Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

  • 125 Replies
  • 48197 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2009, 06:58:12 AM »
Obviously jkr you have not read my messages...all those three pictures indicate that there is a viewing range limit of those cameras...for example the curvature from Mississauga indicates that the camera used there was not good enough to capture more details...

See the explanations (with a photograph showing clearly the rooftop of SkyDome, from a distance of 50 km, taken right on the beach):

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=303b8c341134628e796796d2050bac1d&topic=28952.msg696056#msg696056

Quite the contrary.  I have read everything you have posted in the True Believers section of the .NET site.  I actually enjoyed most of it and found a lot of information that I did not know.  I am actually a fan of yours.  What I am pointing out is that there is a reason why pictures aren't accepted as evidence.  Otherwise, we would just take satellite images that show Earth from space and be done with all debating.  I am not saying your images are fake or real, I am saying that we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion based on those images.

All those pictures are real; here is another one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meanman94/1492421330/



Taken around 8 pm from Colonel Samuel Smith Park (Etobicoke)

Tripod mounted
Lens: 28-80mm F/3.3-5.6 G
Focal Length: 66mm
Exposure Mode: Shutter Priority
Metering Mode: Multi-Pattern
Exposure: 1/640 sec
Aperture: F/5.3
ISO: 400

Also check out:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg675541#msg675541



If you do not like pictures, then we have two videos, taken on the Spanish beach.

Here are the details, which can be seen by everybody:

Islamic History of Europe



Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.


The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...

Here is an extraordinary photograph to match, taken right on the Spanish beach:



You might also remember the 1908 Tunguska explosion seen from 1000 km distance, and from London/Stockholm:

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:
...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.
All the inhabitants of the village ran out into the street in panic. The old women wept, everyone thought that the end of the world was approaching...

The visual obstacle between Irkutsk and Tunguska is over 67 kilometers.

Tunguska, 1908, Siberia, June 30, 7:14 am

The famous explosion, seen all the way to London, Antwerp, Stockholm and Irkutsk was caused by the ball lightning experiments of Nikola Tesla, see:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/starting%20pages.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm

Here is what the particle accelerator (actually, vortex accelerator) laboratory looked like, built in 1899, by Nikola Tesla:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/fig6.gif
http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/fig10.jpg

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the ball lightning over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.

The explosion took place at approximately 6 kilometers above the river Tunguska...with no crater found...

MORE NEWSPAPERS ACCOUNTS FROM LONDON:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.(33)
The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla?s power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.(

To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o?clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1 (1908 )

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o'clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.

The proof that the explosion was observed, immediately, in London, Antwerp, and Stockholm:

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night. Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-tunguska-mystery-100-years-later

On the night of 30 June and 1 July, the sky throughout Europe was strangely bright. Throughout the United Kingdom, over 3000 miles from the point of impact, it was possible to play cricket and read newspapers by the glow from the night sky.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/148819-Tunguska-the-Horns-of-the-Moon-and-Evolution

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

The visual obstacle between London and Tungusk IS OVER 9000 KILOMETERS IN HEIGHT! THE EXPLOSION AT TUNGUSKA PROVES CLEARLY THAT THERE IS NO CURVATURE OVER A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 7000 KILOMETERS IN DISTANCE.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 07:00:19 AM by levee »

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2009, 09:10:26 AM »
Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

And here is a picture of The Straits Of Gibraltar taken from space:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Strait_of_gibraltar.jpg

OH LOOK! THE EARTH IS A GLOBE!
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2009, 10:06:52 PM »
come on levee. as i've said before, you need reference shots for comparison and higher resolution. those videos are rubbish.

you still haven't explained my telescope shots. wanna have a crack at those instead? do some real thinking instead of regurgitating.

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2009, 10:21:31 PM »
It's pretty cute that all of these pictures are of cities/monumental-features BEHIND bodies of water. Haven't you guys ever taken a photography class? Water skews horizons at close-range lol, I took 4 years of photography in high school, including AP-2D design--with which I learned how to use Photoshop EXTENSIVELY. FURTHERMORE, these pictures of Toronto are not NEARLY far enough away to properly see curvature (or lack thereof). Don't bias your evidence for a flat Earth by posting pictures with a measly "53Km" skyline. You need to zoom out much more if you want to prove/disprove something like this.

