14 thoughts on “We’re Not in Kansas Anymore ”

  1. Jeran,

    This is the 1st of your videos that I have watched. I thoroughly enjoyed it and plan to watch more. Thanks for bringing up the Gifford’s shooting hoax…that one happened before I was awake. I loved the paper plate material needed to make your own amazing satellite….even before you showed that I was thinking, gee that looks like a paper plate. The toilet with a sheet thrown over it was spot on. Much love here, I know how frustrating it is to try and wake people up and be ridiculed as the stupid tin foil hat wearer. Keep up the good work!!
    Annette

  2. Ab’s pictures of the Toronto Skyline from St. Catherines has shown the earth has curvature. Why are we acting like the earth could possibly be flat when Simon Shack already proved the earth had curvature?

    1. It didn’t prove it to me. I’ll be back on the next clear day to shoot from the beach. What drop does your formula say that there should be K?

      1. If your camera is at sea level, looking from St. Catherine’s to the Toronto skyline, there should be a 641.24 foot drop. Since the CN Tower is 1815.4 feet tall – 641.24 feet leaves 1174.16 feet of the CN Tower visible, at sea level.

        The circle formula I am using is the same as the Earth Curve Calculator

        dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

        If your camera is at 5 feet above sea level, there should be a 533 feet drop.

      2. Ab wrote:
        “It didn’t prove it to me.”

        Now, that’s an interesting statement, Ab. In my humble opinion, this curt statement of yours doesn’t disprove it either – and actually brings up a more basic / down-to-earth question :

        WHAT exactly does Ab consider as proof ?

        The thing is, you obviously posted this Toronto skyline video with the intent of proving that the earth is flat. I responded with a careful analysis of your imagery, showing that the Toronto skyline is clearly missing (conservatively speaking) about 200ft – in elevation – of the same. If this earth were flat (and since you captured these images from an elevated vantage point), we would be able to see even the docks of the Toronto harbour. Yet we don’t.

        Hence, the world is not flat – and you have helped proving this fact – with your own legwork.

        Once again – thank you Ab, for proving that the earth isn’t flat. 🙂

    2. Ab’s pictures of the Toronto Skyline from St. Catherines has shown the earth has curvature. Why are we acting like the earth could possibly be flat when Simon Shack already proved the earth had curvature?

      The horizon has no curvature. As Unreal stated: water will always level herself. As a former sailor I agree with him. Made flights in greater and smaller planes. Always noticed a complete flat horizon. Helicopter the same. Had once a flight lesson, because I wanted to find out wat it feels like to fly an aeroplane myself, it was complete astonished how flat everything was. I’ll never forget what the instructor said: if you make a turn to the left or right: keep the nose of the aeroplane parallel with the horizon . The whole horizon was and is 100% flat. S. Shack proved nothing.
      Did a little bit mountaineering, same experience. Look a the pics from high altitude mountainclimbers, taken from Nanga Parbat, K2, Mount Everest, Ama Dablan, etc, always a straight horizon with exception of course the fish eye lense.

      Cheers, a former ball earth bs.

  3. Ab, if you’re going back to St. Catharines, I’d like to repeat my suggestion that you take a shot of Toronto from a second location in addition to your planned beach location – somewhere close to the beach though at a different elevation, such as from the top of a 50 ft hill. The difference in how much of Toronto is visible from each location could be telling. Atmospheric refraction, which is usually an unpredictable complication, should be the same in both shots, so we won’t have to consider it for a change.

      1. @Ab

        Don’t swallow the bait K & C laid out for you. It is absolute impossible for making calculations with the type of camera you use., due to the aberrations of the lenssystem. Believe your own eyes and it will tell you everything.

    1. You and Kham are quite a tag team, Clueseau. Let’s get you all on a call sometime soon and hash this issue out. What are your curve calculations like?

      1. The original video was probably from at least a 25 foot elevation above the lake.

        nThat’s fine, but the point of a two-shot comparison is to compare two shots where all other variables – e.g. longitude, latitude, time – are nearly the same, except elevation. A sufficient difference in elevation should cause a noticeable difference in how much of Toronto is visible, due to Earth’s curvature.

        You and Kham are quite a tag team, Clueseau.

        A “tag team”? Isn’t that slightly loaded language, Ab? As fakeologists and students of science, Kham and I happen to mostly agree concerning this Flat Earth business. That’s all there is to it. As to going on a call, I have thought about doing so in the future when I’m on a different computer, though this particular subject is much better discussed in text format anyway.

        My calculations of curvature are the same as Kham’s, yet atmospheric refraction calculations are nearly impossible before photography day. That is why I recommend the two-shot comparison. Atmospheric refraction will be the same in both shots, so we can ignore this unknown variable.

Leave a Reply