Value of Thought

Originally posted by lemon lime
I can't shake the feeling there's something else going on here, like some underlying point he's waiting for us to discover(?) As things stand right now there's no reason I can see for even having a fat earth vs round earth debate... I mean really, what could be fatter than a sphere?

Several people have already commented on this stretching back many pages ~ a dozen or more thread pages back ~ have you read the thread? This may be why FreakyKBH is now stymied ~ his thought experiment having had its wheels fall off: he may not want to deliver any punchline now after so many people have commented on if or when he's going to deliver it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I only addressed posts to you after you jumped in spouting off with your usual nonsense and accusations, and now lo and behold you expect me to believe this is all about you?

At no point have I suggested nor implied that I expect you to believe this is all about me. To suggest otherwise is dishonesty on your part.
The post in which you replied to me and used the pronoun 'you' clearly was about me and that is what I have responded to.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I can't shake the feeling there's something else going on here, like some underlying point he's waiting for us to discover(?)

That is what he would like you to believe. However, he is unable to actually produce any underlying point given that it was meant to rely on him winning the argument and proving that the earth is flat. Instead he just ended up making a complete fool of himself rather like you are doing. Go on, tell me I think its all about me one more time - I dare you. (or was that accusation also some underlying point that you will never actually get around to telling us?)

Originally posted by lemon lime
Anyone with two functioning eyes has binocular vision. This can work to determine whether an object you're looking at is a sphere or flat disk. But since our eyes are very close together this only works at relatively close distances. When looking at the moon all I can literally 'see' is a flat disk. But an interesting fact about the mind is once something ...[text shortened]... t as a shape (taking no note of the landscape) then all you will 'literally' see is a flat disk.

The moon has surface features and phases which help one to tell it's a sphere. Your argument works better for the sun.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I can't shake the feeling there's something else going on here, like some underlying point he's waiting for us to discover(?) As things stand right now there's no reason I can see for even having a fat earth vs round earth debate... I mean really, what could be fatter than a sphere?

Yes, agreed.

In the meantime, Aristotle is turning in his grave.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Woo, and you move the goalposts.

Line of sight basically just means you can see it.

Which is not the same thing as eye line which is what you have said up until now.

I'm at a complete loss when contemplating your stupidity on this point.
A person (sitting or standing) holds their head straight (skull tilted neither up or down at the point of its connection with the cervical vertebrae) and looks to the furthest point possible in their direct line of sight.
Or if you want to take the human element out of it, set up a camera on a tripod, make it level and set the auto-focus to infinity.
Without obstacles, the furthest distance either the human eye or the camera are able to detect is the horizon--- depending on the camera, it will be able to capture images further in distance than the unaided human eye.

Nonetheless, pick up that same person or that same camera and elevate both at equal increments all the way up to 33,000 feet above the earth, whilst keeping both the head and the camera on the tripod at the same position: level and pointed toward the furthest distance possible.

At some point, depending upon the terrain, both subjects will be above any and all obstacles between them and the true horizon.
But at ALL times, when either of the subjects have unobstructed views of the true horizon, that horizon will be directly in front of them, either at eye level or at lens level--- regardless of the elevation of either.

This is clearly demonstrated by any of the pictures I've already pointed you to, as well as in the one picture you erroneously thought would prove your point: in that picture "Skyscape," the true horizon is just left of center and at eye level.

If both subjects were placed in front of a goalpost on the beach, they would eventually be above the 35' structure and would be forced to look down to see it.
However, looking straight ahead, they would see the true horizon the entire time since no other obstacles prevented the view.
The only change, of course, is the true horizon continues to expand for both the human eye as well as the camera by virtue of the elevation of both.
And, as has been proven repeatedly by literally every person on the planet except for you, that true horizon remains at eye level, with no tilting of the head required.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Yes, agreed.

In the meantime, Aristotle is turning in his grave.