Come on guys. Take a picture of a barren area to be fair, with no city/monumental distraction. Take one with an enormous skyline. I'll find an example...




If you'd like to continue using photo-evidence to try and prove flatness, do so in a FAIR way. Find a picture of equal skyline length WITHOUT an obstruction city RIGHT ON THE HORIZON, and without a close-up/skewed lake.

Don't cheat. We all know cheating's easy, but it's no way to prove points. Come on.


?

dsprink

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2009, 11:12:20 PM »
Anyone else sick of this flame war? I don't care whether or not the photos are fake, let's all do a little bit of thinking here on WHY the skyline would be obstructed. Why? Fact is, it happens, whether you like it or not. So let's deal with it instead of whining.

Ok, I've noticed that the pictures where the skyline is most obstructed are the more hazy looking days. There's a great picture on Astronomy Picture of the Day of a natural phenomenon where the moon looks warped on a hazy morning - could it be the same sunrise/sunset mirage causing the light from the skyline to bend, in our atmosphere, down before coming at the viewer? Could there be a temperature change causing an unusually high amount of water vapor over the water, causing the light to diffract downwards?

Look, I'm just throwing out valid points instead of calling every photo fake. Because I truly believe people don't go on faking photos to make their points. It's too much a hassle. We need to explain why things are the way they are instead of denying it. (by the way, I'm an FEr)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2009, 02:52:45 AM »
Look, I'm just throwing out valid points instead of calling every photo fake.

Thank you for your contribution to this debate.

But you are not the only one making "valid points".

See, for example:

Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?

(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)
I don't think an inferior mirage can cause a stable image of a sinking ship or marker.

And perhaps an image of a mirage would have obvious geometric distortions too?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2009, 03:21:55 AM »
Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.


Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)

Still no Laplacian filter (edge detection) pictures, Mazty88?

I am genuinely keen for you to educate me on this one!

I am really looking forward to seeing your Laplacian filter images, Mazty88!

And given that you are such an expert in image analysis, it would be great if you could analyse some of NASA's images down the years (two or three per decade, perhaps?) and give us your expert opinion on if/how they have faked them (models? CGI?).

That would be a fun thread!

Plus, your "Flat Earth Theory is a crock of shit" countdown appears to have broken down:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29881.0

It will be such an anti-climax if day zero arrives and nothing happens!
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2009, 10:48:52 AM »
with honor, you must include here pictures with a definite visual target, otherwise photographs with no such target cannot be used either to prove or to disprove flat earth/round earth theories, there is no distance mentioned, no curvature. Because of the visual limit of the camera, as you have seen before, we must include such details (distance, visual target, curvature), so that there will not be confusions. Your picture illustrates these facts very well, a visual range limit, with no distance provided, please do your homework better.

dyno, you don't even believe me when it is you providing me with the numbers. Do you see how dumb that is?

Let me take care of your doubts right now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/



Where is the bloody curvature dyno? We can each and every detail, Toronto skyline top to bottom; Grimsby means 45 meters at most, if you want to go inland 2 more km, then you would have to ascend to 237 meters to capture this view, no such geographic point of reference there my friend.

?

Squat

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2009, 11:12:41 AM »
Photographs of Toronto do not prove the earth is flat.

They may prove that the area around Toronto is flat but there is no way that can be applied to the whole world.  Is The flatearthsociety.org just a Canadian organisation?

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2009, 12:55:52 PM »
Levee:

Could you explain why one of these pictures shows Toronto down to the shoreline but the other doesn't.

What is different between the two pictures?

Which is right?

Thanks.

Let me take care of your doubts right now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/


3) Here is one coming from Rochester, NY:



I would hope everyone can see that there is a significant obstruction of view.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2009, 01:01:32 PM »
@ Levee:

Okay, first off, I'm not your "friend", sorry. Let's clear that up right now. Thanks. Now on to business:

I wasn't assigned any homework. Don't tell me to "do my homework" when I haven't got any. I posted a completely valid picture, WITH reference points. Who says objects of reference need to be man-conceived creations? Look at the clouds in my picture. Do you know what type of clouds those are? If you don't, how about YOU do some homework and look it up. When you realize what kinds of clouds appear in my picture, you'll also realize how high up they are by definition. Yes, believe it or not, different cloud types hover at different altitudes. Cool huh?

