Artemis

[MacMunin]

Lmao I edited above. A straight LOS is a straight line of sight, no calculation needed…The curvature would prevent the LOS to begin with: You don’t need to calculate if you can see the person because you have already accounted for the curvature prior to obtaining that LOS.


Flat earth is so easy to disprove. Ships fading away at see, etc.

The most obvious and easy prove the world is a sphere is that independent of where you are, habitually always pulls straight down, because the COG is always directly below your feet: That’s only possible on a spherical planet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ships fading away? You have a p900? Have you ever zoomed in on objects you werent supposed to see under a curve? Or have you seen the vids where at 100K feet theres straight HORIZON without curve? How about the the Florida experiment where the p900 zooms into objects that are supposed to under the curve? And again, explain how there was a laser shot between two points on the longest highway in Canada (30 miles) or so. Now, lets see how smart you are. And despite the distraction trap of flat earth, I think little Johnny Boy loves him some NASA and just dont want to hear the truth. The damn planets dont even look as they show through a tele / p900. You ever zoom in on the stars? NOTHING like the NASHOLES show you. Anyhow, answer the canada 30 mile line of site question.

[jonboy79]

Ships fading away? You have a p900? Have you ever zoomed in on objects you werent supposed to see under a curve? Or have you seen the vids where at 100K feet theres straight HORIZON without curve? How about the the Florida experiment where the p900 zooms into objects that are supposed to under the curve? And again, explain how there was a laser shot between two points on the longest highway in Canada (30 miles) or so. Now, lets see how smart you are. And despite the distraction trap of flat earth, I think little Johnny Boy loves him some NASA and just dont want to hear the truth. The damn planets dont even look as they show through a tele / p900. You ever zoom in on the stars? NOTHING like the NASHOLES show you. Anyhow, answer the canada 30 mile line of site question.

Is elevation equal?

Curvature is an average, not an absolute. That was easy… So they found a flat spot in Canada, big flop. Evwrytime I’m on a plane I can see the curvature.

Explain my perpendicular Gravity proof from above. It is simple, elegant and undeniable.

I buy the moon landing because:
I have literally spoken in person to multiple people that have walked in the moon.
I have personally interacted with the equipment used to send man to the moon.
I have witnessed someone prove the Lunar Laser Ranging Retroflector Array exists on the surface.
I have understanding of basic physics enough to understand all of the proofs against claims that it can’t be possible in relation to the van Allen belt, footprints, “wind on the flag” no stars in the pictures, etc.
and of course the most obvious, that it would be harder to fake than actually get there, based on the number of people and now countries including China that would have to paid off to keep quiet as China has photographic evidence of all the footprints, tire tracks and landing equipment still existing on the moon.

There is absolutely no question the Earth is a sphere.
There is absolutely no question a dozen or so men have walked on the moon and more will within 3 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MacMunin]

Is elevation equal?

Curvature is an average, not an absolute. That was easyÂ… So they found a flat spot in Canada, big flop. Evwrytime IÂ’m on a plane I can see the curvature.

Explain my perpendicular Gravity proof from above. It is simple, elegant and undeniable.

I buy the moon landing because:
I have literally spoken in person to multiple people that have walked in the moon.
I have personally interacted with the equipment used to send man to the moon.
I have witnessed someone prove the Lunar Laser Ranging Retroflector Array exists on the surface.
I have understanding of basic physics enough to understand all of the proofs against claims that it can’t be possible in relation to the van Allen belt, footprints, “wind on the flag” no stars in the pictures, etc.
and of course the most obvious, that it would be harder to fake than actually get there, based on the number of people and now countries including China that would have to paid off to keep quiet as China has photographic evidence of all the footprints, tire tracks and landing equipment still existing on the moon.

There is absolutely no question the Earth is a sphere.
There is absolutely no question a dozen or so men have walked on the moon and more will within 3 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Youre on a non-rotating "flat" object according to NASA and once you are ready to see those documents I have from NASA, just let me know and I will figure out a way to provide them to you. So I suppose they are just trolling everyone, eh?

I have been on a plane many times and have never witnessed the curvature you have claimed and have witnessed pilots actually say the helio model is wrong and we are on a "flat" surface. Piccard already told you what this place looks like from space. Look it up. Theres also videos from 100K feet that shows a HORIZON WITHOUT CURVATURE.

Perpendicular Gravity proof? First of all, explain how Gravity can hold Trillions of gallons of water to a ball spinning 1000 miles per hour supposedly, yet a dragonfly can hover 8 inches above that water without being crushed into it. You may want to read Tesla. This place is an electromagnetic Tesla coil and the force you are told and think is is Gravity is density and buoyancy.
And a ball supposedly spinning 1000 miles per hour rotating through space at 400 thousand miles per hour yet Polaris has never moved proves the helio model and your perpendicular gravity is BS. Is this place completely flat? No. Of course not. But it isnt what Copernicus proposed in the 1500's either. I can show you claims from experts over the Centuries where they where 10's and 10's of millions of miles difference regarding the distance from the Sun before settling on 93 million miles. You are neither 93 million miles from the sun, nor are you 212K miles from the moon. They tell you the stars are millions of miles away, but that is another lie. And my p900 proves them liars.

The moon? Its a joke to even think you can land on a non solid object within the firmament. It is plasma within a circuit moving on the same course repeatedly since being put their by our creator.

Stanley Kubrick and the Hollywood boys made your moon missions, but keep believing the liars if you choose.

Go read about operation fishbowl.

