In all seriousness.. This is the most retarded thing I have ever read in this sub

Why?

From the OP, here is independently reproducible proof of non-curvature: you can prove to yourself at home that the curvature doesn't exist.

I've asked for reproducible proof of curvature from everyone I can, but no one can provide anything, while I have just given you the ability to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat, just like every horizon you've ever witnessed.

But be honest, /u/CaptainCanuck705, how much of my post did you actually read? I look at your history and see a lot of sports and mainstream entertainment sub-reddits.

What about boats sailing across the horizon?

From the OP, here is independently reproducible proof of non-curvature: you can prove to yourself at home that the curvature doesn't exist.

Well, see here:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#Erdkr.C3.BCmmung

Sadly, this paragraph is only contained on the german page. It describes that you cannot see the bank in in southeast-northwest direction, because over this length of 65km(= 40 miles) there is a bulge of 80m in the water, that would be 262ft.

Since it is the bulge that is cause by earths curvature, one needs to recalculate this for a length of 40miles to fit it to the prediction of the graphic, I'm too lazy right now, feel free to try yourself. Since the "far height" is normalized to the earth's surface, you can get a triange if the distance is short enough (40 miles is short enough), but not a right-angled one, so it may not be very easy, depending on your knowledge in geometry.

I've asked for reproducible proof of curvature from everyone I can, but no one can provide anything, while I have just given you the ability to prove to yourself that the Earth is Flat, just like every horizon you've ever witnessed.

See above. Also, if the earth was flat, you would see mountains everywhere around you on the horizon, even at the sea. How come you don't?

Replying to my own post because I don't want to edit it just to add something I missed the first time.

About the curvature that can be observed in the Bodensee in Germany

The whole distance from one bank to the other is 65km = 40 miles. The bulge in the water is 80m = 262ft high and of course, the highest point is in the middle. With this we can use the graphic, not going the fill distance, but half of it: 20 miles, which gives us a value of 266 feet for the "fall" which is the height here. Only 4 ft difference, a bit more than 1m - I'd say we got quite near to the expected value.

By the way, paying closer attention to the whole sheet and not only to the graphic itself, I noticed the hint about the "Old Bedford" and this was sufficient to find the Wikipedia page about the experiments

Interesting. I have never heard that atmospheric diffraction would cause light or a line-of-sight to get bent towards earth when very near to the surface, but not when set 13 feet (4 m) above the water. It makes no sense to me, so, according my current level of knowledge, this seems to support the idea of a flat earth, indeed.

I have never heard that atmospheric diffraction would cause light or a line-of-sight to get bent towards earth when very near to the surface, but not when set 13 feet (4 m) above the water. It makes no sense to me, so, according my current level of knowledge, this seems to support the idea of a flat earth, indeed.

Yes, the heliocentrist explanation for the phenomena of being able to see further than curvature should allow is a combination of mirage and refraction. The truth is that these effects only mirror and copy and could not create entire views of new information for us to see, and more and more examples are being pointed out every day.

This is 70 miles from Jupiter Florida, this is the Bahamas. On a round earth that's 3300 feet (well over 1/2 mile) below the horizon if earth is a ball.

Chicago Superior Mirage 3000 Feet High or Flat Earth? Truth Hurts.

After sorting out all the whiney fluff from the 2nd link video, there is very little left. But very little is not nothing! So it really provides food for thought and not just a little bit! I stand by my claim to haven an open mind. Now I need to think about it, and I need to do my own experiments.

Thank you very much!

Can you explain why your linked paper is proof?

Can you explain which part of it you don't understand? It's all self-explanatory to me so I don't know where to start.

The paper states that the declination is 8 inches for a mile, 32 inches for two miles, etc. But it gives a chart and that's it. It doesn't say whether or not the Earth is flat.

It will be seen by this table that after the first few miles the curvature would be so great that no difficulty could exist in detecting either its actual existence or its proportion.

The table is all you need: compare it to your observations of the world around you. Find any curvature?

The table is all you need: compare it to your observations of the world around you. Find any curvature?

Yes. But will you believe that?

Also, do you have access to the calculations that author used?

Yes. But will you believe that?

Is it reproducible proof? Can you present the proof at all?

Also, do you have access to the calculations that author used?

There are many forms, here is a simple derivation you can use to calculate the expected curvature.

And the page is from the book "Zetetic Astronomy", which was linked in the OP and is available for free here.

In the image searcher of your choice, look up "Chicago seen across Lake Michigan". Notice how the buildings look like they're sinking into the lake and you can only see the tops of the tallest ones? That's due to the curvature of the Earth.

That doesn't begin to solve your problems.

Consider:

The photo you are referring to was taken from Grand Mere state park in Michigan.

The distance between these two points on a map is 55 miles.

The tallest building in Chicago is the Sears Tower standing 1,451 feet.

At this distance, the curvature of the earth would put the city approximately 1,900 feet below the visible horizon.

What explanation can you provide as to why it is not only possible to see the Sears Tower, but the entire city skyline except for what you propose is the bottom of the buildings (I believe the bottom of the buildings to be obscured by the reflection of the water.)

Where are you getting your calculations?

It's simple geometry...

Draw a line tangent to a circle with a circumference of 25,000 miles.

For a given arc length you can easily verify the distance between the point and the tangent.

Ever hear of mirages? ;)

3,000 ft tall mirage? Now who's the crazy one?

How about these?

It's not a mutually exclusive phenomena.

Do I believe that a lensing effects do happen? Yes.

Do I believe that there is anyway in hell it can account refracting 3,000 feet of city skyline perfectly over an impossible viewing distance. No

What's the size limit on atmospheric optical effects? I must have missed that in my research, but it sounds like an Argument from Ignorance on your part.

Let me get this straight...

You are telling that I shouldn't believe what my eyes tell me and instead should believe I'm seeing a 3000 ft "mirage" that can't be proven or replicated by any tangible science, and for all intents and purposes is a fantastic magical theory.

And I'm the one arguing from ignorance.

You are telling that I shouldn't believe what my eyes tell me and instead should believe I'm seeing a 3000 ft "mirage" that can't be proven or replicated by any tangible science, and for all intents and purposes is a fantastic magical theory.

I didn't say any of that. Maybe you're confusing me with another user? Try to focus on only the words I have typed.

At this distance, the curvature of the earth would put the city approximately 1,900 feet below the visible horizon.

I didn't check the calculation, let's assume it is correct. Then, still the 1900ft are only valid when seen from 0 inch above the ground. If you bring your own height into the calculation, it looks a bit different.

(I believe the bottom of the buildings to be obscured by the reflection of the water.)

If the earth would be flat, this reflection on the water should show you the full length of the buildings upside down, in fact, it would subjectively double the perception of the far away buildings. Since you don't look from exactly floor level, but from a position that is heightened by the height of your body (at least, maybe some more), the reflections on the water would be unable to obscure anything.

It's interesting that I haven't found any high-res (at least full hd) pics about that with still water. Could you link one? It would decide the matter once and for all.

Why do you need still water? It's a lake, so I don't think a picture like that exists.

Because waves can obstruct the view if the water is not still.

Over large enough distances (1 mile and more), the difference between 0 ft and 2 ft waves is negligible. Plus would add up to them blocking hundreds of feet of building ;)

I find it funny how you go all condescending on me instead of providing a picture...

A picture...of a large lake near the Windy City...without waves...

I'm not even murrican, how would I know it's windy?

It's a large lake on the Gulf Stream.

But surely there must be a huge still lake to demonstrate... right?

Lake Tahoe, maybe?

Works for me. Unfortunately, I wasn't entirely serious about this.

Interesting that he didn't reply to this, isn't it?

Yeah, but it's just what he does. All the Flat Earth accounts run away when you give them something they can't refute.

If you look with a telescope you can see the bottoms of the buildings.

[Citation needed]

The whole thing actually. I understand that you and a handful of other quacks believe this but the general consensus and proof is that you are full of shit. If I was to travel in one direction by any means necessary I would come back to the same spot. Flat earth would have a definite ending point, and I sure as hell doesn't. And by what I read is none of your concern so go put your tinfoil hat back on and blow me

general consensus

General consensus is the enemy of reason. Have you seen the information regarding social media propaganda campaigns? Eglin air force base? If you want to know the truth about anything you must read and use your own reasoning. This topic specifically involves things that you can test yourself. Spend the time and actually consider the arguments before dismissing it.

"Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research." William Cooper

If I was to travel in one direction by any means necessary I would come back to the same spot.

False. You can 'circumnavigate' east-west and end up in the same spot, and this is consistent with the Flat Earth model. However you can not travel north-south and circumnavigate the world, and this too is consistent with the Flat Earth model.

Flat earth would have a definite ending point

So since the very first link in this post was a model of the Flat Earth that shows the edges of our exploration, you have now admitted that this is your second comment in a thread which you didn't even read!

Says you and only you. It's no different than saying I'm the third baron of Mars. Everyone believes in something and I know you believe what you think is right and I'll give you that. I believe that I think this is all a waste of time

When that guy jumped from space you could see the curve. Bigger issues and conspiracies than this whacked out bull plop

That was a hoax, but honestly you don't seem the type who looks into anything in depth.

Well, this is at least interesting. I like to train my mind once in a while :) Food for thought :)

You are hilarious.

I'd appreciate upvotes then, as it's extremely difficult to speak your mind openly about controversial topics on this site when doing so gets you downvoted.