So after you realize that, you'll be able to EASILY approximate how far out that skyline is.

The Toronto pictures are, as I've already said, MUCH TOO CLOSE TO PROVE/DISPROVE CURVATURE!

Don't cheat. Play fair. Post a picture from a reasonable distance.

Also: You may want to reconsider the formatting of your posts. They contain an egregious amount of run-ons and contradictions. Quite frankly, your response to me was downright difficult to decipher. I apologize if English is not your first language...

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2009, 02:42:16 PM »
Where is the bloody curvature dyno? We can each and every detail, Toronto skyline top to bottom; Grimsby means 45 meters at most, if you want to go inland 2 more km, then you would have to ascend to 237 meters to capture this view, no such geographic point of reference there my friend.
The photo was probably taken from Vinemount Ridge. There would be very little obstruction of the Toronto skyline if any. Your photograph does not have enough detail to determine if a few meters of coast are obstructed.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #42 on: June 29, 2009, 01:45:14 AM »
Levee:

Could you explain why one of these pictures shows Toronto down to the shoreline but the other doesn't.

What is different between the two pictures?

Which is right?

Thanks.

Levee:

I hope you will be able to attempt to answer my question (above) as there is such a wide discrepancy in the evidence.

The question is - why should we believe/prefer your pictures over other people's?

Thanks.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #43 on: June 29, 2009, 06:57:51 AM »
Levee:

Could you explain why one of these pictures shows Toronto down to the shoreline but the other doesn't.

What is different between the two pictures?

Which is right?

Thanks.
There are possibly two differences. The Grimsby photos were probably taken from a higher elevation. Also, Rochester is much further from Toronto than Grimsby is.

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2009, 07:09:50 AM »
I travelled from Edinburgh to St. Andrews the other day. After crossing the Forth Road Bridge, the bottom of it seems to slowly disappear from sight as you get further away from it. Maybe i'll take pictures next time.

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2009, 10:14:24 AM »
Levee:

Could you explain why one of these pictures shows Toronto down to the shoreline but the other doesn't.

What is different between the two pictures?

Which is right?

Thanks.

Levee:

I hope you will be able to attempt to answer my question (above) as there is such a wide discrepancy in the evidence.

The question is - why should we believe/prefer your pictures over other people's?

Thanks.


I'll assume Levee's magically eloquent voice of reason in his stead:

Question: Why should we believe/prefer your pictures over other people's pictures?
->
->
->
"Becoz my pics corroborate my claims therefore they are the best, yours are all fake and so is anyone who posts pics that don't say what I believe in, so that's why you should do your homework, you're just stupid, my pics are real and make logical sense, you can't use your pics or anyone else's unless I think they're real."

Does that answer your question? Nope, it didn't make much sense to me either. That brings me to my final point: Why are you/we arguing with individuals with such low levels of intelligence and capacity for logical debate? It's pointless. You--along with any other normal functioning human being--know how basic physics function in our universe. Consequently, you also know that the Earth cannot possibly exist as a disk... LOL.

I don't need to list the reasons why. It's a physical fact: A celestial body must exist as a shaped spherical entity in space. If a body starts out as a disk (which is possible), it will eventually be shaped into a smaller sphere-like body of smaller proportions. I will not get into the dynamics/physics of why a disk cannot remain a disk in space. I'll say this: Imagine a disk flying through space. Then imagine that disk burning to a crisp, until it reaches a stable physical state as a spherical object. Sorry guys, but from a physical standpoint, the Earth is not a disk, nor is it flat.

Moreover, any pictures espousing flatness can be disregarded as meaningless prods at intellectual development. Rather, they are merely a hindrance to progressive scientific thought.

In conclusion: This entire thread is worthless.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 10:17:21 AM by With Honor »

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #46 on: July 03, 2009, 01:58:47 AM »
Levee:

Could you explain why one of these pictures shows Toronto down to the shoreline but the other doesn't.

What is different between the two pictures?

