Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)

[Dale Eastman]

Yes

You didn't watch the video that i placed to support my claim

https://youtu.be/A4FxH9wdwzE

https://youtu.be/sTOZ651G3TI

➽ You didn't watch the video that i placed to support my claim

You didn't try to understand the trigonometry, algebra, and math I posted.

Why is Gleason's map marked with degrees of latitude?

[Dale Eastman]

i already understand it, and it's just a reverse engineering of the gleasons map. Because you get degrees from polaris, and the sun moves at 15⁰per hour, causing noon in each different time zone. It's noon whereever the sun is over.

Are you here just to affirm your belief system or are you here to take in new information, and question what you've been taught?

➽ Are you here just to affirm your belief system or are you here to take in new information, and question what you've been taught?

That sword cuts both ways. Right back at you.

➽ Because you get degrees from polaris [PERIOD]

Please explain the degrees south of the equator that increase as you go further south.

[Dale Eastman]

It does cut both ways, i used to clown my brother on fe. Until i actually set my biases aside and looked at the evidence. Im one of the fe that tried to substantiate the globe. I was able to change my mind. There's a great video i tried to get you to watch with the 3:30 mark that goes into all this.

Me:
Why is Gleason's map marked with degrees of latitude?

You:
➽ Because you get degrees from polaris

Please, using your own words, explain what this image is depicting.
0028

[Dale Eastman]

The top image is the naturally observed reality. The bottom one shows how it may appear on a ball, using the equatorial plane, but you can't quantify a radius. The radius of 3959 has be falsified many times over.

You even said (based on the chicago skyline) you checked the math, and it should not be visible on a sphere with the given dimensions of earth.

Goes back to if "r" then "x". If not "x', then not "r".

➽ The top image is the naturally observed reality.
7 18:07➽ Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?
G°

[Dale Eastman]

Well i live around the 34⁰ north latitude and polaris is at 34⁰ in my northern sky. I'm not sure if they're equidistant or not I've not been to all the latitudes to make that kind of claim. Did you what the video that i marked for you to watch around 3:30? It will shed some light on how perspective effects how we see the sky.

Was that a yes or no?

7 18:07➽ Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?

[Dale Eastman]

im not sure if they're equidistant. I've not traveled to all the different latitudes to verify that myself. So i can't make that kind of positive claim.

Did you watch that video yet? Or is anything i provid not admissible as evidence?

18

Which vid specifically?

Like shitty diapers being thrown at the wall to see what sticks, you have been attempting to overwhelm me with all your posts of the work of others. So I don't know if it's one I've watched or not. And the ones I have watched don't pass muster to get past my bullshit filters.

7 18:07➽ Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.

Yet when I challenge you about the ALLEGED accuracy of the Gleason map, you dodge the challenge.
In your defense, you did actually use the proviso word "seems". However, I'm NOT going to let you slide with that weasel word.

By your inability and/or your refusal to answer the question, you have admitted that you do NOT have Federal rules of evidence #602, personal first hand knowledge as to the accuracy of Gleason's map and the physical reality it purports to represent.

Thus, your "belief" in the accuracy of Gleason's map is now impeached.
So is your reliance on Gleason's map as a tool to prove a flat earth.

You've got one out on this point.
How are you going to prove the accuracy of Gleason's map?

[Dale Eastman]

I'll back any positive claim i make. The globe is the positive claim and bears the burden of proof. But here's the video, let me know if it's not working...
https://www.facebook.com/lomac.../videos/630206361966206/...

I'm not here to prove anything. Water at rest gonna it's level. That's an observation, repeatable and verifiable. A map isn't where we live it nearly represents where we live. And i would say based on other things like plane emergency landings add to the preponderance of evidence to support the claim of a horizontal plane. But i stay away from the word "proof", gravity hasn't been "proven"(in taking about the causality not the effect)

➽ The globe is the positive claim and bears the burden of proof.

The flat earth is the positive claim and bears the burden of proof.

➽ I'm not here to prove anything.

Really. Then why are all the replies you've been posting all about proving a flat earth?

➽ A map isn't where we live it nearly represents where we live.

Only "nearly" represents?

What, exactly, do you mean by "nearly" represents?

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate or only "nearly" accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?

Gleason Equidistant.png

[Dale Eastman]

Because bodies of water at rest lay flat and there's no measurable curvature.

"THOMPSON VS GARCIA" "2019-mv-ll04"

It's just where the actual evidence points.

You posted somebody else's words and alleged work in a meme... again.
The meme referenced:

➽ "THOMPSON VS GARCIA" "2019-mv-ll04"

A search does not return any such case.

YOU DID NOT ADDRESS MY QUESTIONS!

So I am asking them AGAIN.

➽ A map isn't where we live it nearly represents where we live.

Only "nearly" represents?

What, exactly, do you mean by "nearly" represents?

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate or only "nearly" accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?

Gleason Equidistant.png

[Dale Eastman]

Here's some emergency landing that help substantiate the notion that the gleasons map is a or days on it scientificly and practically correct.
https://youtu.be/KzmjDFv23Ng

The pdf is there for the court records.

So we know that theoretical mathematics doesn't constitute geometric evidence. Do you have any other solid evidence to support the notion of a globe?

You made this claim 7 Oct 18:07 CDT:
➽ Second, the gleasons ae map is the map that seems to be most accurate.

You made this claim 30 Oct 17:58 CDT:
➽ A map isn't where we live it nearly represents where we live.