Gather round everyone and listen to the great High Priest of Schmuck.. He will be named up there with Copernicus, Galileo , Newton , Einstein and undo all that is right with his cockamamie crap. Dude.. Fuck off and don't message back. Or go get a straight jacket

This is the mother of all conspiracies.

Pythagoras, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, NASA, Sagan, Tyson are all part of a Freemasonic club building a pseudoscientific worldview to indoctrinate the slave class so that we can be propagandized to do anything - it's total world domination.

So your logic is that because people don't understand the shape of the planet, they're more easily controlled? I don't quite follow how that logic works. Like, the every day lies that people are spun and believe would be/is much less work than spinning a tale about how the shape of the Earth is different.

Also how does this account for the fact that every stellar body in our solar system, all easily visible with home astronomy tools, are spherically shaped? It doesn't make sense to have a stellar system completely comprised of spherical objects EXCEPT for one.

No, that's not my logic, and I don't really respect anyone that seeks to address absurd reductionary arguments. There is a preponderance of evidence of the Flat Earth, and the OP contains reproducible proof for you.

It is extremely interesting to me that I have yet again summoned another account to defend the spherical Earth. How did you end up in this thread /u/FallenWyvern? The thread has 0 points and thus only shows up in the /r/conspiracy new queue. The rest of your comment and posting history is limited in mainstream entertainment subreddits, and it looks like video games are your main focus in life. You don't have any posts in /r/conspiracy or any news based sub-reddits. Why are you posting here now?

No, that's not my logic, and I don't really respect anyone that seeks to address absurd reductionary arguments. There is a preponderance of evidence of the Flat Earth, and the OP contains reproducible proof for you.

I'm actually asking what the logic is, I'm not asking for proof that you've pointed others to so many times before. It's easy, I can look at it but that's the how. I'm looking into the why.

It is extremely interesting to me that I have yet again summoned another account to defend the spherical Earth.

I'm not asking you to defend it. I'm trying to get insight into how you think about the situation.

How did you end up in this thread /u/FallenWyvern ? The thread has 0 points and thus only shows up in the /r/conspiracy new queue. The rest of your comment and posting history is limited in mainstream entertainment subreddits, and it looks like video games are your main focus in life. You don't have any posts in /r/conspiracy or any news based sub-reddits. Why are you posting here now?

I have lots of interests and many accounts. I'm just not so particular when it comes to just asking a simple question...

What I find most interesting is rather than answer the straightfoward and simple questions I posed, you'd just rather flip the table around. You say I'm an absurd reductionist, but you're boiling my entire personality down to the post history of a singular account.

Curiously, it was posted to me by a friend here at my work because HE visits /r/conspiracy and he knows I'm a science nut. I'm not even out to 'prove' anyone being right or wrong, I'm just interested in how you consolidate certain facts about the world around us.

Your comments don't show that you've perused the material I presented. Your ignorant objections are noted but are not really surprising, they are exactly what is expected from the government indoctrination we all received.

I've run into many accounts like yours recently, you will continue to just ask "why?" incessantly. You will ignore every other point, you will not respond to any evidence, you just seek to have me speculate as to why.

The problem is that you can't convince me (or the audience) that you are genuine in your questions. In your own post, you describe your deception:

I have lots of interests and many accounts. I'm just not so particular when it comes to just asking a simple question...

you're boiling my entire personality down to the post history of a singular account.

I don't think you are a person that deserves an answer. Your post history is focused on entertaining fiction, not the truth. Can you prove otherwise? Please tell me at least 3 conspiracies that you believe in, and why, if you'd like me to give you any more answers.

So when asking for more information regarding your ideas and thoughts, your solution is to be skeptical of the intent of others, mock them, insult them and then ask them to prove themselves?

It seems you're really not interested in informing people or incapable of actually answering those questions. In either case, good day.

Pretty weak concern troll after all of my direct questions. The information that you claim to seek is in the OP, but you didn't read it. Enjoy your escapist video games and Hollywood programming!

I asked two questions, neither of which are in your OP. It's weird that you think I'm only solely interested in video games (I am) and 'Hollywood Programming' (which I find weird because the only hollywood programming I seem to enjoy is speculative fiction, which is about as fringe as you get in terms of mainstream entertainment) when I'm SPECIFICALLY ASKING you for the information ONLY you possess: your opinion.

How do the observable, spherical planets in our solar region reconcile with the flat Earth model (a question which is not answered anywhere in the OP)?

What is the point of making people think the world is flat, when there are already so many other lies they use to control the population at a much more efficent level in terms of effort and cost?

Two questions. If you're so interested in enlightening others, just share your opinion. I'm explicitly even saying I'm only interested in how YOU think of these: not what some documentary says, nor what mathematical model supports these ideas. Just your opinion.

What are three conspiracies that you believe in and why? Just a short sentence for each, nothing too in depth.

My speculation won't enlighten others; reproducible evidence will, but we've all been conditioned to refuse to even look at it.

Meanwhile, I will continue to bear witness that it is not crazy to not believe in the NASA mythology. You're welcome to explore my user history and find my opinion on many other topics; I've created quite a bit of original content for here and plan on continuing to do so.

I have a question. I just piggy-backed on this post because it's the most recent. Whenever I have a theory about something I try to take a step back and think what evidence I would have to be shown for my opinion to change. So my question to you would be:

What would you have to be shown to believe the earth is a sphere?

What would you have to be shown to believe the earth is a sphere?

Reproducible evidence of curvature. My OP contains reproducible evidence of non-curvature. Full stop, Flat Earth is proven by independent observation. Try it yourself at home.

I live near the top of a large hill/mountainous area. I have a high powered telescope that I use for astronomy. Why am I not able to point it at the "horizon" and see for hundreds of miles?

Weather. There are many independently verified reports of sailors at sea spotting objects at over 100 miles away, depending on weather conditions. In fact we can see much further than we should be able to if the Earth were round.

I've read through that already and the numbers are there however one problem has persisted. There is no physical evidence of these feats. Sailers have been verified to have seen all sorts of unbelievable things for centuries. More specifically, I have yet to see a picture or any sort of evidence from seeing the Statue of Liberty from 60 miles away.

As long as you are passively resting on your previous assumptions, demanding others present you with palatable bits of easily digestible information, you will never find the truth.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I can only give you enough breadcrumbs to follow, you aren't going to overcome more than a decade of government programming until you take an active role in searching for the truth for yourself.

No, no assumptions here. I just am interested in evidence and proof. I'm just asking for any evidence of being able to see this far or take a picture/video from that far away that is not written. Numbers can be manipulated as you have so astutely pointed out, so I prefer to look at more than just raw numbers.

You could find that evidence if you tried looking for it yourself, and the OP contains several examples if you watch the videos. You don't seem to be actually interested in looking into this idea, more in badgering me.

/u/Nerdfighter45, you previous posts on reddit are mostly focused on mainstream entertainment subreddits. You frequently post to sports subreddits, even to /r/cringe. I think this says a lot about you. How did you even end up in /r/conspiracy, in a thread that has zero points and only shows up in the new queue?

Oh, I just realized that you aren't a visionary. I was excited at the prospect of what was laid before me. This last comment has shown me what you really are. You have victimized yourself as I have not badgered you at all.

I'm truly sorry to learn that you aren't one of the real leaders with influential thinking. You can only spew what you have been indoctrinated to spew by the real leaders of change. I pity my children growing up in a world created by the current powers at be, but may they never be false prophets like yourself.

Oh no, I've disappointed /u/Nerdfighter45, someone who still takes the NFL and NBA seriously. This concern trolling from accounts who don't even believe in conspiracies is really weak.

lol

What are three conspiracies that you believe in and why? Just a short sentence for each, nothing too in depth.

I don't. I believe in what I can see with reproducible evidence which, at that point, makes it not really a theory. It's a fact. But more importantly, why 3? What would it matter? Why does it have to be a conspiracy? This is such an arbitrary question you're just using as a shitty way of not answering questions.

Like let's say I said "Oh I believe that oranges give off a low frequency hum that's been killing bees" (I don't). Now you go "Oh this guy's a nutter, I'm not telling him shit because it'll hurt my cause to have that guy trying to inform people"!

So do you want three things I believe in? I believe anyone who believes they are qualified to run a civilization is the last person who should. I do not believe in a God, although I'm open to the universe being created. I believe that there is live out in the universe somewhere. They're not facts, these are just things that I feel are correct.

My speculation won't enlighten others; reproducible evidence will, but we've all been conditioned to refuse to even look at it.

Unless you don't believe what you believe is accurate, your opinion isn't really speculation is it? And even then, your speculation DOES enlighten: it shows people how your mind works.

I'm in the /r/conspiracy sub-reddit and can't list a single conspiracy that I think is true.

That says a lot about you and your agenda.

I don't HAVE an agenda. I was pointed to this from a friend, I don't usually frequent /r/conspiracy. That doesn't mean I don't care about your opinions, or the thoughts of others like those people who post here.

You know what. I was interested, genuinely interested, in finding out more about how those facts are considered. But now I stopped caring. You're incapable of answering them so either you have no interest in actually sharing your opinions or you lack them. Either way as much as I want to have answers, it's obvious there are none to be found here.

You know what. I was interested, genuinely interested, in finding out more about how those facts are considered. But now I stopped caring.