Aristotle’s writings tend to present formidable difficulties to his novice readers. To begin, he makes heavy use of unexplained technical terminology, and his sentence structure can at times prove frustrating.
Guess I'm in good company, eh?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Aristotle’s writings tend to present formidable difficulties to his novice readers. To begin, he makes heavy use of unexplained technical terminology, and his sentence structure can at times prove frustrating.
Guess I'm in good company, eh?

We are not in his company sir, we are in his shadow.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, as has been proven repeatedly by literally every person on the planet except for you, that true horizon remains at eye level, with no tilting of the head required.

How do we know that 'every person on the planet' has proven this? All we have is your word for it (as your word is not worth much). On the other hand every single person who has offered an opinion so far disagrees with you (in fact unless the 'you' in your post is plural it is quite obviously a false claim because I disagree with your claim).
I challenge you to find a single other person on the planet that will admit to having 'proven repeatedly' what you are claiming. I look forward to making fun of them too.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
We are not in his company sir, we are in his shadow.

Freaky doesn't deserve to set foot in his shadow.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The moon has surface features and phases which help one to tell it's a sphere. Your argument works better for the sun.

Right, there are features on the surface of both the earth and moon indicating they are spheres. But I don't understand why you think this argument works better for the sun, because I basically said the same thing you just said.

"... there are other visual clues suggesting the earth or moon (when viewed even by a single lens from one point in space) are actually spheres and not flat disks."

Originally posted by DeepThought
The moon has surface features and phases which help one to tell it's a sphere. Your argument works better for the sun.

Okay, I get where you're coming from now. I included a comment saying I can see how someone might think it's a flat disk based only on the outine. And even phases of the moon can be thought of as a disk passing between the sun and the moon... I'm not suggesting this is what happens, I'm merely saying I can see how it's possible for someone to believe this. And I obviously don't believe in evolution anymore, but this doesn't mean I'm unaware of why it remains the predominant scientfic tbeory. Maybe this is one of Freaky's unspoken underlying points (or the underlying point)... and I said MAYBE, so there's no reason for any hotheaded strawman builder to wet his pants and go on the war path, because I'm not (and never was) promoting a fLat earth argument.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
We are not in his company sir, we are in his shadow.

Well, then 1.) he couldn't be turning over in his grave since he'd have to (at minimum) be in our company in order to be party to these shenanigans; and 2.) whoever originally introduced him into the situation is clearly an idiot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How do we know that 'every person on the planet' has proven this? All we have is your word for it (as your word is not worth much). On the other hand every single person who has offered an opinion so far disagrees with you (in fact unless the 'you' in your post is plural it is quite obviously a false claim because I disagree with your claim).
I challenge ...[text shortened]... t to having 'proven repeatedly' what you are claiming. I look forward to making fun of them too.

Let's see if I have your added idiocy correct.

Are you here claiming that the true horizon is not always at eye level?
Please tell me you are joining googlefudge in this laughable odyssey; I'd relish the opportunity to roundly pound your foolishness into the ground.

Your opinion of my word is as worthless as, well, your opinion.
Every person who has ever lived or is living on earth with the gift of sight has proven this every time they've ever looked to the horizon, no matter where they might be in the world.
Thus far, only googlefudge has had the temerity to hoist the ridiculous notion that the horizon falls below the eye level of a person's perspective.
The rest of those offering their opinions are offering them on other topics related to the whole.
Although no credit to his cause, he is nonetheless the sole holder of that opinion.
On the planet.
Perhaps you'd like to throw your hat into the ring and join him in that lunatic fringe (if two people can actually be considered a fringe).

Please, please, please tell the group how you wish to be counted as one who rejects the notion that the true horizon rises and falls with the eye level of the person viewing it.

And if you do, please feel free to start by explaining how every picture of elevation shows the horizon at the same level of the photographer's direct line of sight.

This ought to be good.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Freaky doesn't deserve to set foot in his shadow.

Shall I reserve a spot for you, a few yards further away?

And given your group's consistent trouble with my posts, I'd say I'm sitting at the same hearth, enjoying the same fire.