Carry on...I'll show you how kooky I can get by proving the globe Earth claim is BOGUS!
It works like this:
The way to measure curvature of a globe with claimed circumference of 24.901 miles is with the equasion eight inches by the mile squared. Do you even know what that means?
So... at a distance of 50-60 miles, how much of the Chicago bulildings should be visible from across lake Michigan?
Uhm, what's an "equasion"? Kooky jargon?
Error corrected thank you. Is that all you have, an ad hominem attack?
Typical.
Kooky (and incoherent) refers to your arguments.
You don't have one!
Do you like little boxes or something?
You're not worth my time. Come back when you learn something about Earth..
Carry on...I'll show you how kooky I can get by proving the globe Earth claim is BOGUS!
It works like this:
The way to measure curvature of a globe with claimed circumference of 24.901 miles is with the equasion eight inches by the mile squared. Do you even know what that means?
So... at a distance of 50-60 miles, how much of the Chicago bulildings should be visible from across lake Michigan?
Uhm, what's an "equasion"? Kooky jargon?
Error corrected thank you. Is that all you have, an ad hominem attack?
Carry on...I'll show you how kooky I can get by proving the globe Earth claim is BOGUS!
It works like this:
The way to measure curvature of a globe with claimed circumference of 24.901 miles is with the equasion eight inches by the mile squared. Do you even know what that means?
So... at a distance of 50-60 miles, how much of the Chicago bulildings should be visible from across lake Michigan?
Uhm, what's an "equasion"? Kooky jargon?
Error corrected thank you. Is that all you have, an ad hominem attack?
Typical.
I actually write the word 'dimension' quite a lot which is what this environment is. So Mr grammar, please Sir forgive me.
Carry on...I'll show you how kooky I can get by proving the globe Earth claim is BOGUS!
It works like this:
The way to measure curvature of a globe with claimed circumference of 24.901 miles is with the equasion eight inches by the mile squared. Do you even know what that means?
So... at a distance of 50-60 miles, how much of the Chicago bulildings should be visible from across lake Michigan?
Here is a fact for you: They claim the circumference of Earth is 24.901 miles and yet when we see things at distance that should fall beyond Earth's circumference, guess who's lying?
Kooky and incoherent.
Carry on...I'll show you how kooky I can get by proving the globe Earth claim is BOGUS!
It works like this:
The way to measure curvature of a globe with claimed circumference of 24.901 miles is with the equation eight inches by the mile squared. Do you even know what that means?
So... at a distance of 50-60 miles, how much of the Chicago bulildings should be visible from across lake Michigan?
Here is a fact for you: They claim the circumference of Earth is 24.901 miles and yet when we see things at distance that should fall beyond Earth's circumference, guess who's lying?
Kooky and incoherent.
Go find an Earth curvature calculator, then come back...
Here is a fact for you: They claim the circumference of Earth is 24.901 miles and yet when we see things at distance that should fall beyond Earth's circumference, guess who's lying?
So basically what you're ''claiming'' is that tides prove a globe Earth. How so?
Nope. I'm showing one kooky argument is much like another...
Here is a fact for you: They claim the circumference of Earth is 24.901 miles and yet when we see things at distance that should fall beyond it's circumference, guess who's lying?
Spoken with such conviction. Now prove space...CGI pictures don't count!
So basically what you're ''claiming'' is that tides prove a globe Earth. How so? Oh let me guess...GWAVITY! The mystical, magical glue that holds all the lies together. Consider this...there are oceanic depths unexplored. All it would take is a rising/falling seabed to create what we call tides. What's that you say...no proff of that huh? A bit like your moon controls the tides 'theory.' What if its the other way around and its the mass of water motion that correlates the moon cycles? Neither can be proven so stick to the facts please...