Oh no, I failed to convince someone who spends all their time playing video games and watching television and who doesn't believe in a single conspiracy theory. You might as well be a walking mainstream advertisement.

You failed to convince me that you are a real person worthy of the effort. I've given you more than enough breadcrumbs in every direction and you continue to disregard everything. Discussions are a mutual interaction and you have brought nothing to the table except an interrogation.

I agree this is stupid compounded with tons of idiotic data. If this isn't someone trying to just muddy the waters and discredit everything else posted on this forum - then someone is off their fucking meds

OP is just trolling for comedy. Take it for what it is and enjoy!

This is not just trolling, I am completely serious about this. It is amazing how many accounts who previously never posted in /r/conspiracy have been summoned by this thread to repeat the mainstream belief.

How did you, /u/va3oso, find this day old 0 point thread whose visibility is limited to /r/conspiracy/new?

There are posts in other threads about your trolling.

I'm not trolling; what does the horizon look like near you? Can you produce any reproducible evidence of curvature?

what does the horizon look like near you?

I'm in a city, the horizon is about 50m (150ft) away and looks rather edgy :D

At the sea, it would look rather straight, and this fits perfectly to a horizon on a ball, here's why:

• Imagine a huge ball.

• Imagine yourself standing on it

• look in one direction (doesn't matter which direction, we define it as the "0-degree-direction")

• measure the distance to the "edge of the ball" as seen from your position

• Turn 90 degrees to the right (we call this the 90-degree-direction.)

• measure the distance to the ball-horizon again. You will find that it is the same distance.

• try any other direction. You will always find the same distance.

Since the ball is smaller than the earth, you will probably notice that the level of the horizon is below your feet. And this is the only information you get about the (in the case of a huge ball, very prominent) curvature, you would see very little of the curvature itself.

In case of the earth, the "ball" is so huge that you won't even consciously notice that the level of the horizon (when looking at the sea) is below you feet. Or do you? If you do, the difference between a straight line of sight and and the horizon is your information about the curvature of the earth.

While writing this, the Question "how far away is the horizon?" appeared to me. And lo & behold, the question is answered - it is different, depending on how far above ground you are! And here the atmospheric diffraction (that I did not know about before) is mentionened. It is obvious that this effect prolongs the distance to the (optical) horizon by some extend, how much is less clear, the page uses the value 8% which woudn't be much, but also mentions, that this effect "can allow light to follow the Earth's surface for hundreds of kilometres."

But specifically, there are a few example distances given:

For an observer standing on the ground with h = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in) (average eye-level height), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mi).

For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).

For an observer standing on a hill or tower of 100 metres (330 ft) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 36 kilometres (22 mi).

For an observer standing at the top of the Burj Khalifa (828 metres (2,717 ft) in height), the horizon is at a distance of 103 kilometres (64 mi).

For an observer atop Mount Everest (8,848 metres (29,029 ft) in altitude), the horizon is at a distance of 336 kilometres (209 mi).

And here is something I find interesting:

Given that the earth is flat, why would my position above ground make a difference at all? Especially at sea, where my view would not be obstructed by objects higher than my line of sight? On a flat world, the horizon should be several 100 kilometres away, regardless of your position above ground.

Is there an explanation why this is not the case?

I'll leave it at that for today. Please note that this is the view of science which is the view I trust so far. Because, so far, all it tells me makes sense.

^{By the way, I'm also curious about the amount of downvotes I shall get for this. So far I have not downvoted anything in here, but I got some. I'm rather interested in a serious communication about a (for me) "surprising" subject, but if the downvotes pile up more, I can start downvoting, too.}

Edit:

dammit :-( Edited nearly a day later, to get the formatting right.

Just the fact that you can see the horizon is proof that there is not an infinite plain.

Say what now? You think your eyes can see into infinity?

Have you ever looked down a long corridor and noticed what effect was occurring with the perceived size of the doors? Or a long street, have you ever looked down one and seen the lamp posts shrink?

I can't see to infinity but I can see father than 3 miles.

What about a lunar eclipse? Why is the shadow round?

I can't see to infinity but I can see father than 3 miles.

We can see for hundreds of miles given a clear enough day, this is indisputable proof that the Earth is flat.

On flat ground you can see for 3 miles. You can check this by looking for yourself across some water.

You can see for much further than 3 miles, given favorable conditions.

Yes you can, but only from a raised elevation.

when I was in school it was approx. 11 miles at sea level

If this has changed to your '3' then what else has changed?

Nothing changed. 11 miles horizon is from 40 feet elevation (top of a ships mast)

not saying this is correct at all, but one explanation to consider...

Lets say that earth is flat, imagine a circular plane lying directly in the center of an imaginary spherical bubble around it. But the circular flat plane (earth) is lying North to south-rather than east to west-if that helps you imagine it. Essentially like a quarter standing up on its side. Now lets assume we still rotate the way we believe and (imagine you spinning the quarter now) and what we would perceive in a shadow situation is a spherical shadow.

Just for consideration

The amount of trolling and derailing in this thread from random accounts, plus the number of downvotes relative to the number of comments, are pretty incredible. Very rarely have I seen a thread like this before.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." -Alvin Toffler

"One by one, the Free Lands fell to the power of the Ring. There were some who resisted, but the hearts of Men are easily corrupted. The Ring of Power has a will of its own. And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth." - J.R.R. Tolkien

I have entertained thoughts of this theory, but I merely reject it. Explain gravity. Explain the cameras people send into upper atmosphere in balloons. Please, if you can find satisfactory explanations for both of those, I will rethink my belief.

I have entertained thoughts of this theory

No you haven't, /u/lordberric, another redditor who previously only posted in mainstream entertainment sub-reddits, and it won't take long to prove that:

Explain the cameras people send into upper atmosphere in balloons

I already did; this is from the second paragraph in the OP:

If you're the hands-on type, all amateur attempts to reach as high an altitude as possible show a flat horizon at heights NASA material shows curvature.

I'll answer your other question to show how easy it is to answer (and you would have found this out if actually did any research), but it's for the audience and not for you. I'm not going to pretend that I believe that you're genuine.

Gravity

In every medium, objects that are denser than the medium sink, while objects that are less dense rise. This holds for every medium and explains all of our physical observations without any 'theory' necessary.

The capital-T Theory of Gravity is everything necessary to have the above statement remain true if we also exist on a sphere in an 'outer space' of 'flying spheres'. It's an attempt to explain how anything would be magnetically stuck to the surface of a ball, when that is counter to every single physical observation of a sphere we can reproduce. We don't need a spherical rationalization at all to explain a Flat Earth, we just need the statement of the previous paragraph.

We also have never been able to reproduce the gravitational attraction of the Theory of Gravity in a laboratory, no matter how many times we put a massive dense object next to a miniscule object.

In short, the capital-T Theory of Gravity is just pseudo-science ball-shit.

The reason you can't reproduce gravity in a lab is probably because you can't make an object dense enough to have any effect. I'm still unsure if you actually came up with a suitable explanation for how we are stuck to the earth.

He's straight up wrong, it's absurdly easy to reproduce the effect of gravity in your own living room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfDllu2GBhg

Oh, thanks.

Consider the post history of those who try to get you not to look into this. They don't want you to look, but it is your choice. It is pretty clear that the people who rail against this the hardest have an agenda.

This topic is worth spending time on. There are some serious problems with the globe model of the earth.

Also, NASA. If you have never checked them out, you should. They produce a lot of CGI and not much photography.

Let's just think about some simple experiments we can all do to evaluate the shape of the Earth.

Take some binoculars and go to the coast and watch the ships appear and disappear over the horizon. What do you notice?

When you travel to different parts of the World look at the night sky. Do you notice a change to visible constellations?

Get a friend a long way (a few timezones) away to make a sun dial and then you make an identical one as well. Call them up and compare the results. Also call someone who is a number of time zones away and ask them how long ago sunrise was?

Finally are we saying that gravity is wrong? Because gravity pulls you toward the mass (in the case of a globe down) on a plane then the further you were from the centre the more the pull would be slanted towards to the middle of the plane. Do pendulums tilt at places like Alaska?

None of those things prove a globe.

It disproves that the Earth is flat. Satellite photography proves it is a globe. Do you use GPS?

Ask yourself, how would you know the difference between aerial photography and "satellite" photography?

Hey OP I'm not totally convinced of flat earth but I am in the process of investigation. A globe seems more ridiculous than a flat or even bulbous disc shape.

Gravity doesn't make any sense when taking an objective look at it. How can it be strong enough to hold planets in orbit, our moon in orbit, and yet weak enough not to crush us?

It makes no sense for rockets to work in a vacuum and it's easily tested. Get a vacuum container and set off a scale rocket inside; observe results...

If the earth was a ball then it would only make sense to launch space missions from the highest altitudes feasible and not from sea level at an angle that greatly increases fuel consumption. Straight out from any point on a globe is a shorter distance than an arc, basic geometry right?

gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8

hey op, im thinking about this and im getting stuck when it comes to both lunar and solar eclipse, can you give me some insight?

I'm interested in the question as well; the short answer is that there isn't a satisfactory explanation under any model. The observations of the eclipses, while predictable, have never fit within the ball Earth model, and we're forced to start over from the beginning.

"According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon." -F.H. Cook, "The Terrestrial Plane"

As early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that "during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon." McCulluch’s Geography recorded that "on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set." Sir Henry Holland also noted in his "Recollections of Past Life" the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where "the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set." The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day.

