earth International Conference (FEIC) recently announced on its website. The goal? To test so-called flat-Earthers' assertion that Earth is a flattened disk surrounded at its edge by a towering wall of ice.

Believers in a flat Earth argue that images showing a curved horizon are fake and that photos of a round Earth from space are part of a vast conspiracy perpetrated by NASA and other space agencies to hide Earth's flatness. These and other flat-Earth assertions appear on the website of the Flat Earth Society (FES), allegedly the world's oldest official flat Earth organization, dating to the early 1800s.

Whether or not the FEIC cruise will rely on GPS or deploy an entirely new flat-Earth-based navigation system for finding the end of the world, remains to be seen.

[itsahoot]

That same team shot a fixed laser at a boat and the laser gained altitude on the side of the boat as the boat gained distance from the shore-moving from 2’ above the water line at the shore to more than 12’ above the boat several miles away. This stuff is pretty simple actually.

B$. Try it yourself instead of taking someone else's word. There are plenty of Earth Curve Calculators on line.

[NELSON111]

BS - BS. First of all, I’ve done a similar experiment (I’m a scientist - a professional meteorologist and over the course of my 32-year military career I’ve had access to some cool stuff ). Second - I’m not just taking “someone else’s word. It was a science team. It was well documented. This experiment has been done before. It’s easily repeated.

[itsahoot]

This experiment has been done before. It’s easily repeated.

So have many of the others. Remember the Meteorologist that explained how Chicago being visible across Lake Michigan was a mirage? Are you that guy?

[Sioux-san]

What you ask for, I can provide. However, I find that on this topic, like so many other Hot Buttons, sources of information are in question, fallacies of logic run rampant, and the messenger rather than the metadata are castigated. But, it is worth it to me to proceed with this inquiry. I will get back to you tomorrow.

[Boogieman]

“Why does the earth appear to be the same relative size from the moon as the moon does from earth?”

Where did you get that idea?

“Since the moon always present the same face to the earth sort of like a ball on a string why would the earth appear any where except directly over head from near the center of the moon face?”

Well, the moon wobbles a bit, so the earth appears overhead but it does move around a little. All the pictures of “earthrises”, however, are taken from lunar orbiters, not from the lunar surface. It’s the motion of the spacecraft travelling around the moon that makes the earth appear to rise, not the relative motion of the earth and moon.

[itsahoot]

Where did you get that idea?

From the NASA picture titled Earth Rise.

It’s the motion of the spacecraft travelling around the moon that makes the earth appear to rise, not the relative motion of the earth and moon.

I seem to recall one where the Earth is rising over the Flag they raised on the moon, how did they do that one?

So no cameras on the moon then? Convenient. We have the greatest observation satellite in our system and not a single camera there to take pictures. Oh well. Or maybe we do and they are just super secret operations reserved to military.

[Boogieman]

"From the NASA picture titled Earth Rise."

That photo was taken from a spacecraft, not from the lunar surface. Not sure how you would judge the apparent size of the earth viewed from the surface using a photo like that.

"I seem to recall one where the Earth is rising over the Flag they raised on the moon, how did they do that one?"

The only photo I can find fitting that description is this one:

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20384HR.jpg>

Seems like it is taken from below looking up.

"So no cameras on the moon then? Convenient."

No, we have taken cameras to the moon.

[itsahoot]

No, we have taken cameras to the moon.

Just don't use them to take pictures of earth then. Strange that.

[Sioux-san]

