# Flat Earth Longest Distance Proofs

The following video clip reveals all the lengthiest range proofs for flat Earth such as rail guns striking straight-line targets over a hundred miles away and also the world document perspective zoom which captured mountains 275 miles away! Thousands to tens of thousands of feet of meant curvature would make this video impossible if Planet were absolutely a world. For more information about our flat, still Earth, please see:

Initial Music by Eric Dubay

Initial Video clips subscribe below:

FIRST, NICE MUSIC MAN

Flat Sabbath ” AMO “

Ask every baller – In your Spherical construct, at what distance does Curve replace Perspective?

https://s4.postimg.org/f6ak6krq5/perspective_9184.png

+rpm btd

Thank you for sharing information that everyone already knows about.

Flat earth believers research the hell out of the globe earth and flat earth models, you guys don’t seem to understand, you can bring up Pythagoras and Copernicus and people circumnavigating earth as if you are the only person who knows that information.

Flat earth believers research the hell out of all the information on both sides before coming to their conclusion, ball earth believers unfortunately cannot do the same.

+Jesse King

I believe what the original poster of this thread meant was this, ships disappearing over the horizon because of earths curvature is pure nonsense, once a ship seemingly disappears over the horizon, you can pull out a camera with strong Zoom or a telescope and look and you’ll find that you can see 100% of the ship again, pretty easy information right ?

Now let’s do something very similar, imagine we had cameras as powerful as the Hubble telescope, and we filmed a ship or car or something seemingly disappear over the horizon well how far away would something need to be for it to become impossible to see because of earths curvature, if you pulled out your Hubble telescope camera, how far away would a ship need to be before it truly disappears because of the curvature of the earth.

No curve = no ball = game over!!!

gareth milton please don’t say you are fond of Rogan, you will loose all credibility

Ballers keep changing their curvature calculation, pretty soon it will be flat!

+Rottie Robben

It used to be that curvature would occur 8 inches for every mile, it got proven wrong, and now mainstream science says that 8 inches per mile is only the *average* number, meaning that there isn’t literally 8 inches of curvature every mile. It varies and 8 inches is just the *average* number.

Is that your point ??

Because if earth is a perfect spherical globe then the curvature should be consistent.

R Cook A typical glober tactic, refraction, like your magic gravity, the simple math in this video showing massive evidence for the flat earth you live on, let go of the activity of ego. The truth will set you free……Peace

+gareth milton

8 inches of curvature per mile isn’t something that flat earthers came up with, it’s only the average number.

And seriously, if you consider meta bunk as legitimate research then you’re not going to get very far, places like meta bunk can not and will not provide answers for the most difficult questions.

And when they do try and answer something regarding flat earth they use speculation and assumptions and pseudo science and expect people to accept it as a fact.

Here’s just one example, Neil degrass tison says that earth is actually shaped like an obloid pear, yet NASAs pictures of earth from space always show us a perfectly round spherical ball earth.

Now one of them is either lying or they are wrong, it’s that simple.

Meta bunk cannot properly answer questions like that, which shows how useless and clearly biased the website is

Kurt Adams…… It’s 8 inches per mile (squared) ! It should be easy to prove the curvature, but nop ! There’s no curve at all ! There’s no bias there, only the TRUTH ! Try to find your curve, just for fun !!! Good luck, cause it’s missing !! Or you can stay asleep like all globtards !

Eric is once again spraying some Cognitive dissonance cure! Great job!

BlagenLogin That’s fine 🙂 , I can’t be sarcastic with Eric, he is the reason for me to know the earth is flat, and to become vegetarian for over one year now.

DyNaMiTaR

A great side effect of hearing the truth lol

Try and be as organic as you can be, don’t trust vaccines, and… be a positive human being!

C=

BlagenLogin You can’t even imagine. I used to love eating meat, I was raised that way though. If someone told me 2-3 years ago that the earth is flat, history is fraud, mountains are in fact petrified giants, and I will become a vegetarian……… I cant even imagine what would’ve been my expression.

DyNaMiTaR

I would have laughed and called them crazy if someone told me that…. It’s been a really different past few years. The world’s changing quick

DyNaMiTaR

How come you don’t eat meat anymore?

Under the Dome is our Home!!

CJToxic ARE YOU TOO GOOD FOR YOUR HOME?

What need to be done is a 3d world of a curved earth, put buildings on it, and simulate the point of view of a human been. All at the right scale. Then we could compare the simulation with what we can see in real.

I hate how ignorant many say that I should look at the facts of their globe and that it has been prooven, yet they have no counter to these facts right here and try to talk around it

thank you for insulting me, here have a report

HAHA they all must be “mirages”

MuffnTF You know, even when boats get cut off in the distance, that doesn’t mean the earth is round.

I believe it’s mirages that cut them off.

If you’ve noticed when a boat gets cut off on the horizon, they get reflected into nothing.