"It is alleged by the learned that at a lunar eclipse the earth casts a shadow on the moon, by intercepting the light of the sun. The shadow, it is alleged, is circular, and as only a globe can cast a circular shadow, and as that shadow is cast by the earth, of course the earth is a globe. In fact, what better proof could any reasonable person require? ‘Powerful reasoning,’ says the dupe. Let us see. I have already cited a case where sun and moon have been seen with the moon eclipsed, and as the earth was not between, or they both could not have been seen, the shadow said to be on the moon could not possibly have been cast by the earth. But as refraction is charged with raising the moon above the horizon, when it is said to be really beneath, and the amount of refraction made to tally with what would be required to square the matter, let us see how refraction would act in regard to a shadow. Refraction can only exist where the object and the observer are in different densities. If a shilling be put in the bottom of a glass and observed there is no refraction. Refraction casts the image of the shilling UPWARDS, but a shadow always downwards. If a basin be taken and put near a light, so that the shadow will shorten inwards and DOWNWARDS; but if the rod is allowed to rest in the basin and water poured in, the rod will appear to be bent UPWARDS. This places the matter beyond dispute and proves that it is out of the range of possibility that the shadow said to be on the moon could be that of the earth." -Thomas Winship, "Zetetic Cosmogeny" (78)

Whatever is causing these phenomena, we aren't going to be able to understand it until we shed our incorrect assumptions and beliefs.

Earth has a bigger surface area. Thus you could see a partially eclipsed moon while the sun is still up.

I have researched this stuff before and I admit it is intriguing...Is there an explanation for a compass and nautical star navigation?

Yes, night piloting is proof that the Earth is flat.

When we look up at the stars, we can see that they rotate around Polaris, the pole star at the North Pole. The star trails that we can observe are proof of a Flat Earth.

Meanwhile, the heliocentrists claim we are constantly moving through outer space at extremely high speeds, with our direction changing wildly regularly. And yet our view of the stars remains mostly unchanged, and so they have introduced orders of magnitude of more millions of miles in between their theories. The stars are just so far away now, that like everything else bundled under relativity, they don't appear to have the movement they should!

In the Southern Hemisphere, the Stars rotate around the southern pole stars I.e. sigma Octantis.

Flight times in the Southern Hemisphere are not possible in a flat earth model.

The Rectilineator experiment proved conclusively concave curvature.

Why do you ignore all of this evidence?

EDIT: is it because you are trying to sell a book?

In the Southern Hemisphere, the Stars rotate around the southern pole stars I.e. sigma Octantis.

False.

Flight times in the Southern Hemisphere are not possible in a flat earth model.

Be more specific. From what I can see, flight paths prove a Flat Earth, more here.

The Rectilineator experiment proved conclusively concave curvature.

Non-reproducible. I do not believe they achieved some of the claims of their experiment, and it has not been reproduced. The evidence of non-curvature that I provided in the OP is reproducible by anyone; moreso, there is a preponderance of evidence of flatness, and none of any hollowness or concavity.

is it because you are trying to sell a book?

I don't have any book to sell nor any real plan to write one yet. I want to see the world change into one where I can bring children into it, but this world is broken and enslaved.

False.

Uh, you're going to have to do better than that. How do you explain this?

The South Celestial Pole is the point in the sky about which all the stars seen from the Southern Hemisphere rotate.

From what I can see, flight paths prove a Flat Earth

Are these planes flying using alien technology?

Non-reproducible.

Billshit, it's totally reproducible if you have the means.

I do not believe they achieved some of the claims of their experiment

Care to be more specific?

and it has not been reproduced.

So reproduce it!

The evidence of non-curvature that I provided in the OP is reproducible by anyone; moreso, there is a preponderance of evidence of flatness, and none of any hollowness or concavity.

Care to be more specific? I have been. Optics are not great evidence of anything, actual measurement is required. Like the Rectilineator.

I don't have any book to sell nor any real plan to write one yet. I want to see the world change into one where I can bring children into it, but this world is broken and enslaved.

If that is really true, maybe you should focus on something that people can actually do something about, like preventing and curing cancer or abolishing the state. At the very least accept the evidence of concavity and stop peddling nonsense.

Yeah, I don't know why I fed you. You're welcome to try to convince others of your genuineness by creating your own original content for this site, but please make your own thread and stop derailing mine.

"Fed" me? Hey fuck you buddy, I am raising honest, specific critiques about your hypothesis. You are responding with insults and so I must respond in kind. You cannot resolve flight times or southern pole star rotation. Flat Earth doesn't work, and you're either just as close minded as the globe-heads or you are a limited hangout paid shill, but either way you are clearly not interested in the truth.

Whatever the shape of the world around us, the evidence for it will be easily reproducible and abundant.

There is easily reproducible and abundant evidence of flatness.

The only evidence that you can produce of hollowness or concavity is an experiment that is not reproducible, based on assumptions that are not tenable.

Your claims about flight times are vague and unspecific, and you previously have presented purely false information (a southern pole star). Your modus operandi is clear.

Your account has very little contributions to any subject. You will have to do a lot better to convince me that you are a genuine person concerned with the truth.

Whatever the shape of the world around us, the evidence for it will be easily reproducible and abundant.

That's obviously not true. If it were, the entire human race would not have been so easily deceived into believing the globular theory.

There is easily reproducible and abundant evidence of flatness.

What reproducible, measurable experiments can be done to support a flat earth hypothesis? Everything you've posted relies on optics, which can be deceiving.

The only evidence that you can produce of hollowness or concavity is an experiment that is not reproducible, based on assumptions that are not tenable.

You keep saying that it isn't reproducible, which is a lie. The experiment is 100% reproducible, it simply has never been reproduce since it was originally conducted, which I find very telling. And it isn't based on ANY assumptions - the Rectilineator could be used to provide evidence for ANY curvature or lack thereof. The results of the experiment support concavity, not the assumptions.

Your claims about flight times are vague and unspecific

I didn't make any claims about flight times, I asked you a fucking question. Here, I'll ask it again so you can fail to answer it again:

How does Quantas run a 787 between Santiago, Chile and Auckland, New Zealand on a DAILY BASIS in 11-13 hours nonstop in a flat earth model? Wouldn't the distances involved require massively higher air speeds than that aircraft is capable of attaining?

http://goo.gl/flights/9AmL

and you previously have presented purely false information (a southern pole star).

Your failure to understand the rotation of the stars around a southern central pole is not my problem but yours, and you continue to fail to address this critical flaw in flat earth theory.

Your modus operandi is clear.

Please, enlighten us if it is so clear!

Your account has very little contributions to any subject.

Fuck you.

You will have to do a lot better to convince me that you are a genuine person concerned with the truth.

I don't need to convince you of jack shit, you are the one trying to convince people of a flawed theory that cannot account for the problems that I have raised. I will continue to raise these issues as long as you continue to post a flawed theory and fail to address them.

What reproducible, measurable experiments can be done to support a flat earth hypothesis?

A copy of the book "Lighthouses of the World" and a calculator are all you need to prove that the Earth is Flat and no curvature exists. Trying to cover this up by claiming that light bends around the curvature of the Earth in just the exact proportion so that we can not observe any curvature is extremely weak damage control.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is proof that we are stationary and not spinning at who know's what speeds (no one can ever calculate our total velocity).

Eratosthenes' experiment proves that the sun is much closer than millions of miles away, when you evaluate the results without his assumptions of a spherical Earth.

Star-trail time lapse photography is proof that we are not constantly spinning and rotating throughout outer space, rather the constellations are rotating above us.

Your failure to understand the rotation of the stars around a southern central pole

There is no southern central pole that the constellations rotate around; the closest approximation is the southern cross, but there is no southern pole star.

How does Quantas run a 787 between Santiago, Chile and Auckland, New Zealand

It doesn't; try booking that flight, you won't be able to get a non-stop. Once again though, as I've said to you before: whatever the true shape of the world around us, the evidence for it will be easily reproducible and abundant. There is easily reproducible and abundant evidence of flatness.

Your modus operandi is clear.

Please, enlighten us if it is so clear!

Sure, here you go:

Fuck you.

I asked you a fucking question.

I don't need to convince you of jack shit

This combined with your account history is very telling.

haha, you are honestly saying that the daily flights in the southern hemisphere, that anybody can look up and book, somehow do not exist? That's hilarious. I like one of your buddies' responses better:

You see it's fairly simple thanks to the flat earth's magnetic field near the edges. This creates a perceived time dilation among passengers.

That at least uses a bit of imagination. You are just a "flight times denier", sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you". You still haven't outlined an actual experiment to measure flatness, just something about lighthouses and a calculator? But you accuse me of being vague? And I never denied that the earth is not rotating, or that the sun isn't much closer than astronomers claim, or that the heavens rotate above us - that is all part of the concave earth model, which you clearly have still not even bothered to attempt to understand. Pity.

Have fun with your flat earth delusion. Good luck selling your book.

daily flights in the southern hemisphere

Not only do flights in the southern hemisphere disappear off of GPS for the majority of their flight time, but their routes prove the Earth is Flat.

Your objections are weaker and weaker with each post. Again though, the shape of the Earth will be evident all around us, not something you can only find in a toilet bowl or on a southern hemisphere flight. That's how the truth works: it's independently verifiable from every direction.

