Comments by "Cardinal R G" (@cardinalRG) on "Johnny Harris" channel.

  1. It's not a matter of scale. No aircraft, regardless of size, must move its nose downward in order to circle the Earth in level flight (constant altitude). The nose remains the same distance from the Earth's mean surface at all times.
    45
  2. @Uploading Truth -- ”But you're assuming a globe before you make your assertion about aircraft.” I responded to a comment whose physical scenario was a spherical Earth, so for me to discontinue that scenario would have been off topic. My own, on-topic response was therefore about flight over the same spherical Earth that the original poster introduced. Do you get it now? ”You can't say 'no aircraft, must move its nose downward in order to circle the Earth in level flight' If aircraft don't move their nose how does that prove we live on a globe?” Quite obviously, my comment didn’t aim to prove the globe, only to disprove the claim that flight over a globe requires any part of an aircraft to move downward. My explanation about “no aircraft” is correct, but if it’s over your head, I’ll entertain a polite request to re-phrase it for you. ”Also circling over a plane is possible, you mean following the curve of a globe Earth right? Circling is the wrong term. You need to get the basics right before commenting.” Nope, my usage of “circle” is correct. Friend, you have no standing to preach about language “basics”, having misinterpreted my first comment so badly. Let’s hope you do better this time.
    24
  3. @Uploading Truth --In aeronautical terminology—the language of pilots—“straight” means no deviation in the lateral plane (left or right), and does not refer to flight in the vertical plane, So an aircraft flying straight is flying a straight track over the Earth, whether climbing, descending or level, and its speed is irrelevant. But I’ll assume that you meant “straight” in the inexpert way of the flatEarther, which is to say a flat flightpath. So the short answer is that an aircraft flying a flat flightpath is never flying level, but can only be in a climb or a descent. Eventually, it will reach its service ceiling (altitude limit), or crash into the Earth, respectively. Moreover, the aircraft will fly a flat flightpath only if the pilot deliberately directs it to do so. Despite what flatEarthers wrongly claim, an aircraft will not fly a flat flightpath by default, in the absence of any control input. An aircraft has NO default flightpath.
    14
  4. As a (retired) pilot myself, I can attest that it wasn’t always easy. When the Men in Black first pulled us out of class during primary training, and shuttled us away, blindfolded, in black helicopters, to a basement in Area 51, and then swore us into conspiratorial secrecy at the threat of our children’s lives, I thought to myself, “Well, this simplifies everything.” Once I got drunk with a flight attendant and spilled the beans about the Earth’s real shape, but in the morning I realized my mistake and so I called the local Freemason hotline, and they promptly sent someone down to, uh…”silence” her. Membership has its privileges.
    13
  5. It’s not a matter of scale. A bubble level on an aircraft cannot indicate the shape of the planet over which the aircraft flies, regardless of the planet’s size or the aircraft’s.
    9
  6. CosmicLife --Water's not an element, and "level" doesn't mean "flat." Water takes any shape as directed by the net force acting upon it, and in nature that's almost never flat.
    8
  7. @ds9281 --Document 1207 assimilates gravity into its calculations and conclusions, so to acknowledge the validity of the document is to acknowledge gravity’s existence. But flatEarthism denies gravity, so how do you deal with that contradiction?
    7
  8. " I, as a commercial pilot..." Another flatEarther pretending to be a pilot. You're not fooling anybody.
    7
  9.  @tonyornelas9374  --Gorging yourself on Dubay videos and other flatEarther sources, while at the same time decrying the willingness to even discuss opposing information, is not "research". It's closed-minded, emotion-based dogmatism. Now, let's hear your best, evidence-based argument for your claims, if you have the guts to make it.