The article you sent from Astronomy magazine as proof of anything is quite humorous — that artist rendering of the astronauts making repairs on Apollo 17 is a hoot! “NASA brought color tv to the Moon for -the Apollo 11 mission” - Further proof of my statement about Kubrick/Space Cowboys psyops. Astronomy magazine is a purveyor of fantasies people want to believe, which makes it that much easier. Proof and evidence are not the same thing, but you can’t have one without the other. You cannot start with a false premise and then ask others to refute your conclusion based on that false premise. What if you don’t know it’s a false premise when you start your inquiry? You test it for replicability no matter who is doing the testing with the exact processes, and you publish your data, your evidence, your conclusions, for peer review. You don’t make stuff up to please your funding source, like the hockey stick man. You don’t write your conclusions in a way that completely contradicts your actual evidence. This is why in a court of law we have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth with honesty and forthrightness, not to sway by innuendo or ad hominem insults or making irrelevant points and circular reasoning to confuse the matter. The Prosecution is required to provide exculpatory evidence, not withhold it so that the jury will come to the desired verdict. The jury is still out on FE for me, but I am 100% saying Guilty for the Lying Liars of NASA as the keeper of the keys of truth about space and our earth.
You accuse me of no original thought – That’s in the eye of the beholder. Even when I tried, you head right for the ad hominen projections. You (and others) offer your sources as the acceptable ones (NASA primarily). My sources you describe as ‘cheesy,’ yet these are the ones who look beyond the press releases and the ones who actually noticed the glaring holes and falsification of evidence that betray all of us. I have a BS and MA in Geography. I have studied this earth for more than 50 years all based on ‘acceptable’ sources. It is only now in the last few months that I heard anything to refute ‘common knowledge’ of the earth’s sphericity. With the use of propaganda and advertising, we know how easy it is to sway public opinion, morphing it into ‘common knowledge. It helps to have approved smart people with advanced degrees in astrophysics who become famous for promoting only one acceptable way to think. Those scientists and thinkers who don’t cooperate with the Official Narrative (whatever the subject) are put in the dustbin of public scorn. Nothing new about that, however.
All that being said, here are some concrete bits of evidence that could lead an objective person to consider that the earth is not a sphere, in no particular order of significance:
1) There is no downward surface curvature towards the horizon no matter how high you rise or low you are on the surface. I witnessed this on countless airplane flights, but figured it was because of the size of the earth that I couldn’t see the curvature. That shouldn’t be so in reality. Auguste Piccard, a Swiss physicist in his 10-mile high balloon flight in 1931, described the earth as a flat disc with an upturned edge; was he was merely stating what he saw and then moved on? Seems like a rather significant observation. Whether he had any more about to say about it, I would have to get his original papers as his grandson who now runs the family foundation states that this observation proved the opposite.
2) If Earth were a sphere, no matter how large, as you ascend in altitude, you would have to adjust for the curvature and rotation in order to reach your destination. Once an airplane attains altitude, that’s where it stays until descent for landing. Pilot navigation is done using flat plane maps. The Concorde flights were above the cloud mass for the most part, but when could see out your fish-eye window, it still looked pretty flat out there.
3) The natural physics of water is to seek and maintain its level. The theory of gravity had to be invented by Newton to explain how water could remain level on the side of a globe spinning 1000 mph at the equator and slower at the poles. No need for a gravity theory on Flat Earth as the density and mass of all matter explain it much better.
4) The ocean water doesn’t fall off the edge of the earth if it is a flat disc because of the extreme cold frozen conditions at the extremity? Antarctica was legally set off limits by International treaty except for limited coastal areas where you still have to have permission to go ashore. You can take a cruise to coastal areas of Antarctica, and camp with the penguins, but that’s it. Don’t try to do what Admiral Byrd did because you will be stopped. Original thought: folks who think they will be able to prove anything one way or the other by taking the FE Cruise are mistaken, I think. Captain Cook circumnavigated Antarctica already. As I recall, he measured the trip at 60,000 miles, but that proves nothing one way or the other about FE or a continental mass at the bottom of the globe.
5) A thought: I watched big ships on Lake Superior heading for the Soo Locks, 50 miles out and beyond on a clear day. That shouldn’t be possible if there is this curvature dip of one foot per mile based on the 25,000 miles circumference of the spherical earth. A photographer clearly captured the Chicago skyline all lit up 60 miles away from St.Joseph, Michigan, but that shouldn’t be possible either: “According to NASA, the Windy City seems so much closer because of the way light is bent through layers of varying density. The light that reaches your eyes comes from different angles across the lake, and thus, the city seems to be growing or even floating.” WHICH IS IT: that ships sink off the horizon into invisibility because the earth is curved…or you can actually see that ship (or skyline) but it’s due to light refracting differently, or that unspoken third choice that there is no curve.
6) The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space… they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. Similarly with Foucault’s Pendulum experiments to prove the earth is rotating, no consistent results have been documented as proof of anything to do with rotational spin. If you can accept that it is necessary to move the pendulum by hand to get it started/restarted or motorize to overcome other natural forces, all to prove the earth is spinning, and hide what you are doing from the observer to support your theory, that is wrong and unscientific, and as for me: Fraud.
7) If the earth is as described in Genesis, with the sun and moon and stars all contained within a massive expanse above us within an impenetrable dome, that would explain why we can always see the stars and planets in the same relative position. NASA recently acknowledged that the moon is contained within the earth’s atmosphere, whatever that is supposed to mean. https://www.newsweek.com/earth-atmosphere-moon-apollo-nasa-esa-geocorona-1338611
8) If our Earth is just one of several spheroids hurling through space 93 million miles away from the Sun, and we have sent rockets to the Moon, to Mars, to Deep Space, to Venus, etc., where is the PROOF beyond Hollywood-produced CGI images? Why does NASA finally admit to color enhancing Mars to its red glow out there supposedly 35 million miles away… and yet we accept that and the explanation of why we can’t go back to the moon 240,000 miles away cuz it’s just too hard?
Bottomline is that I cannot be insulted or disparaged to stop asking questions and deciding whether the status quo answers pass the smell test. If I am giving Christians a bad name by being a skeptic, so be it.