Yes you linked that video before, and I don't see it proving anything. Since we both know satellites do not exist, is not the failure of GPS better explained by it's land-based model? Hoes does GPS failing prove anything at all?

11 hours from Auckland to Santiago. Absolutely impossible on a flat earth, and you will never, ever be able to get around this cold, hard fact. The TWO axes of rotation of the stars as well, in the north (Polaris) and the south (Sigma Octantis / Southern Cross), but you seem too dense to even grasp that argument, so I shant continue to bother. Others who read this might, though, and thus be made aware of your asshattery.

um... looking at your flat earth model, how would you explain sunrises and sunsets?

The answer to that question can be found in both the documentary and the book I linked in the OP, alternatively discussed in detail here.

https://kpharri.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/the-suns-rays-are-parallel/

^ Answers the first point using analogy of parallel telephone lines, and how they appear to diverge as they come towards you. Better sources out there, but that's the one i clicked on.

2nd point about sun on ocean: I'm pretty sure that's what a light source looks like on a globe. Didn't watch the rest.

Your conspiracy is interesting and rather fringe. Don't really see much evidence for it, and plenty against it. Our earth as a globe is pretty commonly accepted nowadays. But, hey, you do you.

Didn't watch the rest.

I'm not really interested in the opinion of someone who hasn't looked into any of this; even moreso, I'm not interested in the opinion of someone who would share their opinion on something they are too lazy to investigate.

Don't really see much evidence for it, and plenty against it.

Well there you go, I provided reproducible evidence of curvature in the OP, but you already admitted you didn't look through it all.

On some high-altitude sorties I absolutely viewed the curvature of the earth with my own two eyes. But I guess I'm a shill or a hoaxer or just another nameless faceless person trying to lie to you.

Good luck brother

The formula used to calculate Earth's curvature is not the same formula used to calculate how far a lighthouse can be seen.

http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/distance.htm

Also, satellites could not be launched into geosynchronous orbit if the Earth were flat.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Satellites are a hoax, I don't think you even read the OP, just like your other comments in my Flat Earth threads, you are part of the condemn without investigation team.

If they talk satellites, galaxies, globe etc. you know they are either ignorant or putting forth the NWO agenda willingly or not.

Have you never seen satellites at night?

What size are satellites, and how do they compare to the size of 747s? What altitude are satellites, and how does their height compare to the height of 747s? Have you ever seen a 747 fly overhead at night, with all those lights on?

If a satellite, much smaller than a 747, flying much higher than a 747, doesn't have a light source on it, how is it possible that you could see it as a glob of light?

Whatever it is that we can observe overhead, it's impossible that they are man-made satellites.

If a satellite, much smaller than a 747, flying much higher than a 747, doesn't have a light source on it, how is it possible that you could see it as a glob of light?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_%28physics%29

You're a big fan of the 'Church of the SubGenius', huh new guy? Likey the trollin' eh?

No, I'm not a fan, and my previous accounts were shadowbanned. You can figure out what they were if you stalk my history.

I'm very serious and I wish others would take it seriously, or at the very least withhold judgment of that which they do not investigate.

not a fan

Your username says otherwise.

Is "Flat Earth" the black-propaganda "infiltrate, manipulate, deceive, discredit" op du jour?

No, I'm a real person, and the insistence of everyone on condemning the claims that they have not even investigated should clue you in to this being the mother of all conspiracies.

What's the horizon look like near you? Can you show me a picture if you see any curvature?

No, I'm a real person, and the insistence of everyone on condemning the claims that they have not even investigated should clue you in to this being the mother of all conspiracies.

Your inability to actually engage people in discussion indicates you don't have any interest in it and you're only interested in pamphleteering, spam and well...trolling

Some users don't deserve a response and I invite the audience to compare this user's post submission history to mine.

post submission history to mine

Aaaah. Now I get it. You've seemingly supported several conspiracy theories here and are trying to equate them with this flat earth junk, thus making everything else here appear 'crazy' too. A new wrinkle to an old tactic.

I've posted quite a bit of original content and will continue to speak the truth on every topic that I can. You should reflect on how you are so afraid of being marginalized that you would marginalize others. Be honest, have you actually looked into anything I've posted yet or are you another who condemns without investigation?

Maybe you have some reproducible proof of curvature?

*DING DING DING*

Seem familiar?

• https://www.reddit.com/search?q=author%3Afleshpeeler&sort=new&restrict_sr=off&t=all

  • /u/Fleshpeeler

That was one of many accounts used by the liar behind the hate-group /r/TopMindsOfReddit. You think he stopped his acting after that shadowban? I doubt it...

Sounds like the exact thing I just described.

compare this user's post submission history to mine.

You're such a try-hard, new guy. Why don't you share with everyone your previous accounts?

try-hard

Lol, says someone who has come back to a 0 point thread to continue to post, on a comment which wasn't directed at you.

You're welcome to search my comment history and find my previous accounts pretty easily; my experience is that for the detractors who show up in my Flat Earth threads, that's too much work to bother with, just like it's too much to ask that they first read through what they are trying to debunk.

...wasn't directed at you.

You apparently tried to attack my post history here.

• http://www.reddit.com/search?q=author%3Atheghostofdusty+subreddit%3Aconspiracy&sort=relevance&t=all

You're welcome to search my comment history and find my previous accounts pretty easily

Why not just spill your beans? It's obvious that you want to. Why the coy act? Tell us about your current username too!

You've never taken to time to go outside and spot satellites in a low-light area... and you make assertive claims that they are therefore an elaborate hoax. Why would anyone take you seriously for a second?

Your game plan here is so inept that I'm surprised you're still attempting it.

You apparently tried to attack my post history here.

My comment was in response to another user; is this an admission from you?

You've never taken to time to go outside and spot satellites in a low-light area

I have directly responded to this claim in this very thread multiple times, maybe you should try reading more.

What were your defunct accounts?

Satellites are a hoax, I don't think you even read the OP, just like your other comments in my Flat Earth threads

Many of your speculative claims are not worth a response.

you are part of the condemn without investigation team.

Conversely, you seem like a shill for Flat Earthers because you deny all science including the repeatedly documented existence of satellites.

If they talk satellites, galaxies, globe etc. you know they are either ignorant or putting forth the NWO agenda willingly or not.

That is a false dilemma instead of proof.

Do you have any proof that satellites exist? I've summoned satellite technicians who never post in this subreddit but need me to believe in satellites before with this question. When I ask them for a complete schematic of a satellite so that I can independently reproduce one of my own, they are forced to admit that they don't have any complete schematics.

GPS is done via repeater towers, which explains why your coverage drops off as you venture away from them. If there were thousands of satellites in orbit, you should have an amazing signal in the middle of nowhere with no interference. But we're talking about electromagnetic signals here, which get exponentially weaker with distance. Which is the more likely source of the signal, something dozens of miles away at most that is powered off of a grid with enormous capacity, or something that is hundreds of miles overhead with a self-contained power source of much less capacity?

i took this a few nights ago am i a government shill?

I saw Gravity in theaters so it must be real, and I have a bridge on Europa I'd like to talk to you about, great deals this time of year.

I don't understand what you're getting at with that sentence.

Maybe you shouldn't devote so much of your life to video games.

I'm not sure that's relevant.

Can you list 3 conspiracies that you believe in and a brief explanation as to why? I'm interested in seeing your level of information awareness.

Again, that's totally irrelevant to the image I posted. Instead of questioning me or my history could you make any sort of comment on my picture of the international space station?

Sure, I'll answer for the audience's sake, but you have now proven that you aren't really a genuine person interested in conversation; you have an agenda with your posts here and shouldn't expect any more responses from me.

Back to your fuzzy image, it doesn't invalidate independently reproducible proof of non-curvature. It matches the same character as the rest of the NASA mythology, i.e. it is only reproducible by a small cabal of people and it matches the current level of our ability to create illusions with special effects.

Even moreso, the entire concept is nonsense. At the distance the ISS allegedly floats above Earth, somehow compelled by Gravity to never actually fall, it's impossible that we could see it at all, much less find it and image it in any resolution when it is allegedly moving at thousands of miles an hour. Also, without an independent light source focused on it, it would not be visible at all. The brightly glowing glob of light that NASA tells us to track as the ISS can not possibly be the Sun reflecting off an object the size of the ISS at the altitude claimed.

These are all obvious to anyone who actually looks into the claims seriously, but I bet you still believe the moon landings are true, unable to tell the difference between 1960s special effects and reality.

If you're just going to repeat the same things I could find on wikipedia or /r/space, you can save your time. Do you have any reproducible proof of curvature that you can present?

I'm very genuine and interested in conversation but only when it's relevant. And I have some reproducible proof of the international space station. Get yourself a telescope with a motorized tracker mount, download Stellarium (open source) and slew it to the ISS and track. Peer through the scope.

I'm very genuine and interested in conversation

This is your first foray into /r/conspiracy; do you believe in any conspiracies at all?

Someone who doesn't believe in a single conspiracy at all definitely isn't ready to be questioning the mother of all conspiracies. You're still stuck in a mainstream information bubble.

You should respond to my comment about instructions of viewing the ISS, not talk about me. Sorry I have to spoon-feed you instructions on how to have a proper conversation.

Having a 'proper conversation' is a one-sided thing where I am interrogated by someone who can't provide any evidence that they are genuine in their intentions? You have no manners whatsoever.

I'm only quoting you.

