Search results

How do we test for perspective? Before I give the answer I yield the floor to you all first to explain perspective. --Dave

Again, no answer to my argument. --Dave

Sorry, this is not a rational answer let alone an answer. No matter how you say it the fact remains waters are not level/flat/straight on a globe over any distance. --Dave

All arguments in favor of any view on any subject must follow a logical construction. Saying I don't understand of light and vision does not address my arguments. This is another form of the ad hominem fallacy. I have pointed out a fallacy in the argument that the upright image of Chicago is...

I have a better idea go out and look at the horizon and determine if it hits you right between the eye's or not. I've looked out over the ocean from Brooklyn millions of times and I know where the horizon hits me. --Dave

No we would not see Chicago all the time over a flat earth. Fog, mist, rapid evaporation, and conditions that cause the water to appear to rise and block what is behind it as per time lapse video from Skunk Bay would keep the skyline everyday view. Then we also have the effect of perspective...

I just demonstrated the irrational argument that an "atmospheric condition", warm are over colder air, can produce both a right side up image at one time and an upside down image at another. That we can have "either or" from the same atmospheric condition breaks the rule of the excluded middle...

Come back with an answer to my objections. --Dave

That's the next best step to take and try to answer. We can begin where I think the heart of this issue begins. Do we look straight ahead and see the horizon at eye level or are we actually looking slightly down at it? --Dave P.S. Can you answer my post or not?

I never addresses flat here earth until I started this thread. I never even considered flat earth as having good arguments until about two years ago. And even then I only began to explored it because I realized there was a resurgence of it happening on You Tube and I wanted to know why. I knew...

You have committed a fundamental error, a contradiction, by making an image of you in a mirror to be both the real you and not the real you. By definition an image of something is not the real or actual thing. When we move to other aspects of proofs for globe vs flat earth I will look for...

No, no. The real us is not the mirrored image. The real city is below the curved earth not located at the horizon where we see it. You can use a mirror to cause another person to see two of you and not know which one is the real you vs your reflection. Magicians use mirrors in many of their...

That we are not seeing the actual city of Chicago but an image of it and over it but that this is not reflection is a contradictory statement because any image of anything that not the actual thing is a "reflection" of it. The inconsistency of this argument is clear and causes doubts about...

Rational thought is driving my doubts about Globe earth arguments. Your appeal to "cognitive dissonance" is an ad hominem attempt to discredit arguments you can't answer. Atheist's could argue that belief in God is due to cognitive dissonance, and vise versa. There is no way you can explain...

Thanks, good questions. I'm not questioning the basics of refraction. I'm questioning how it's applied in relation to atmospheric conditions, how can the same atmospheric condition be said to produce two different effects, both upside down and right side up images? If an image of Chicago is...

Now explain the atmospheric conditions that produce both a refraction and a reflection at the same time in the same location of what is actually hidden behind the curved earth. --Dave

Thank you so much Clete, great answer, clearly stated. First, I don't how often the city is seen from over 50 miles away. The photographer, Joshua Nowicki, would probably be a good source for that. But the amount of times it occurs is not the issue to me, or to flat earth arguments. Here is how...

One can be taught something that is not correct even as far back as the 5th grade. And yes, I'm questioning some of the most basic things we were taught in grade school. It's quite clear that a reflected/refracted image is not the actual thing. I had posted two pics that showed what I meant...

Ok, I see your point. --Dave

I have made it clear that I personally find good arguments for both FE and GE. I have acknowledged that there are globe model arguments that I cannot refute, at this time. They may never be refutable and be the ones that win the day. That said, that means I have not avoided globe arguments, I...