Perspective and angular resolution

and if you look at Chicago from across lake Michigan, you realize that you can't see Chicago's ground level?

@Soldz (CF) not an argument, just memeing your way through this with speculation.

You can @DeltaA350

and if you are higher up, you see further b/c earth is a globe?

no u can't there are photos

ur closer to the ground so the bottom of objects in the distance will disappear first since we cant see forever

unfortunately I can't put them here

no if youre higher up u changed ur perspective and now have a better angular resolution for objects on the ground

So, if the Earth is flat, why can't I see Europe from across the ocean?

u cant see forever

@Pence
Perspective,Storms,smog,mist,etc

how is tht wrong ?

@jeremy well, if something is flat, you can see it

are we not using our eyes to see ?

We are....

ok

I use my ears to see

Our distance of vision on changes on biological things.

lol

only*

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-flat-earth-theory-14-ways-the-flat-earth-theory-is-false.t7148/

oi this thing debunks the Chicago underwater argument

perspective and angular resolution are always a factor

I can't post images here

chicago from michigan is not debunked unless u believe in fairy tale magic

If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have noticed a very interesting phenomenon: Approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather seem to emerge from beneath the sea.

But—you say—ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in Pirates of the Caribbean, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie series). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: It’s round.

@jeremy did u even read it

@DeltaA350 stop posting bs articles that already been debunked and use your own arguments instead of copypasta

lol how were they debunked

@Pence Yes because it is an example of appealing to nature/naturalism and it is very much an argument when it comes to talking about anything and everything especially with logical fallacies

how was the Chicago thing debunked

explain pls

I’ve seen that article over a hundred times
So naturally I went over it and debunked it

how did u debunk it

delta listen to me earth is in a container you cannot have a pressurized system against a vacuum without a container it is a natural law

Observation

@Soldz (CF) I'm appealing to factual evidence that many people have attempted them selves.