You should upvote based on the content and not the messenger.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/387jvf/the_fbi_is_operating_a_small_air_force_with/crszmtd

The same applies when having a conversation or argument.

Do you think I've been downvoting you or something?

No, by 'the same' I'm referring to the idea that one should focus on the content and not the messenger. It has nothing to do with votes, but the pure idea.

You keep going through my post history, asking me what conspiracy theories I believe in, telling me that I can't be ready to possibly challenge this because I'm in the mainstream media bubble and have the gall to claim that in this interaction I'm interrogating you?

Lol, the number of concern trolls in this thread is too damn high!

Anyways, why do you think looking through a telescope pointed at the ISS wouldn't work?

If you keep clicking on the parent link below our comments, you'll eventually reach the one where I already answered that for you.

Well what do you think one would see?

Satellites are a hoax,

Um, you do realize that the very box you are typing this message on is dependent on telecommunications satellites, right?

Actually, the vast majority of the data over the internet is carried through fiber-optic and undersea cables.

That doesn't change the fact that the guy's crazy. But I just thought I'd point that out. It doesn't change the fact that you can see things like the ISS passing overhead and Iridium flares.

Really? TIL! Fair enough - I can admit when I'm wrong.

Lol, I could tell you everything about the inside of this box and confidently state that it has no dependence whatsoever on satellites.

No, I mean the data you send - depending where you are in the world and a couple of other factors - will utilize telecommunication satellites to reach it's destination.

No, it won't, and you can find my explanation for this if you search "satellite" on the thread, clearly you have a different agenda here other than seeking information.

[deleted]

The ISS is a hoax, there is lots of evidence if you look into this.

Do you really think someone would come to the conclusion that NASA was lying to them, but only about this one very specific thing?

Do you think NASA is the only US government institution that would never lie to you?

So when I look up at the sky at twilight and see an ISS-shaped object moving across it at high speed through a telescope or pair of binoculars, what am I actually seeing?

Also, many of your "proofs" are hilarious. That one involving the canal and lock doesn't seem to account for the fact that gravity doesn't point straight down, it points to the center of the Earth, for instance.

an ISS-shaped object moving across it at high speed through a telescope or pair of binoculars, what am I actually seeing?

It's physically impossible for that to be the ISS; at that distance, the ISS wouldn't be able to be seen, nor would it appear as a glowing glob of light. NASA and independent "amateur" astronomers associated with NASA are the only ones who can produce a photo of something that looks like the "ISS" (the symbol for Baphomet).

That one involving the canal and lock doesn't seem to account for the fact that gravity doesn't point straight down, it points to the center of the Earth, for instance.

That's Gravity, with a capital G as in Freemason, a theory that was only created to continue the spherical Lie. There is no reproducible evidence that it exists; no matter how many times we try to put a massive spherical object next to the smallest object we can, we cannot observe or reproduce any "gravitational" pull from mass.

The much simpler explanation is density. In every medium, including air, denser objects sink. That's all that is necessary; it's only when you try to claim that we exist on a ball that you need an explanation for how everything isn't flung off the ball by centrifugal force.

NASA and independent "amateur" astronomers associated with NASA are the only ones who can produce a photo of something that looks like the "ISS" (the symbol for Baphomet).

Really? Go buy a good pair of binoculars and report back.

There is no reproducible evidence that it exists; no matter how many times we try to put a massive spherical object next to the smallest object, we cannot produce any "gravitational" pull from mass.

lololololol And yes, you can do that yourself. I helped my brother set up a science fair experiment for it.

The much simpler explanation is density. In every medium, including air, denser objects sink. That's all that is necessary; it's only when you try to claim that we exist on a ball that you need an explanation for how everything isn't flung off the ball by centrifugal force.

So why do things still fall in a vacuum? Again, this isn't some conspiracy, you can build your own vacuum chamber with a glass jar and a pump and test this.

And, Density does not determine fall speed. You can get a roughly equal sized stuffed animal and rock, and drop them at the same time. They'll fall at the same speed, despite that the rock is much more dense than the stuffed animal. (At least that'll be the case til they're at a speed where air resistance is a big factor).

If you're going to say that it doesn't matter, as long as it's more dense than air, why wouldn't the inverse be true? Hydrogen is a better lifting gas than helium, after all.

Lastly, why does buoyancy exist in the first place in your model? In conventional science it's because of a pressure gradient which arises because of gravity.

Experimentation is often the bane of this sort of conspiracy.

Go buy a good pair of binoculars and report back.

Okay, the ISS is a hoax.

Cavendish experiment

I don't think you've read through that experiment in any detail if you believe it is real or reproducible.

So why do things still fall in a vacuum?

We can only create a "near-vacuum", and because of density, for the same reasons as stated before.

Density does not determine fall speed.

I never said it did; that's partly a property of the medium through which the falling is occurring.

In conventional science it's because of a pressure gradient

That's the explanation, no spherical Gravity required.

You don't sound like you're interested in actually learning more though.

Okay, I challenge you to build your own Cavendish experiment. I've reproduced the results. Why don't you give it a try? Here's a youtube video of a basic setup some high schoolers built: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgWaYng2eRg

If you can't try that yourself, well, then you're just burying your head in the sand.

We can only create a "near-vacuum", and because of density, for the same reasons.

So what's the mathematical basis for your model of falling? If it's near vacuum, the pressure gradient that's able to be exerted on an object will be smaller. And yet, things fall just as fast inside a vacuum chamber. Why is that? Is all of newtonian dynamics wrong? Does f =/= ma? Because that's extremely easy to demonstrate experimentally, so you'd better have some damn good proof if you're saying that it's wrong too.

Density does not determine fall speed.

I never said it did; that's partly a property of the medium through which the falling is occurring

So then WHY do lighter gases produce a stronger lifting force?

That's the explanation, no spherical Gravity required.

You missed the part where I said the pressure gradient is there because of gravity. In conventional science, the material above the level you're at is pushing downwards, creating a pressure gradient. Where does this pressure gradient even come from in your explanation? Why does it exist? If it's all bouyancy, then how do zero-G plane dives work? The air inside is at rest, but things still float around. In your explanation, they'd still be pushed down just as hard as before.

You don't sound like you're interested in actually learning more though.

I'm trying to learn more about how your worldview works by asking the ever-important question, "Why?"

Why don't you give it a try? Here's a youtube video of a basic setup some high schoolers built: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgWaYng2eRg

The motion observed in the video was not caused by gravitational attraction. They did not (and could not possibly) observe acceleration of a 2 kg torsion balance from a pair of 50 lb free weights.

Assume they are two point masses just 5 cm apart.

F = G m M/ R²

The force is G245/0.05² = 2.4 x 10^-6 Newtons (This is a gross overestimation of the force involved.)

The affect of 2.4 micro Newtons of force on a 2kg mass would accelerate it at a rate of (a = F/m) 1.2 x 10-6 m/s/s

If the video is sped up 5 times, the third bounce on the video takes about 15 seconds. In that time the mass would be accelerated (v = 0.5at²⁾ from 0 to about 0.3 mm/sec. The initial velocity in the video is about 0.5 m/s. It's not reasonable to say that they judged a difference in speed of just 0.003 m/s. The one minute period of the oscillation of a torsion balance this size suggests that the fishing line is very stiff. It will take a lot of force to twist this away from its equilibrium position. Try it again with a line as light weight and long as possible. Then look for a difference in the equilibrium position as you move the masses. The forces are too small to observe an acceleration directly.

And yet, the pendulum moved away from it's equilibrium position and to a new equilibrium, due to new forces becoming involved. What could that force possibly be?

Also, you're not very good at judging times and distances, it seems. Here's another cavendish experiment in real time. The above video is considerably faster than 5x. You have to remember, gravity isn't the only force acting on the pendulum. The torsion of the string is a factor, but it's a small number. The period of the oscillation is large because the forces at work are very small. With the long lever arms, the weak gravity can counteract the torsion of the line. There is air resistance and other forces keeping it from just accelerating towards the weights freely. But, the equilibrium position is clearly changed by the introduction of the weights.

That's what the levers are for. The force twisting the pendulum is amplified by the force of the lever arms. So fully, you have the force of gravity exerting a tiny twisting force on the pendulum, and you have the torsion of the string trying to oppose that twist.

So here's how you should set up your experiment. Hang up the pendulum. Let it come to rest in it's equilibrium position. Place two weights near the ends of it, like in the video, and observe what happens. I'll bet they come closer to each other and come to rest at a new equilibrium position where they're closer to the weights. If it's not gravity then what IS it?

I notice you've also dodged my other questions, so I'll repeat them.

What's the mathematical basis for your model of falling? If it's near vacuum, the pressure gradient that's able to be exerted on an object will be smaller. And yet, things fall just as fast inside a vacuum chamber. Why is that?

WHY do lighter gases produce a stronger lifting force?

Where does this pressure gradient even come from in your explanation? Why does it exist? If it's all bouyancy, then how do zero-G plane dives work?

I've entertained this long enough with you /u/Mr_Lobster, and the 'experiment' you just linked is laughably unscientific. You haven't responded to any of the preponderance of reproducible evidence of a Flat Earth, so I don't see why you think I should keep responding to your Gish Gallop of questions where you are simultaneously vague with your details but bold with your claims.