[jonboy79]

Youre on a non-rotating "flat" object according to NASA and once you are ready to see those documents I have from NASA, just let me know and I will figure out a way to provide them to you. So I suppose they are just trolling everyone, eh?

I have been on a plane many times and have never witnessed the curvature you have claimed and have witnessed pilots actually say the helio model is wrong and we are on a "flat" surface. Piccard already told you what this place looks like from space. Look it up. Theres also videos from 100K feet that shows a HORIZON WITHOUT CURVATURE.

Perpendicular Gravity proof? First of all, explain how Gravity can hold Trillions of gallons of water to a ball spinning 1000 miles per hour supposedly, yet a dragonfly can hover 8 inches above that water without being crushed into it. You may want to read Tesla. This place is an electromagnetic Tesla coil and the force you are told and think is is Gravity is density and buoyancy.
And a ball supposedly spinning 1000 miles per hour rotating through space at 400 thousand miles per hour yet Polaris has never moved proves the helio model and your perpendicular gravity is BS. Is this place completely flat? No. Of course not. But it isnt what Copernicus proposed in the 1500's either. I can show you claims from experts over the Centuries where they where 10's and 10's of millions of miles difference regarding the distance from the Sun before settling on 93 million miles. You are neither 93 million miles from the sun, nor are you 212K miles from the moon. They tell you the stars are millions of miles away, but that is another lie. And my p900 proves them liars.

The moon? Its a joke to even think you can land on a non solid object within the firmament. It is plasma within a circuit moving on the same course repeatedly since being put their by our creator.

Stanley Kubrick and the Hollywood boys made your moon missions, but keep believing the liars if you choose.

Go read about operation fishbowl.

Wow, your grasp of reality left tenuous long ago….

Yes, please send me official NASA documents that the earth is Stationary and flat…. Would love to see them. Are they written in crayon?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MacMunin]

Wow, your grasp of reality left tenuous long ago….

Yes, please send me official NASA documents that the earth is Stationary and flat…. Would love to see them. Are they written in crayon?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This reality was flipped in the 1500's and my grasp of the lies does not make me anything other than informed. And no amount of your continuous immature attacks will change the Truth; I wasnt the first person in "space" who was quoted as saying the Earth appeared flat with an upturned edge. Piccard did. I also do not work for NASA nor am I the one from NASA who wrote the documents. How do I send you the offical NASA docs?

[jonboy79]

This reality was flipped in the 1500's and my grasp of the lies does not make me anything other than informed. And no amount of your continuous immature attacks will change the Truth; I wasnt the first person in "space" who was quoted as saying the Earth appeared flat with an upturned edge. Piccard did. I also do not work for NASA nor am I the one from NASA who wrote the documents. How do I send you the offical NASA docs?

I don’t know, you were the one that said you could.

I’m being immature? Because I don’t believe all of the easily and repeatedly disproven gibberish you are spewing?

Heck, the existence of a horizon period is proof of a spherical earth. Where is the edge?
Why do they fly north from Minnesota to get to Germany? West from Seattle to reach Australia?

I’m done man…. Enjoy your life…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MacMunin]

Run along little boy. Heres your NASHOLE link. Scroll to the very end to see the conclusion from NASA.


https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...rhqt0qw2YXNLTY

[jonboy79]

Run along little boy. Heres your NASHOLE link. Scroll to the very end to see the conclusion from NASA.


https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...rhqt0qw2YXNLTY

So they removed the curvature and rotation of the Earth to simplify the math problem to only 100 pages.

No part of that says that they concluded the earth was flat and non-rotating, only that their math problem was based on that for simplification purposes….


Wow….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MacMunin]

So they removed the curvature and rotation of the Earth to simplify the math problem to only 100 pages.

No part of that says that they concluded the earth was flat and non-rotating, only that their math problem was based on that for simplification purposes….


Wow….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over flat nonrotating earth"
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...ain_H-1259.pdf
02-page 108:
"aircraft flying over flat, nonrotating earth"
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....9890005752.pdf
03-page 126:
"The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations sith stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth assumptions."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....9890007066.pdf
04-page 2:
"The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed. "
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....9720012071.pdf
05-page 11:
"The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating earth"
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...ain_H-1777.pdf
06-page 32:
"Lastly, the equations of motion for the zeroth-order problem of flight in a vacuum over a flat Earth are presented."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....9940020279.pdf
07-page 2:
"In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth "
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....0070030307.pdf
08-page 14:
"The earth is flat and non-rotating."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....9790005472.pdf
09-page 25:
"The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with rerpect to
a flat, nonrotating Earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....9810003557.pdf
10-page 13:
"A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....9650015408.pdf
11-page 19:
"These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth."
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/...ain_H-2465.pdf
12-page 9:
"For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together
represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth"
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....9880014378.pdf
13-page 14:
"A flat, nonrotating earth"
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....9710018599.pdf
14-page 2:
"In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....0060053337.pdf
15-page 8:
"the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating earth."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/.../casi.ntrs....0040008097.pdf

[jonboy79]

Yes, exactly. That is the simplification of the paper, not the conclusion….

Again, wow….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MacMunin]

▪The U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Report# ARL-TR-2352
Author: Joseph R. Miletta
February 2001
"Propagation of Electromagnetic Fields Over Flat Earth"
"Flat Earth" is used 6 times on the following pages: 1, 7, 14, 17, 18, 28
>>> http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TR-2352.pdf

[MacMunin]

Yes, exactly. That is the simplification of the paper, not the conclusion….

Again, wow….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can send you link for days where everything is assumed based on a flat non-rotating. So, explain to me why the Army, Nasa or the Navy has to assume anything based on flat non-rotating?