[DouglasKC]

That shouldn’t be possible if there is this curvature dip of one foot per mile based on the 25,000 miles circumference of the spherical earth. A photographer clearly captured the Chicago skyline all lit up 60 miles away from St.Joseph, Michigan, but that shouldn’t be possible either:

I'm going to pick on 1 thing at a time. I'll start with this because I used to live on Lake Michigan and there were times that I experienced this phenomenon.

Let's start with a couple of things. If you ARE correct we should have MILLIONS of photographs of the ALL buildings in Chicago from ANY city on Lake Michigan regardless of distance if it's a clear sunny day or a clear night. But we don't. We have images when the weather is just right but that's the ONLY time.

Does that make sense? On any clear night we should be able to see the lights of all cities on the other side of the lake..right? And on any clear day we should be able to see buildings, no matter how tall, on the other side of the lake from anywhere.

We don't though. What would be your explanation for that?

I did some digging on this too... This (maybe) the image you're referring to:

The photographer himself and anyone who is educated on weather or photography attributes this to a mirage effect.

You'll notice that in the photo there are some parts of buildings "floating" as well.

You can see this effect in this YouTube Video which shows "floating" buildings and other bizarre mirage effects.

How would you explain the "floating" buildings if this were anything but an atmospheric mirage phenomena?

I'll await your answer to this point before I move on to other points you made.

[Sioux-san]

“If you ARE correct we should have MILLIONS of photographs of the ALL buildings in Chicago from ANY city on Lake Michigan regardless of distance if it’s a clear sunny day or a clear night. But we don’t. We have images when the weather is just right but that’s the ONLY time.”

Response: Another false hyperbolic premise that I am supposed to disprove. Conditions, including time of day, season, air quality, all had to be ‘right’ in order to have these Chicago photos at all. I don’t know if it would ever occur to anyone to try to get a shot of Milwaukee from Muskegon. There would be many factors affecting the success of such an effort, and doesn’t prove or disprove the lack of surface curvature in and of itself.

[Boogieman]

“Just don’t use them to take pictures of earth then. Strange that.”

They did. You just mentioned one of the photos yourself, the one I posted the link to of the earth over the flag.

[itsahoot]

They did. You just mentioned one of the photos yourself, the one I posted the link to of the earth over the flag.

The point is they didn't, or you have to explain why the earth appears so small when clearly it is many times larger than the moon.

Also why did we not leave cameras on the moons surface to take pictures of the earth and send them back?

[Boogieman]

“The point is they didn’t...”

Well, they clearly did, we have the pictures.

“or you have to explain why the earth appears so small when clearly it is many times larger than the moon”

I’m really not sure what you are expecting. There are obviously no photos where you can see the apparent size of both the earth and the moon side by side even though the photos need to be taken from two completely different locations. So the only way we can actually make that kind of comparison is if we had two photographs, knew the exact conditions that each photo was taken, and we had some landmarks in the photograph that we could use to get a sense of perspective. We’d also probably need to know the technical details of the cameras that took the photos and how they were configured with lenses, zoom, etc, since those things could have an effect too. Sorry, but I’m not really about to devote the kind of time and effort to do all that because some random person on the internet wants to be a contrarian.

[itsahoot]

I’m really not sure what you are expecting.

I am expecting the apparent size of the earth as viewed from the moon to appear somewhat larger that the moon appears from earth considering that the earth is 4 time larger than the moon.

See the Problem?

[Larry Lucido]

I think the term is “angular diameter.” (I had to look it up, as my space-word skills are rusty).

Try this, if it helps.

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/7736/what-is-the-angular-diameter-of-earth-as-seen-from-the-moon

[Spruce]

[Larry Lucido]

Earthrise?

[Spruce]

[Spruce]

Project Apollo used film cameras. Digital cameras where not invented until 1975.

This link: http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/index.html
will show you how the actual, physical camera film is stored and handled.

And here area couple of the archives of the images from those films:
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/apollo/browse
http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/apollo/

GPS:
Here is the wiki link on how GPS works. Basically, if the Earth was not a sphere it wouldn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Space_segment

So stuff your flat-f*ckin Earth bullsh*t