I don't believe you are a genuine person interested in the truth anyway, and a quick look at your user history shows that you are interested in immature conflict based sub-reddits, video games, and the entire space mythology. It's no doubt that you would be able to obsessively repeat the mainstream dogmatic belief system back to me, but please don't assume I haven't already researched all of this.

These are your first posts in /r/conspiracy, and I've encountered many accounts like yours suddenly. This thread has zero points and its visibility is pretty much restricted to /r/conspiracy/new, not a place you likely frequent. How did you end up here? If you want me to continue a discussion with you under the pretense that you are an actual genuine person, please list 3 conspiracies that you believe in and a quick sentence explanation as to why, so I can get a feel for your level of information awareness.

Oh I don't sub to /r/conspiracy, I just decided to have a laugh and try debating a flat Earther, so this was the place to go.

I've already responded to This and by extension the railroad one. I've taken you on in the whole gravity and ISS thing by responding that you can, in fact, observe the evidence of the round-earth theory. I suppose I can keep going. Rockets work in vacuum because of newton's third law. You send gas out the back of your rocket at speed, there's an equal and opposite reaction sending you forward. You can observe that the moon is a sphere by just looking at how light falls upon it, unless it's some sort of projection. You can make out details of Jupiter and Saturn with a 50 dollar telescope, including seeing rings and orbiting moons which you can observe in motion around them.

I've seen some other batshit explanations too. There's the stellar parallax one. Thing is, stellar parallax is observed, it's just that the distances are so great that it's hard to do so (But still possible with a digital camera).

But you're rage quitting, so I guess that means I win.

I just decided to have a laugh and try debating a flat Earther, so this was the place to go.

How did you find this thread then?

I notice you couldn't list even one single conspiracy that you believe in. This is a sign of your level of information awareness, and the number of concern trolls just like you in this thread is getting laughably high.

I said I don't. Also, did you know that reddit has a search bar? It's amazing! I can just type in "Flat Earth" and sort by new.

Anyways, it seems you've given up on trying to debate my counterpoints to the flat earth model, so does this mean you've accepted that the earth is in fact an oblate spheroid?

You want me to believe that you just happened to type "flat earth" into the search bar this morning, because you really felt like finding someone you believe to be crazy so that you could berate them?

Wow, even that says a lot about you, were I to entertain your pretense.

Why yes I do, because that's precisely how it happened.

Anyways, it's apparent I won. You can keep believing the flat earth model if you want, but just maybe I've sown a seed of doubt in your mind, one which will creep into your psyche and lead you to start questioning everything you believe in.

Doesn't GPS, which in my experience works pretty well, use satellites? Are all those various companies in on this conspiracy? If so, how does GPS work?

Do you have any proof that satellites exist? I've summoned satellite technicians who never post in this subreddit but need me to believe in satellites before with this question. When I ask them for a complete schematic of a satellite so that I can independently reproduce one of my own, they are forced to admit that they don't have any complete schematics.

GPS is done via repeater towers, which explains why your coverage drops off as you venture away from them. If there were thousands of satellites in orbit, you should have an amazing signal in the middle of nowhere with no interference. But we're talking about electromagnetic signals here, which get exponentially weaker with distance. Which is the more likely source of the signal, something dozens of miles away at most that is powered off of a grid with enormous capacity, or something that is hundreds of miles overhead with a self-contained power source of much less capacity?

So you are saying that the entire concept of the satellite orbiting earth is a conspiracy to support the mainstream view of earth? Why would they claim to use satellites for such a wide variety of purposes? This leads to a huge number of people who have worked directly or indirectly with satellite technology, all of these people are liars?

So you are saying that the entire concept of the satellite orbiting earth is a conspiracy to support the mainstream view of earth?

Everything that NASA has produced since its inception from Project Paperclip is material to support the spherical Lie.

This leads to a huge number of people who have worked directly or indirectly with satellite technology, all of these people are liars?

No, the vast majority of them are just gullible specialists who work on compartmentalized components and are prevented from ever seeing the big picture. The fictional movie Capricorn One deals with a plausible explanation for how this was done in the case of Stanley Kubrick's moon landings.

Well i first just want to say that while i may not agree with you, I appreciate your responses. Its strange how a quick skim of a comments section can lead to extremely biased views towards a stranger Anyway, do you believe that some illuminati type group imagined satellites based on their ideas of what hypothetical technology might be possible if the earth were round and under the influence of gravity? These people then somehow trickled this satellite idea into the mainstream where society grabbed a hold of it, advanced it (or was made to believe they did), validated it using their, apparently incorrect view of the universe (physics, gravity etc...) and modern technological capabilities?

I assume I could browse through your various posted links to find this answer, but maybe you can narrow my search- Why would they be motivated to perpetrate this elaborate lie?

Satellites were first dreamed up by Arthur C. Clarke, a science fiction writer. This is credited as the first time science fiction 'predicted' the future, but it's not much of a prediction if you know it will happen because you're planning it. There are many authors who have written extremely prescient predictions of the NWO agenda, and many of them were probably working with inside knowledge, preparing the masses with predictive programming. Clarke's writings contain many NWO elements, check out the book "Childhood's End", and 2001: A Space Odyssey itself is a description of a slow initiation of humanity into a space mythology religion.

As to why, if you ask a random person on the street for proof of a spherical Earth, they will tell you that satellites (which they have never actually seen with their own eyes) are 100% proof and anyone who questions (something they have never actually seen with their own eyes) must be crazy.

OK so i watched the youtube video you posted. I hope you are still willing to address a few questions:

My assumption is that the earths atmosphere rotates along with the earth, so all that stuff about planes not being able to land, and needing to travel with, not against the rotation of the earth seems like nonsense to me. Not really a question, but care to comment?

Can you summarize your view of gravity, and if/how it differs from the mainstream view theoretically and practically?

Finally (for now) if the earth is flat, any theory on whats on the other side? or if the thought that we are sort of embedded in some sort of fabric and there is no real other side?

You linked to the Antarctic Treaty but it says that the Treaty forbids military activity there. ???

The combined efforts of the militaries will prevent any independent activity there.

Oh? I guess they don't allow any scientific study down there either? (rolls eyes)

If the South Pole existed, you could prove it easily with a compass and camcorder.

Aw man, someone already did. Bummer.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott+South+Pole+Station&biw=1745&bih=886&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=jDx3Va7gAcahNqDKgcAH&ved=0CAoQ_AUoBA&dpr=1.1

Where's the compass reading so that we can verify that it is the South Pole? That's what I asked for, a verification that the South Pole exists; showing me a military base in the ice doesn't prove anything.

That is a science station, lol, you can even take a tour of it. Military activity is not allowed as per the Antarctic Treaty. Are you assuming that scientists down there don't have compasses? You want me to go down to the South Pole for you? I guess all I need to do is pass a physical performance exam and become an undergraduate for a related research project; but I guess your imaginary army will stop me from doing that. Are we debating magnetism or something? Because you don't have to actually be at the south pole to prove magnetism.

Are you assuming that scientists down there don't have compasses?

The South Pole, if it actually existed, would be an electro-magnetic phenomenon. Anyone could prove it existed by videotaping a compass and how it deflected as you moved around the South Pole, but that will never occur.

I guess all I need to do is pass a physical performance exam and become an undergraduate for a related research project;

Like every other scientific hoax from evolution to dinosaurs to planetology, what you need to be able to do in order to gain access to the evidence and proof is devote your entire life and career to the field such that if it were a hoax you would never be able to speak out.

It's not an imaginary army that will stop you, various independent explorers have tried approaching Antarctica and been turned away, usually by either Russia or the United States.

You do realize you can take a commercial air flight over or around polar routes. Bring a compass and take a video yourself (or will that never occur?). Evolution and dinosaurs are a hoax?...lol...sorry...LOL...Part of science is also meant to disprove or confirm science; it is not an absolute view on things. You're scared of intelligence and generations of intelligent people and their conclusions. it's overwhelming for you and you just can't grasp it.

Do you have a learning disability? Not meant as an insult; just trying to understand you a bit more. I'd get where all this is coming from if you do.

You do realize you can take a commercial air flight over or around polar routes

You can't fly over Antarctica.

You can fly AROUND the south pole and Antarctica via polar routes.

"Anyone could prove it existed by videotaping a compass and how it deflected as you moved AROUND the South Pole,...."

Or are you contradicting yourself now? See ya.

Weak grasping at straws, this thread has been very entertaining seeing all these new faces.

Who's grasping at straws? lol

FYI, you need to ski for several miles to get to the station at the geographic south pole. Everyone or at least someone carries a compass for that. You think they don't? You don't think there are any compasses there at all? You think scientists and tourists are all part of a scam? Are the walls closing in on you?

BTW, here's a 'tour' of the so-called 'unreachable' station. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5lQ9DCXIbs

Do you think your lazy and uninformed arguments will sway me when I have independently reproducible evidence of non-curvature?

So. . . how do satellites orbit the earth?

Ctrl+f "satellite" on the whole comment thread.

What argument in particular? Of course I can't sway you; your cognitive dissonance indicates that.

What is that anyway? An un-sourced image proving...what? Laughable. It sort of acknowledges curvature, then unwittingly denies curvature through acknowledging it. Would you care to paraphrase that 'evidence'? The ocean is curved; there's even an equation to determine/confirm where the horizon begins from your point of view (usually ends around a few miles, depends on your height/altitude). Go do some research now. Not going to waste my time confirming what I've already confirmed. Not going to convince you that you're wrong; only you can do that.

