Yes Chrissy, we know most of the videos aren’t pulling up! I will try and upload some of his stuff here again. In the meantime, you can find it here on my server. or on Bitchute @ Red_Red or here. screencast-o-matic.com/watch/cqlUbHvYMg 00 Be the 1st to vote.

Her castrato voice is another clue. Very powerful. She’s one of my favorites, so this one was tough to take. Her “twin” brother also is another clue. 00 Be the 1st to vote.

Transflix is full of androgynes. 00 Be the 1st to vote.

Black DogClueseau, please dont tease us with knowledge, let us know too so we too can profit, so we too can raid the coffers of the ignorant … how can we trick the masses to do our biddings as well? To pay us for our … BTW What is our plan? (previous: joking/hyperbole)

Let us go beyond possible earth bound perceptions and it’s possible illusory nature, with or without our technology. Let us elevate ourself upwards to the greatest heights … how can this as well be an illusion … with only our nefarious NASA to ill adequately prove anything other?

This approach as well as the questionable limitations being imposed upon anyone not ‘government’ to know what is either A: the outer limits! or B: Antactica.

As has been postulated by Unreal, let us not be backed in a corner proving anything! But rather where is the proof for what is claimed?

Einstein is a good example of someone that for all his theory, that has led the stray, many now question. Deliberately leading astray? I’d say yes. Eric P. Dollard goes into it (beware the false site Eric Dollard .com, his site is EricPDollard.com with the middle P; no doubt a sign of his threat to the powers that be, similar to the confusion finding Dubay’s true site) … Me? I can only hope to adequately consider such astronomical, and otherwise, conjecture by such great minds … corrupt or otherwise.

This is an issue that should not rest! Because I think it will reveal so many other things creating/sustaining/enforcing this matrix-like reality we, for the most part, are all now in … that for over generations we have been conditioned to accept.

khammadGiven the same elevation at a distance of 30 miles

SQRT(3959^2-30^2)-3959

= -0.1136667 miles

(-0.1136667)(5280)

= 600.16 feet

The horizon drops 600 feet

The CN tower is 1815 feet to its tippy top spire. You should be able to see the top 2/3rd of the tower from the 911 Memorial Walkway.

khammadDiagram of CN Tower

ZalianI’m shocked, as the maths doesnt add up, new factors are introduced.

Always the same with the maths crowd.

-Zal

abPost authorK and John Le Bon’s maths are close enough for me.

Zalianperhaps i misunderstood

but according to the maths you should see the top 2/3?

and you actually see all of it ?

correct?

-Zal

abPost authorI see all of it. The curve isn’t there.

ZalianThen to me that means the math does not add up.

The map (math in this case) is not the territory (the real world)

-Zal

khammadPost the pic. Let’s investigate!

ClueseauCurvature with K sounds like a great idea for a show, though let us recall that curvature is not the only factor in real world observations. According to atmospheric optics, there are two main factors responsible for how much of a tower Ab will see:

1. the curvature of the Earth

2. the refraction of light by the atmosphere

The first of these by itself determines the

geometric horizon.Both of these together determine the

apparent horizon.The apparent horizon is what’s relevant in how much of a tower Ab should see. This horizon is further away than the geometric horizon, but not by too much. Calculating exactly how much requires details of local weather conditions, etc. Absent these details, optical calculations based on curvature alone are close enough, when being off by a few hundred feet doesn’t matter.

On the other hand, if Earth were flat, how much of the CN Tower should Ab see from, say, 100 miles away? Would anyone care to make that prediction?

John le Bon@Clueseau: Interesting theory. Do you have any references or equations to support it? As for how far one could see on a flat earth, would that not also be affected by the refraction of light you speak of? Cheers.

abPost authorWhy bother when I can do an actual experiment? I’d have to go to the other corner of the lake to do that and don’t have the time. As I’ve said before, I can see the whole CN Tower with my bare eyes already. I’m taking the picture for K’s sake to see what her next position will be.

ClueseauHere is a good summary, with equations:

www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explai…

Wikipedia also, including the citations at the end:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphe…

As to atmospheric refraction on Flat Earth, you’ll have to ask a Flat Earthling about that, since conventional physics doesn’t apply there. Surely they’ve done at least that much homework, considering how often they bring up these tower sightings, and will have a ready answer for you.

Meanwhile we still await Flat Earth’s answer to my above question about how much of the CN Tower should Ab see from 100 miles away.

Ab wrote:

Why bother when I can do an actual experiment?In the case of your CN Tower experiment, the prevailing (though not, for that reason, necessarily correct) theory states that an object somewhat beyond the geometric line-of-sight due to Earth’s curvature can still be visible. The fact that this theory is routinely confirmed – when, for example, amateur astronomers observe stars before they rise and after they set – gives it further credibility.

So what would be the point of comparing your experimental results to a calculation based on curvature alone, when atmospheric optics makes a different prediction?

abPost authorWhy bother when I can do an actual experiment? I’d have to go to the other corner of the lake to do that and don’t have the time. As I’ve said before, I can see the whole CN Tower with my bare eyes already. I’m taking the picture for K’s sake to see what her next position will be.