Which is right?

Thanks.

Levee:

I hope you will be able to attempt to answer my question (above) as there is such a wide discrepancy in the evidence.

The question is - why should we believe/prefer your pictures over other people's?

Thanks.

Any chance of a comment, Levee?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #47 on: July 04, 2009, 07:12:32 AM »
Rochester - Toronto 80 miles = 128 km

http://www.classicbuffalo.com/images/outdoors/LakeOntarioMap.jpg

CN Tower height = ~520 meters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Toronto

Next tallest building: 298 meters

CURVATURE FOR 128 km = 321 meters

Now, using our formula let us apply it to this case; as we can see, the photo from Rochester was taken from the beach itself, h = 2 meters, but we will investigate using more numbers, as follows:

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/124639197_6d8031f5f0.jpg?v=0


http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehuston/124639197/

Not only can we see the next tallest building, 298 meters, but also other skycrapers, like the Commerce Court West, 239 meters.

Therefore, my friends, here is THE VERY BEST PROOF, USING YOUR OWN DATA, THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT, THERE IS NO CURVATURE OVER THE LAKE ONTARIO.

GIVEN THE CURVATURE OF 321 METERS, AND USING THE BEACH AS A REFERENCE, WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING UNDER 1163 METERS, EXCEEDING BY 900 METERS WHAT WE CAN SEE IN THAT PICTURE.




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #48 on: July 04, 2009, 07:32:48 AM »
Now, more disastrous news for the round earth hypothesis.

The tallest building in Rochester measures only 135 meters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Rochester,_New_York

View from above of Rochester: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rochester_aerial_aug_17_2007.jpg

And the actual distance to Toronto, from Rochester, is more than 80 miles, some 85 miles actually.

Given the visual obstacle of at least 660 meters, and the most likely one of 1163 meters, there is no way we could have seen the top of Commerce Court West (239 meters), UNLESS THE EARTH IS FLAT.

Explain this one 3Tesla...
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 07:36:26 AM by levee »

*

Username

  • President Of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 17123
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #49 on: July 04, 2009, 08:20:13 AM »
I'm going to try to make the trip in the next month or two to St. Catherines.   I'll keep you updated if it happens or not (budget and getting off work)
Quantum Ab Hoc

1 + 1 = 2
"The above proposition is occasionally useful." - Bertrand Russell

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #50 on: July 04, 2009, 08:35:04 AM »
Whenever you can, if you can make that trip...if not, we have the Port Credit, Etobicoke, Hamilton photos...the Rochester, NY Toronto skyline...let me apply more death blows to the catastrophic round earth hypothesis...

SANDY HOOK - CONEY ISLAND

DISTANCE 7 MILES, 11.2 KM

CURVATURE 2.4 METERS

On a round earth, we should see a rising slope, with a midpoint visual obstacle of 2.4 meters, but there is no such thing in these photos taken right on the Sandy Hook beach:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2890814609/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2891651706/in/photostream/

« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 08:37:35 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #51 on: July 04, 2009, 09:30:11 AM »
And now, THE REAL ACTUAL DISTANCE, ROCHESTER NY - TORONTO:

http://www.remotecentral.com/hdtv/distances.htm

94.6 MILES, 152.2 KILOMETERS, in the next to the last message I took into consideration only an 80 mile distance.

LET US NOW REWORK THE NUMBERS, WITH THE ACTUAL 94.6 MILE, 152.2 KM DISTANCE:

CURVATURE FOR THE 152.2 KM DISTANCE: 454 METERS

ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS VIEW, ON A ROUND EARTH; there is no curvature over the lake Ontario, between Rochester and Toronto:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30002.msg738383#msg738383

LET US NOW USE THE FORMULA FOR A 135 METER (HIGHEST POSSIBLE IN ROCHESTER) ALTITUDE FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHER:

WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING UNDER 960 METERS, FROM ROCHESTER NY, FROM A HEIGHT OF 135 METERS, OVER THIS DISTANCE!
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 09:46:10 AM by levee »

?

