If the earth is a globe, how is it possible that a photograph of the Alps in its splendor can be taken from the Pyrenees?

Think of the movie
Dark City.

It's an extraterrestrial show.

Not only are you a BIGOT...

But you are PSYCHOTIC as well...

Is the MYSTICAL HAZE out to get you?

Is it ALL part of MY MASTER PLAN?

I am a DUMB ANIMAL cuz you 'think' I'm white?

I'm trying to IMAGINE your mother...

LOL

Rubbing one out doesn't count...

Why doesn't the sun get bigger or the moon the higher you go up in a plane? If they was near and close to the earth shouldn't they both get bigger?

They don't lol

come on flatard disprove that one

Also sun move 15 degrees an hour no mater where ever you are on earth. That just cant happen on a flat earth now can it.

With all due respect that is not an answer. I know, as do most here, that we are kept in mushroom mode and fed bullshit.

Who would benefit by concealing a 'flat earth' and how would they benefit?

How do explain comets we can see all them going around the sun with their tails always pointing away from the sun showing the solar winds.

Also Sun set shouldn't it be a dot in the distance as it goes out of view the vanishing point on flat earth? Why is it the same size when it sets as it is at noon?

your right is that what you doing?

With all due respect that is not an answer. I know, as do most here, that we are kept in mushroom mode and fed bullshit.

Who would benefit by concealing a 'flat earth' and how would they benefit?

With all due respect that is not an answer. I know, as do most here, that we are kept in mushroom mode and fed bullshit.

Who would benefit by concealing a 'flat earth' and how would they benefit?

You're a dumb animal because you deliberately refuse to use logic and facts to respond, instead you rely on waving your hands about some damn "haze" and prattling on just to keep your stupid conversation going so you don't have to look like you lost. You don't seek the truth, you seek to satisfy your own ego which makes you an idiot!

You seem a little LIGHT in the INTELLECTUAL LOAFERS Darion.

What you ATTEMPTED to advance in your longer post where you are advocating the viewpoint SUPPOSEDLY(?) being advanced with your ALL SEEING ALL KNOWING calculator is 100% bullshill.

What does the MAXIMUM peak of the 'from' mountain have to do with ANYTHING?

What would matter if this was a REAL analysis is the altitude of the spot the PHOTO was taken from.

You are calculating some bogus view distance from the MAXIMUM of the 'from' mountain that has NOTHING to do with NOTHING.

What's worse it is FABULOUSLY in ERROR!!! cuz the FACT that you can see the 'to' mountain from 275 miles in distance does it in.

I will revisit the context of said genius mit calculator web site and determine what HIS BENT happens to be and see if it can be used for SOMETHING at some point in the future.

Sorry, today is GAME DAY and after all, it is ONLY A DISCUSSION WITH MORANIC SphereOIDs...

Which brings us back to in excess of 50,000 feet of PROJECTED DECLINATION...

Which means...

Categorically, there is NO WAY that ANY of the ALPS should be visible from the vantage point of the photographer.

Remember kiddies 50,000 feet > 15,000 feet +

Is THAT embarrassing or what?

LOL

Observer height matters. Your 50,000 feet would only apply if the observer was looking with his head on the ground at 0 feet. Instead he was elevated on another mountain.

Even taking observer height into account, at 2820 meters, the calculation still puts the mountains behind the curve.

true but by a far smaller amount than 50,000 feet and well in to the range where refraction could account for the observation which is why it doesn't happen every day which the person that took the photo said.

Give the ball believers some slack, it is not that easy to prove the impossible ball Earth it being nonexistent.

true but by a far smaller amount than 50,000 feet and well in to the range where refraction could account for the observation which is why it doesn't happen every day which the person that took the photo said.

true but by a far smaller amount than 50,000 feet and well in to the range where refraction could account for the observation which is why it doesn't happen every day which the person that took the photo said.

Nope. He was talking about VISIBILITY.

And the Earth is FLAT.

So the calculations for the SphereOIDS becomes a MUTE point.

At THAT distance, 275 miles, the RELATIVE heights of the source & target have ALMOST ZERO impact.

So the ALPS should be 35,000 below the HORIZON...

Which is CLEARLY NOT the situation.

SphereOID DELUSION over!!!

What on earth are you talking about? You do realize 99.9% of everything that you "see" is NOT a source of light output right? This is what I mean. Caucasians always bluster and claim "you're making a fool out of yourself" while spewing ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

The only reason you wouldn't be able to see something closer to you is if there was no light...WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FLAT EARTH DUMBASS I.E. THE STUFF THE SUN SHINES ON. So YES IF THE SUN SHINES ON IT IT MUST BE CLOSER THAN STARS AND THUS SHOULD BE VISIBLE WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Caucasians DELIBERATELY spew madness so that they don't have to admit defeat. They are LITERALLY THE WORST KIND OF PEOPLE EVER. They think as long as they're tricking someone that they're winning. So they play dumb LIKE STUPID ASSHOLES to avoid growing the fuck up.

I believe the word you meant was "moot" point. And observer height still matters. The higher the observer, the less is hidden behind the curve.
For a viewer with his head on the ground at zero feet then 50,000 feet would be hidden behind the horizon. But for the observer height of 2820 meters (or about 9250 feet) as stated by 79799033, the amount hidden behind the horizon at 275 miles is a little over 16,000 feet.
But thanks for proving you don't understand the subject.

Observer height matters. Your 50,000 feet would only apply if the observer was looking with his head on the ground at 0 feet. Instead he was elevated on another mountain.

Give the ball believers some slack, it is not that easy to prove the impossible ball Earth it being nonexistent.

I believe the word you meant was "moot" point. And observer height still matters. The higher the observer, the less is hidden behind the curve.
For a viewer with his head on the ground at zero feet then 50,000 feet would be hidden behind the horizon. But for the observer height of 2820 meters (or about 9250 feet) as stated by 79799033, the amount hidden behind the horizon at 275 miles is a little over 16,000 feet.
But thanks for proving you don't understand the subject.

Was proven long ago your minds are living in the dark ages. You can get a phone app and find any satellite up in space orbiting the earth. How does one orbit a flat earth?

Only a TOTAL moron would try to make THAT assertion.

Bullshill.

The MAXIMUM you would would hide GENIUS would be the DELTA between the elevation of the observer and the MAXIMUM elevation of the OBSERVED.

Which NETS out to some thing like...

OVER 275 miles is INCONSEQUENTIAL.

And it's for reasons like THAT...

That YOU think the Earth is a SphereOID.

If you are confused DRAW yourself a LITTLE triangle and POPULATE with it with the specifics.

AEIOU...

Cuz you OBVIOUSLY need the help.

You don’t. Satellites are mostly hoaxes. Those that aren’t are either balloons or use another “anti-gravity” technology.