Actually, he says "not enough curvature".
Do you know what "not enough" means? What's the different between "not enough curvature" and "no curvature"?

"Not enough" if you account that the altimeter was correct in always being 200 - 300 feet off (which of course it wasn't) because according to pythagorean math of a curve on a ball of 8000 miles - there needs to be 700+ feet of drop , and there was none. To claim that the margin of error is ±200-300 feet must mean than the altimeter is always ± 200-300 feet is just more of the typical dishonesty from blatant trollers with troll minds who love troll pictures and just being a general troll, much like yourself.

Not enough curvature ≠ there is curvature

Not enough curvature - for a ball of 8000 miles - if you want to argue that he meant that the ball could be 24,000 miles in diameter, um ok , but I think he was just trying to stay neutral to avoid the assholes.



inb4 Santard cries about his really being a battered wifey

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 4 2017 10:38am

So what's the difference between "not enough curvature" and "no curvature"?

edit: Also, this:
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.ca/2016/11/flat-earth-honesty-mountain-of-evidence.html

Explains what his errors were and how correcting them shows that the curvature really is there.

This post was edited by russian on May 4 2017 11:18am

i would say im surprised but we all know card cant actually own his own sources. i guess expecting someone to actually hold true to things like words without adding it into the conspiracy pile is just too much to ask.

comment from that link: kek, nothing says "i know the truth" like deleting any comments that disagree. Science!





This post was edited by thesnipa on May 4 2017 11:22am

Not enough curvature means that he was referring to if the altimeter was off by 200-300 feet, which it wasnt - unless you prove that altimeter is always off by 200-300 feet, not just when you want it to be off by 200-300 feet.

I read that post - he just claims all his measurements and calculations were wrong but give no evidence for why he says so.

Also they offer no empirical proof that there is a curve, and just offers excuse up for morons to cling to so they can to a bebunk blog and claim it was debunked when not really understanding anything.



We all know your a troller and blatant liar, why would you link a comment about someone who needed to pretend someone who they werent - if someone needs to starting out with a lie but you think they are going to tell you the truth, wow that's fools logic and if the shoe fits....

But if you like that strategy - um ok...

Hey buddy , i'm a confirm heliocentrist atheist liberal Nasa lover, but the Earth is flat. If you dont believe me know its just because you lack social skills.....

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 4 2017 12:25pm

Of course. Anything that points towards a flat earth is "empirical evidence", but anything that points towards a spherical earth is "excuses for morons".

They show and tell exactly what he did wrong and how to correct it. Most of it (and more) is in the video responses that they linked. The second guy (Jesse) is an experienced surveyor with his own theodolite that has a channel debunking flat earth. Lots of "excuses for morons" in there.

i think the real question is how much upward curvature is required so that you always have to look up. #VertRampEarth

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 4 2017 01:21pm

lmk; is the sun flat too ?

Well actually we only see one side of the sun, as it whole thing doesn't spin but different sections rotate around it with the same side facing us, is it flat - maybe, you got any proof its a ball?
No, k nice assumption.

https://www.universetoday.com/60192/does-the-sun-rotate/

"Astronomers call this sidereal rotation period, which is different from the synodic period – the amount of time it takes for a spot on the Sun to rotate back to face the Earth. But the Sun’s rotation rate decreases as you approach the poles, so it can actually take 38 days for regions around the poles to rotate once.



That's because there is no Empirical evidence for sphere Earth, its just a fake picture from Nasa, misinterpretation of understandings and circlejerk logic. This is why people get so angry if you leave the cult of pseudo-psyence.



Concave Earth is a real theory, but I think it's like Hollow Earth theory - it's just there to keep you thinking you live on a ball.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 4 2017 02:55pm

You don't understand geometry, but even on a flat earth the sun couldn't be a disc. If it was, only people directly below it would see a circle, while everyone else would see an oval. The further away you are, the more stretched out the oval would be.
Of course geometry and math are NASA propaganda, so take it for what it's worth.