Squat

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #52 on: July 04, 2009, 09:53:47 AM »
And now, THE REAL ACTUAL DISTANCE, ROCHESTER NY - TORONTO:

http://www.remotecentral.com/hdtv/distances.htm


From the link:
Quote
Note that all distances shown below are taken from official city centers, and should be considered approximate. Although UHF stations are usually rated to fade out after about 60 miles due to the curvature of the earth, experience has shown that many high definition television channels in this area are available well beyond 90 miles with proper equipment.

That distance information has got to be doubted, surely

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #53 on: July 04, 2009, 12:35:13 PM »
Given the visual obstacle of at least 660 meters, and the most likely one of 1163 meters, there is no way we could have seen the top of Commerce Court West (239 meters), UNLESS THE EARTH IS FLAT.

Explain this one 3Tesla...

If The World were flat ...

We would be able to see the base of the building too.

(Wouldn't we?)

Can you explain that?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #54 on: July 04, 2009, 02:15:18 PM »
How did you come to the conclusion the photo was taken from a beach in Rochester?
Quote
View of Toronto Skyline taken as we were coming in from Rochester NY.
It sounds as if they were somewhere between the two cities on a boat. You went through all that math and research, and you didn't even bother to read the photo's description?

?

Squat

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #55 on: July 04, 2009, 10:55:22 PM »
Given the visual obstacle of at least 660 meters, and the most likely one of 1163 meters, there is no way we could have seen the top of Commerce Court West (239 meters), UNLESS THE EARTH IS FLAT.

Explain this one 3Tesla...

If The World were flat ...

We would be able to see the base of the building too.

(Wouldn't we?)

Can you explain that?

Seconded. Why can't we see the base of the building or the waterfront as in other pictures?   ???

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2009, 12:36:07 AM »
How did you come to the conclusion the photo was taken from a beach in Rochester?
Quote
View of Toronto Skyline taken as we were coming in from Rochester NY.
It sounds as if they were somewhere between the two cities on a boat. You went through all that math and research, and you didn't even bother to read the photo's description?
I've been there; that scene is nonexistent from the beach, sorry. That picture is from a boat. Lol.

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #57 on: July 06, 2009, 12:39:00 AM »
Whenever you can, if you can make that trip...if not, we have the Port Credit, Etobicoke, Hamilton photos...the Rochester, NY Toronto skyline...let me apply more death blows to the catastrophic round earth hypothesis...

SANDY HOOK - CONEY ISLAND

DISTANCE 7 MILES, 11.2 KM

CURVATURE 2.4 METERS

On a round earth, we should see a rising slope, with a midpoint visual obstacle of 2.4 meters, but there is no such thing in these photos taken right on the Sandy Hook beach:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2890814609/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2891651706/in/photostream/



Those aren't death blows. Those are unsubstantiated bits of information supplied by a relatively anonymous internet entity known as "Levee". You don't have any impact on the Earth's roundness, sorry. Posting "tens" of pictures and third-grade geometry protocols don't exactly "death-blow" my construction of the Earth.

Sorry buddy.


 :'(

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #58 on: July 06, 2009, 12:45:21 AM »
Now, more disastrous news for the round earth hypothesis.

The tallest building in Rochester measures only 135 meters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Rochester,_New_York

View from above of Rochester: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rochester_aerial_aug_17_2007.jpg

And the actual distance to Toronto, from Rochester, is more than 80 miles, some 85 miles actually.

Given the visual obstacle of at least 660 meters, and the most likely one of 1163 meters, there is no way we could have seen the top of Commerce Court West (239 meters), UNLESS THE EARTH IS FLAT.

Explain this one 3Tesla...


Lol.

This one only needs a very basic explanation: All of your data is wrong. You can't see 80 miles. It's a physiological fact, sorry. A picture with those attributes explicitly demonstrate that they do not involve a distance of 80 miles from Toronto to Rochester.

Are you kidding?

This discussion ends right here.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #59 on: July 06, 2009, 02:16:22 AM »
This one only needs a very basic explanation: All of your data is wrong. You can't see 80 miles. It's a physiological fact, sorry. A picture with those attributes explicitly demonstrate that they do not involve a distance of 80 miles from Toronto to Rochester.

Nice point.

I always thought that the buildings looked too tall in most of those pictures.

(I.e. taken from only a few miles away, not dozens.)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)