Are the degree line's on Gleason's map accurate or only "nearly" accurate in that they are equidistant from each other?
Gleason Equidistant

[Dale Eastman]

They are equidistant, yes. It is accurate because if you could get a birds eye view of the known world, this would be the most accurate representation of land masses and distances without distortion or the need for magnetic declination adjustment. Why are we talking about the gleasons map anyway i thought you had evidence to support the notion of a globe.

➽ Why are we talking about the gleasons map anyway

Because you made this claim Oct  30 1214 CDT:
➽ Because you get degrees from polaris,

And because you made this claim Oct 31 1243 CDT:
➽ They are equidistant, yes.

This image proves you are full of shit.
0029

[Dale Eastman]

Did you watch the video on angular perspective?

This image I am again posting, using trigonometry, proves you are full of shit.

I counted pixels and did the trig to insure these angles are accurate as represented.

If you can not understand what is shown, I will continue our conversation. If you refuse to address what this image shows, our discussion is over.
0029

[Dale Eastman]

Watched the video i posted?

Your not taking perspective into account nobody sees in 2d like your projecting in that image. It's disingenuous.

31 1311 ➽ nobody sees in 2d like your projecting in that image.

So you were posting bullshit when you made this claim:

20 15:41 ➽ I'm proficient with auto cad and old school drafting.

0030

[Dale Eastman]

All the trig and still no evidence of curvature or parallel sun rays 🤔

you've made no effort to actually understand what a fe model is/ how it works, and yet can't produce any evidence of the globe you believe you live on.

Second warning.

This image I am again posting, using trigonometry, xxxxx xxx xxx xxxx xx xxxx.

I counted pixels and did the trig to insure these angles are accurate as represented.

If you do not understand what is shown, I will continue our conversation. If you refuse to address what this image shows, our discussion is over.
0029

[Dale Eastman]

because we can only see a certain distance in all directions, perspective creates a "dome"of vision. If you look closely, they're equidistant relative to the dome of vistion. Again if you don't understand perspective, you're gonna have a bad time with this.

PAAA.JPG

Again, again. The optics of the sky don't determine the shape of the floor. https://youtu.be/Ake2GCl_qWY

https://youtu.be/S1G_-qXHCpE

https://youtu.be/OIgb1fPoTZs

https://youtu.be/1b9j42tFl2M

https://youtu.be/FRP7Q7Yuowg

https://youtu.be/JdVU79Etb-0

You have marked up my image of angles. You have focused as I have demanded. Thank you.

You have also thrown more shitty diapers at the wall. 8 reply posts. Really? You can't order your own thoughts to make a cogent reply? (I do suspect you are interfacing with the net on a phone. Not the best device for serious discussions.)

The only vid I'm going to watch is the one I did watch... Because its title spoke to the issue of math. "How They Fooled The World With Deceptive Calculations"

The calculations are NOT deceptive. The calculations are the mathematical truths of the formulas. So that title is the deception.

Having spent the time watching that video, it does a good job explaining the math proving a globe. And it admits that the FE theory MUST account for what the angles show.

To make the angles prove a flat earth, it has to invoke atmospheric "refraction". The vid then invokes a specific shaped lens. I have attached Screenshot LensBS image to this post because the vid ASSUMES this specific lens shape. While such a shape would do as the vid claims, the vid does not explain how such a shape would happen via air molecules, and how their density would exist to shape such a lens.

24:46
"The refraction they did not tell you about."

The refraction via the lens the vidmaker has not proven, in spite of the claims of laser experiments.

The vid is aware of a difference between actual position and apparent position. I will address this topic in a later post if we get to a later post. The teaser/preview is "air density". This deals with laser measures also.

When you get unbanned we can pick up where we left off. I suggest you bookmark this link to my last post.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/284517977025750/posts/471843484959864/?comment_id=471847798292766&reply_comment_id=497927112351501

[Dale Eastman]

https://youtu.be/bol8vZ7pcu8
Titled: Flat Earth | Globe Earth Mathematically Debunked

i got reinstated. I just want to point out. You said those angles were not possible on a flat surface. That experiment proves that's not true. Can i get you to say we agree on that?

➽ You said those angles were not possible on a flat surface.

I just did searches of the discussion for the words "flat" and then "angle".

I did NOT make that claim as you have just presented it. Please quote the words (a partial phrase is best) I used that you are using to make that claim. I will then do another search of the discussion to validate / invalidate the claim.

➽ That experiment proves that's not true. Can i get you to say we agree on that?

I did not say what you claim I said.
What I will say: Under the VERY specific set up with an actual physical "lens", the math works both ways.

I do not, and will not agree with the assumptions made about air lenses.

The time I spent watching Flat Earth | Globe Earth Mathematically Debunked was not a total waste of my time. It shows me one avenue where errant thinking and belief got inside your brain case. (Skull).

Sept 30 14:08 CDT you wrote:
➽ To presume a distant sun you have to presume the atmosphere is acting like a convex lens insted of a concave one also. But what I'm saying is neither one proves anything. But one of them requires two presumptions.

In that same post you also wrote:

➽ The calculations for trigonometric phericty work on a flat plane with a local light source.

You have just made three presumptions yourself. A local light source (a local sun) and an assumption of a very specific atmospheric lens shape. The shape used in the vid. And a very specific location of the lens.

What you and the vid creator have failed to do is identify the causal mechanism to make the air into the very specific lens shape required for the flat earth math to mimic how well the same math works on a globe earth.

Other science, physics, and math supports the creation of atmospheric lenses that are NOT the shape the vid claims and does not do what the vid claims.

And while I am thinking of the incorrect information presented, the sun's rays are NOT parallel. The angle of divergence is 0.00000419305702675240799500646°.