It sort of acknowledges curvature, then unwittingly denies curvature through acknowledging it.

So now you've given us all evidence that your reading comprehension isn't up to the task.

The ocean is curved

Roflmao, can you show me a picture of a curved ocean?

"So now you've given us all evidence that your reading comprehension isn't up to the task" - Would you care to paraphrase that 'evidence' then? Please show me your superior reading comprehension.

"Roflmao, can you show me a picture of a curved ocean?" - You mean show you all of the 'fake' images on the internet? You can do that yourself. They're all fake anyway, right?

If you're trolling, well done, and bye.

Look outside at the horizon; if it's curved I'd love to see a picture.

Oh, I can't perceive a curve from this point of view. It must be flat then. You sure got me. Guess I could probably see mountain ranges through a telescope if I look over the ocean. I wish I didn't have a telescope, now I have to prove myself wrong again. So embarrassed here. You're right, you proved humanity wrong. /s

Ok, I'm having too much fun at this point...good luck to you.

Guess I could probably see mountain ranges through a telescope if I look over the ocean.

Well, you can't see into infinity, but you can see farther than should be possible were the Earth actually curved. There are many examples of this, but a copy of "Lighthouses of the World" and a calculator are all you really need to prove that no curvature exists.

You're not taking this seriously, and I am extremely serious about this.

I'm not talking about infinity. I should be able to see mountain ranges when looking over the ocean. They are not an infinity of distance away. I cannot see farther than possible because of the curvature. .......lol

I've seen your conversations on lighthouses and they have already been debunked for obvious reasons. Were you going to paraphrase that 'evidence' or what? Or are you not taking this seriously?

I should be able to see mountain ranges when looking over the ocean.

You don't seem to understand the horizon or perspective; here, this should help.

were you going to paraphrase that 'evidence' or what?

If you can't read that single paper and parse it out, why do you think you can tell me what's wrong with the ideas that you don't even understand? The paper helps you calculate the expected curvature of the Earth, and gives a location where you can test it (besides the horizon right outside). If the Earth were round, this curvature should be easily observable, and yet the only place you can find it is in NASA or Hollywood productions.

"You don't seem to understand the horizon or perspective; here, this should help." - That video doesn't explain why I can't see mountain ranges if the world is flat. Can you explain?

"If you can't read that single paper and parse it out, why do you think you can tell me what's wrong with the ideas that you don't even understand? The paper helps you calculate the expected curvature of the Earth. If the Earth were round, this curvature should be easily observable, and yet the only place you can find it is in NASA or Hollywood productions." - I did read it and parse it out, but you refuse to acknowledge that. Curvature IS easily observable through science.....lol. What's wrong with that 'paper' is that it proves nothing about flat earth and acknowledges curvature whilst having undertones of denying curvature, and it's unsourced! What I'm getting from this at least is....flat earth IS NOT observable through science or even literally, or else I'd see friggin mountain ranges in the direction of the ocean.

Any explanations on the mountain range issue? Or can we move on?

You can't see into infinity, the further the distance the more air in between that scatters and refracts light.

There are countless examples where we can see further than curvature should allow, but that does not mean we can see forever.

There is a flat horizon wherever you go on Earth, the evidence is right in front of you.

Ok, you're just parroting now and not addressing the main issue here (why can't I see mountain ranges?!..why can't I see something even closer where light isn't scattered or when using a non - refractor scope?!). I bid you adieu.

Ask him how a lunar eclipse is possible if based on his model the sun and the moon are directly above each the earth on the same level

How would a lunar eclipse be possible?

He seems to ignore it

He didn't ignore it. He said he doesn't know.

How? Any proof of this?

NASA has not gone to low-earth orbit or any higher because rocketry does not work in a vacuum.

So how did we get probes to Jupiter, Venus, Pluto Mars and outside-ish our solar system?

What is your response to people who say that the results of the bedford and other observational FE experiments are merely a result of atmospheric refraction?

They usually run away from that argument when fully stated, which would be that light bends around the surface of the Earth in the exact proportion as to hide any evidence of curvature, because of its catch-22 nature.

Why does the sun appear to set below the horizon? The model you show suggests it would get further away, but never drop below our line of sight.

Please learn about the Coriolis effect and other global atmospheric phenomena, which are only explainable by the earth being a sphere (or oblate spheroid if you prefer), and then find a way to dispute this with your 'theory'.

Look at the wind directions, and match them up with local observations of pressure. I have experienced hurricanes in the northern hemisphere and cyclones in the southern hemisphere, and they do indeed spin in opposite directions. All directly measurable and observable by individuals, you don't even have to trust anyone else.

The fact that I understand this does not make me a slave to the NWO, a shill or a liar. And claiming that anything that disproves the earth is flat is 'just CGI' weakens your already tenuous position considerably.

That is an excellent point you made. This guy takes your information and using the same tools you did shows the effect you're talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mfJXp4ePu0&feature=youtu.be&t=12m43s

You do know that in that video, what he claims to be wave height is actually sea surface temperature, right? And oddly enough, the sea is hotter at the equator than at the north or south poles. Who would have figured...

If you don't believe me, then load up the website yourself and play with the settings, be sure to hit the SST filter to see what I'm talking about.

Edit: from the 15 min mark is where he is blatantly wrong.

This is the single dumbest and most delusional fucking thing Ive ever seen on reddit.

why

Step one - Get an adequate telescope..... Step two - Look towards Mount Everest....... Step three - Don't see it? Not even a Mountain Range? Just Ocean? Hm, I wonder why?..... Step four - Investigate and inevitably realize curvature is the reason you can't see it......Step Five - Search for a closer mountain range if in doubt; still can't see it? Step Six - Come back to this forum and say you were only kidding or trolling. Good Luck

Flat earth theory has many issues, and this is only one of them. I'm not even going to address your other silly accusations. You'll figure things out someday I hope, or you'll quit trolling (if that's the case).

Some people just don't want to see.

If a satellite, much smaller than a 747, flying much higher than a 747, doesn't have a light source on it, how is it possible that you could see it as a glob of light?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_%28physics%29

You're a big fan of the 'Church of the SubGenius', huh new guy? Likey the trollin' eh?

If I was to travel in one direction by any means necessary I would come back to the same spot.

False. You can 'circumnavigate' east-west and end up in the same spot, and this is consistent with the Flat Earth model. However you can not travel north-south and circumnavigate the world, and this too is consistent with the Flat Earth model.

Flat earth would have a definite ending point

So since the very first link in this post was a model of the Flat Earth that shows the edges of our exploration, you have now admitted that this is your second comment in a thread which you didn't even read!

general consensus

General consensus is the enemy of reason. Have you seen the information regarding social media propaganda campaigns? Eglin air force base? If you want to know the truth about anything you must read and use your own reasoning. This topic specifically involves things that you can test yourself. Spend the time and actually consider the arguments before dismissing it.

"Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research." William Cooper

Says you and only you. It's no different than saying I'm the third baron of Mars. Everyone believes in something and I know you believe what you think is right and I'll give you that. I believe that I think this is all a waste of time

The table is all you need: compare it to your observations of the world around you. Find any curvature?

Yes. But will you believe that?

Also, do you have access to the calculations that author used?

I'm not trolling; what does the horizon look like near you? Can you produce any reproducible evidence of curvature?

That is a science station, lol, you can even take a tour of it. Military activity is not allowed as per the Antarctic Treaty. Are you assuming that scientists down there don't have compasses? You want me to go down to the South Pole for you? I guess all I need to do is pass a physical performance exam and become an undergraduate for a related research project; but I guess your imaginary army will stop me from doing that. Are we debating magnetism or something? Because you don't have to actually be at the south pole to prove magnetism.

Lol, the number of concern trolls in this thread is too damn high!

If you keep clicking on the parent link below our comments, you'll eventually reach the one where I already answered that for you.

Interesting that he didn't reply to this, isn't it?

when I was in school it was approx. 11 miles at sea level

If this has changed to your '3' then what else has changed?

None of those things prove a globe.

Ctrl+f "satellite" on the whole comment thread.

It's interesting that I haven't found any high-res (at least full hd) pics about that with still water. Could you link one? It would decide the matter once and for all.

That doesn't begin to solve your problems.

Consider:

The photo you are referring to was taken from Grand Mere state park in Michigan.

The distance between these two points on a map is 55 miles.

The tallest building in Chicago is the Sears Tower standing 1,451 feet.

At this distance, the curvature of the earth would put the city approximately 1,900 feet below the visible horizon.

What explanation can you provide as to why it is not only possible to see the Sears Tower, but the entire city skyline except for what you propose is the bottom of the buildings (I believe the bottom of the buildings to be obscured by the reflection of the water.)

Where are you getting your calculations?

At this distance, the curvature of the earth would put the city approximately 1,900 feet below the visible horizon.

I didn't check the calculation, let's assume it is correct. Then, still the 1900ft are only valid when seen from 0 inch above the ground. If you bring your own height into the calculation, it looks a bit different.

(I believe the bottom of the buildings to be obscured by the reflection of the water.)

If the earth would be flat, this reflection on the water should show you the full length of the buildings upside down, in fact, it would subjectively double the perception of the far away buildings. Since you don't look from exactly floor level, but from a position that is heightened by the height of your body (at least, maybe some more), the reflections on the water would be unable to obscure anything.