    7
  10. ”any pilot will tell you…” Pilot here. You’re full of cr*p. ”… once a plane gets to its cruising altitude, the pilot ''levels off'' and flies in a straight and level path.” “Straight” means no deviation in the lateral plane (left or right), and has nothing to do with the vertical flightpath. In fact, an aircraft can fly straight while in a climb or descent. “Level” doesn’t mean flat, but means flight at a constant altitude above a constant datum, specifically mean sea level (MSL). A level flightpath is curved in the vertical plane, in proportion to the Earth’s own mean curvature. A flat flightpath can only be a climb or descent, never level. ”…indeed, the pilot uses the horizon to ensure that the plane is flying level.” Wrong again. (Artificial) horizon reference only indicates aircraft attitude, not altitude. The pilot uses the altimeter, and secondarily the vertical speed indicator (VSI) in order to maintain level flight. ”…when visibility is poor, the pilot will use the instruments and fly a level heading, using an artificial horizon.” Wrong again. There is no such thing as a “level heading”, since heading refers only to lateral direction. And not only is the attitude indicator’s artificial horizon not used for maintaining level flight—as I’ve already explained—it is useless for determining heading at all. ”…at all times the plane flies level, once the pilot reaches cruising altitude.” You don’t understand what “cruise” means. An aircraft may cruise in a climb, descent or level flight. Only the first two flightpaths (climb and descent) can be flat, but level flight never is. ”…the pilot would have to constantly adjust the heading of the plane and dip its nose down to keep a constant altitude.” This childish claim has been so thoroughly debunked, so many times, that it hardly bears much attention here. But I’ll summarize: There is no downward movement of an aircraft’s nose (“dip”) needed in order to follow the Earth’s curvature in level flight, nor any control input, of any type, needed from the pilot for the sake of the curvature. Like every other flatEarther, you simply don’t comprehend how aircraft fly and are flown.
    7
  11.  @robinbluemoon747  --Now you’re engaging, so thanks, that’s good to see. Images have been sent from even further away than 140 million miles—namely, 3.7 billion miles. The short answer to explain why that’s possible is simply that humans understand the involved laws of physics, and are capable of designing hardware for the task. It might help if you elaborated why you think there should be any impediment, so at the moment I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. But I’ll start by saying that the near-vacuum of space does practically nothing to absorb, divert or otherwise weaken the transmission of images and other data. So a transmission can travel tremendous distances in space, and be received billions of miles away, many hours later. All at the speed of light. An easier conception might be to ask yourself, what is there in space to stop these transmissions? The answer is: practically nothing. The locations and trajectories of spacecraft are known, and in fact they directed by ground-based equipment. This should make sense to you if you think about satellite TV, GPS navigation, and other technologies you enjoy that depend upon controlling machinery in space. With greater distance, it’s mostly a matter of longer transmission time, and very little power is required. (Voyager I’s antennas are 23-watt units.)
    7
  12. Daniel Mclin -- "No evidence for a sphere." Go watch a sunset, and then try to explain how what you saw is possible on a flat Earth.
    6
  13. No pilot will say that, unless he/she is pranking a gullible flatEarther.
    6
  14. "You basically criticizing anyone who thinks outside the box." Thinking outside of the box is worthless if one can't distinguish fact from falsehood. If I claimed that (2+2=5), would you commend that as out-of-the-box thinking? FlatEarthism is that kind of nonsense, and it proves that flatEarthers don't understand science.
    6
  15. Your natural senses will lie to you as often as they tell you the truth. You have to think past your senses in order to understand reality. If your senses were reliable, then you’d have to believe that a little woman named “Siri” lives inside your cellphone, or that magicians disappear tigers into puffs of smoke, simply because that’s certainly what your senses tell you, right? It-looks-flat-so-it-must-be-flat is childish reasoning.
    6
  16. It doesn’t matter how the tool level was oriented, and that’s the point. In any case, a tool level on an aircraft can’t determine the shape of the planet over which the aircraft flies. It’s a worthless experiment from the start, which is why flatEarthers are attracted to it.