I think it’s because of a mirage over the water and as a ship shrinks in the distance, it gets more and more affected by it. The bottom first, then it moves progressively up, until it’s gone.

is there any video of Eric having a debate with a scientist trying to prove him wrong? I’d love to see this..

Rocky Moore doesn’t people replying to your comment also add views and traffic to his vids, so your actually helping him make money 😉 seems you should spend your time elsewhere if this ain’t your cup of tea… I’m sure he will be retiring soon to one of his numerous mansions… why not hate on a gaming channel with over a million subscribers? or is watching other people play video games more valuable than questioning established thought?

Art World Hateley

They are all afraid to debate him. Because he would make them look stupid

just proof after proof after proof, when will they learn. they cannot debunk the Dubay, and the cannot cancel out the curvature. Keep up the good fight Eric!

b e y o n d h o r i z o n s D O T e u for the longest shots.

great vid

Well, I would like to demonstrate the scientific issues with this video if you would allow me to. Before you start reading, please understand that I do not care what you personally believe in, I am just trying to spread some knowledge about our world.

I will focus on the “proof” you presented regarding the Pic de Finestrelles / Pic de Gaspard photo, given the fact that you spent most of the video working on it.

Let us use the data you gave:

The height of observer (Pic de Finestrelles) = Approximately 2820 meters.

The height of the object (Pic de Gaspard) = Approximately 3860 meters.

The distance between observer and object = Approximately 440 kilometers.

As you pointed out, by calculating the curvature assuming the light travels in straight lines you would get a curvature of approximately 4985 meters, which is roughly 16400 feet. Note that I used the same calculator program you used in your video. Here is the link if people want to try it themselves: https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=443&h0=2860&unit=metric

Now let us take a moment and understand what that actually means. It means that if you were standing on the Pic de Finestrelles, a person at the base of the Pic de Gaspard would be hidden 16400 feet below the Earth’s curvature.

Now I do realize that you take the Pic de Gaspard’s summit height into consideration, which is approximately 12700 feet. Which means that if we subtract 16400 – 12700, we should still have the summit of the Pic de Gaspard to be roughly 3700 feet below the horizon. Considering these facts, I would agree with you that such picture would seem to be impossible if not on a flat Earth.

The real issue here, however, which you clearly overlooked in all of your evidence, is the concept of refraction. And I do know that people who believe in the flat Earth use refraction to explain sunsets, therefore I am sure you cannot duck out of this in terms of rejecting its validity.

Before I talk about it, I’ll leave a few links so curious viewers can read about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

http://mathscinotes.com/2013/08/distance-to-the-horizon-assuming-refraction/

http://piecubed.co.uk/atmospheric-refraction/

Now, by considering refraction, which allows observers to view further than if light traveled in a straight line. Let us use this new horizon distance calculator which takes this effect into consideration. The link is the following: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Now, what we are looking for? We are looking for a magnitude of the effect of refraction to take into account the missing 3700 feet of curvature that seem to come out of nowhere in the photo. By using the program with the following data:

The distance between observer and object = Approximately 440 kilometers.

The height of observer (Pic de Finestrelles) = Approximately 2820 meters.

We once again get a curvature of 16400 feet. However, if we look at the hidden curvature below it gives us merely 12450 feet. We know that the difference 16400 – 12450 = 3950 is clearly greater than 3700 feet. Therefore, there you have it. The sunlight’s refraction allows us to see 3950 extra above the horizon distance, which means that the 3700 feet quota was beaten.

One last thing, the biggest challenge with taking such long pictures are the environmental conditions and the interference from light/dust/fog etc… definitely not the curvature of the Earth.

I hope the content was clear. Enjoy it.

Yes, that is correct. It is a mere orchestration of forces.

What? I’m asking the man a question, because I don’t get what he’s trying to say. The very premise of my question is casting doubt on the idea that light refraction would allow us to see things 6 miles under the curve. The question is pro-plane, not pro-globe.

I wasn’t kidding when I said I was confused. I understood the first few paragraphs of that before it gets into heavy math that I just don’t understand. (I’m a writer, not a mathematician, LOL). The article says that refraction allows you to see objects just beyond the horizon, but how can it bring something up 6 miles below it? That doesn’t seem like “just beyond”. Can you explain it to a right-brained person like myself?

FINALLY SOMEONE DISPROVED THEM im only 14 so its hard to find all this info and wreck them

Well if I am not mistaken my calculations showed that refraction brought the peak up from the horizon approximately 3950 feet, which are 0.75 miles roughly. So I guess that the first thing I would like to say is that the “6-mile” estimate is a bit off. Secondly, it seems to me that you are surprised by the “enormous” amounts of distance refraction allows us to cover. Let me remind you that the circumference of the earth is around 25000 miles, which once again tells us that such refraction distances are petty when compared to the total length. Therefore, I believe it is fair to use the terminology “just beyond”.

Its a marage, arage, arage, arage…. lol! Looking forward to your next upload

How do the Rogan heads deny the curvature math that just doesn’t work?