    6
  17. They don't.
    5
  18. Your senses will lie to you as often as they tell you the truth. That’s why amputees get phantom pains, why bowhunters aim low when shooting at fish, and why pilots are trained to ignore their senses in order to keep the aircraft upright in zero visibility. Think about it--if you trusted your senses above all, then you’d have to believe that magicians really disappear tigers into puffs of smoke, and that a little woman named “Siri” lives inside of your cellphone. In the real world, we have to think past our senses, and the it-looks-flat-so-it-must-be-flat rationale of the flatEarth community reflects the unwillingness to do that thinking.
    5
  19. You can. Pour out your coffee onto the floor…congratulations, you’ve just made something stick to a spinning ball called “Earth.”
    5
  20.  @cocaisawake5923  --My point went over your head, so I'll re-phrase it for you. If you think something's impossible, then it's dishonest to ask for proof of it. To ask for proof is to be open to proof, and you're not open that way, right?
    5
  21. @ShropshireFox -- "any balanced person would keep an open mind and explore all avenues..." Are you open to the possibility that (2+2=5)? I mean, it’s one of the “avenues” that you should be open to, right? And all those who believe in the consensus view that the sum is really 4 are just angry and scared, huh? After all, they’re just the people responsible for all the technology you see around you, including the computer you’re using to read this, so how can we trust them? Get a grip. FlatEarthism was utterly debunked centuries ago, and in 2023 is so abjectly stupid a belief that an average seven-year-old could see through it.
    5
  22. Piccard was not a flatEarther.
    5
  23.  @conradmbugua9098  --"Horizontal" doesn't mean "flat" either. You really need a course in vocabulary.
    5
  24. Yes, the bubble will always respond to the local gravity vector, not some universal, frameless up/down that flatEarthers believe in.
    4
  25. AFK -- "NOTHING will convince me otherwise." By your own words, you are declaring yourself to be closed-minded.
    4
  26. I encourage you to return to grade school, and stay awake in class this time.
    4
  27. You don't.
    4
  28. Henry Chan --An aircraft must make no downward movement while in level flight over the spherical Earth. Remember, moving down means getting closer to the Earth’s mean surface, and obviously no part of an aircraft flying at a constant altitude must do that. While the aircraft will rotate about its own lateral axis, this is not a downward movement, and it isn't something that requires a control input from the pilot/autopilot.
    4
  29. Kammy Gaille --FlatEarthism doesn't rise to the level of theory, and it doesn't have equal standing with demonstrated reality.
    4
  30. That's correct--YOU didn't contribute anything to that historic achievement. But thousands of others did, and twelve humans walked on the moon's surface.
    4
  31. He's an educator, and he's offering to help a community of very dimwitted people. That you find that suspicious says more about you than about him.
    4
  32. Which of the video's facts do you think are wrong?
    4
  33.  @edwinalicea2411  --Get a grip, and don’t drag God into the cockpit. Pilots don’t fly by Bible verses, but by charts that are based exclusively on the spherical Earth.
    4
  34. Because their belief is emotion-based, not logic-based. They really want the Earth to be flat.
    4
  35. @jbooks888 --Yes, but since the aircraft doesn't have to tip its nose at all, then the angle change is zero.
    4
  36. You'll declare any genuine image to be fake, out of hand, and we all know it. Stop pretending to be open-minded.
    4
  37. @goldeneye70 --The Earth doesn’t sing at 1,000 MPH, and no one claims that it does. The Earth spins at .000694 RPM (Revolutions Per Minute), which is half the rate of the hours-hand on a clock. Not so fast, is it?
    4
  38. Please give an example of what you consider to be "real research".
    4
  39.  @bojanpavlovic9122  -- ”No, Flat Earthers believe the world is flat because…” FlatEarthers have many (stupid) reasons to believe that the Earth is flat, not just the one you mention. ”…in 2022, we still do not have a photo of the Earth from space…” Millions of images of the Earth from space have been taken since the middle of the last century, and made available to the public. These included emulsion-film photographs taken during the 1960s and published worldwide, withstanding the scrutiny of even the Cold War enemies who’d have loved to uncover fakes. Today you can even view live feeds of the Earth from satellites. To claim otherwise is simply an act of denialism. Remember, only a single genuine image is needed to disprove your claim. To defend your claim,. You need to prove that every one of the millions in existence are fake…can you do that? Of course you can’t. ...when asking NASA how did the Apollo went through the Van Allen belt the answer is we "didn't know it exists…” NASA has made no such comment, and you’re either lying or else repeating someone else’s lie. Dr. James Van Allen himself was a part of the US space program, and were he alive today he would call out your bullshit in a hot second. If you have the guts to do so, you can find online sources that will not only explain what the belts are, since yopu obviously don’t know that, but also how spacecraft have been routed to minimize exposure. In other words, spend an ounce of energy and put your Google finger to work. ”…or why didn't we go back to the moon the answer is "we lost all the project plans…” Another lie. ”…because it is forbidden to go to Antarctica’’ Another lie. Even a tourist like you can go there. ”…(even though if the plain is flying under a certain degree, the spirit level has to show this)…” A spirit level on an aircraft can indicate nothing about the shape of the Earth below the aircraft. You need to take a physics class, or several, as well as a basic course in geometry. Also, you don’t even understand how aircraft fly, because the pitch-attitude of the aircraft is not determinant of flightpath. ...light and density and atmospheric refraction, that do not apply to a boat that is few miles away…” That’s a childish claim. You can demonstrate refraction by dropping a pencil into a glass of water two inches in front of your nose. For a boat in the distance, the effect would be proportionately greater. Again, you are in desperate need of education, because trying to understand the topic isn’t working out for you. ”…but for the sunset and stuff like that, etc...” The movement and setting of the sun alone is possible only on the spherical Earth. ”No, Flat Earthers believe the world is flat because…”
    4
  40. Shouting doesn't make a weak comment any stronger, it only makes you look desperate. Try writing in normal case, with one punctuation mark at a time, and then maybe someone will lower her/himself to engage you.
    4
  41. @jimmuo9286 --FlatEarthism is contrary to the education, training and experience of pilots and NASA's scientific personnel. They could never have achieved their present positions with the flatEarth notion in their heads.
    4
  42.  @therealzilch  --Thanks. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, with these flatEarthers.
    4
  43.  @conradmbugua9098  --Add an English reading course to the vocabulary course you need to take. Some physics, geometry and general science would help you too. Good luck.
    4
  44.  @AllHallowsEve2012  --You are confusing the flatness of paper with the three-dimensional data depicted on that paper. The blueprints used to build your house were printed on flat aper…does that mean your house is only two-dimensional? Of course not, and it’s like that with globe maps—the data may be rendered in two dimensions, for convenience, but they represent three-dimensional reality. And all flat media maps necessarily contain distortion, and that distortion is accounted for by people who have to navigate ships and aircraft. ALL nautical and aeronautical navigation is based on spherical-Earth data. That alone is proof that the Earth is not flat.
    4
  45. No pardon needed, because it's a fine question. Yes, eclipses, among countless other forms of evidence, give the lie to the flatEarth notion. (It's not a theory, because it does not rise to that level.)
    4
  46. The truth that flatEarthers are deluded and semiliterate? I think he already realizes that.
    4
  47. @Lancer_0010 -- "Change my mind, you can’t" You've just admitted to being closed-minded.
    4
  48. What exactly are you asking, please?
    3
  49. FlatEarthers claim that GPS stands for "Ground Positioning System". No joke, they think the technology works from Earth-bound towers. Naturally, they can't explain why a hiker loses cellphone coverage at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, but the GPS signal works just fine.
    3
  50. Distance makes no difference. A bubble level on an aircraft can't ever indicate anything about the shape of the planet below.
    3