Are Flat Earthers smart enough to answer this HUD Aviation Safety question correctly?



Views:8079|Rating:4.85|View Time:14:35Minutes|Likes:821|Dislikes:26

31 thoughts on “Are Flat Earthers smart enough to answer this HUD Aviation Safety question correctly?”

  1. So basically when you show the sun and the moon below the HUD horizon line, that’s how the sun and the moon would appear in that particular moment at ground level? Both already set (or yet to rise…)

  2. Great, its like the trip to moon simulations, no-one could tell the sim from the "real" thing. You do realise your god (hud) is software right?
    I can make the horizontal (on HUD) go up or down as much as you like, but hey we have to keep it real right :). Its just code that runs or parameters which again are written with code.

  3. A person makes the claim that earth can't be a ball cuz he has travelled a lot and all buildings are vertical with the exception of some very old ones. He slso knows from common sense that floors were built level and structural columns are vertical/plumb . words that have existed before the theory of gravity. He knows that buildings built on 90degree angles must be parallel to each other. He knows that a level can determine if floors and walls are level and plumb. If he wants to show a scale down model he can. He can demonstrate vertical buildings parallel to each other. He can demonstrate a scale down model of reality with smaller plumb buildings that are parallel to each other. You can't. You can only explain something based on a theory but its not demonstrable only explainable. Trust me. If this was brought to court, you would not have even a remote chance. How would you demonstrate plumb buildings all over a globe?

  4. Update to my last update: Update to FE map challenge… In addition to paying the $140,000 reward for an accurate flatearth map of just two continents, I will eat a cactus live on YouTube while wearing a pair of Daniel Pratt's used underwear on my head and repeating "I am the king of the pricks" over and over…. AND… I will let Antonio full mouth kiss me, WITH tongue, AND I will lick both of Nick's armpits, and not all shy and timid, I will really get in there and make it look passionate.

  5. I am now offering cash for the mathematical formula for calculating the distance to the horizon on a flat plane. I don't know how much the reward should be. Any suggestions? In fact, if you know the formula, let's try to reach an agreement. I think it's the height of the observer times the target distance times infinity. It seems to work because I keep getting the correct answer.

  6. Hilarious. Note when the sun is below the horizon line… The horizon line is NOT centre frame of the camera lens. This is the dead giveaway that the camera lens taking this shot is below eye level. What you say about the HUD I agree with 100% But that is a red herring to the real issue. The camera lens is below eye level.

  7. What I love about Antonio is that he exposes your bias. He gets under your skin. He shows things you dare not consider as you can only show your gullible followers your globe bias. He shows all the alternate possibilities and thinks outside of the box. You are clever but you never try and debunk what you show as you can’t handle the thought the earth is any other shape than your precious globe. Antonio exposes weaknesses in your presentations. You choose to run from him as he points to your flaws. You run from what is clearly new evidence that contradicts your repetitive globe narrative. Why don’t you prove this infrared footage that destroys your imaginary globe model in your head? I will keep watching Antonio because he brings some balance to your uncontested biased claims. An honest person looks at all evidence. You are not honest. https://youtu.be/WQpV8–p14U

  8. I posted the following on Phuket Word's recent video wherein he has the amusing gall to presume to educate pilots as to how a HUD works. But you won't be able to read it there because he's blocked me. This is because he is a pathetic coward.

    ———

    The only confusion is yours regarding how a HUD works optically.

    The modern HUD is an evolution of the reflector gunsight that came to prominence during WWII. It uses a collimating lens that makes the projected image appear to hover out in space far ahead of the aircraft. If you just drew a line on the HUD reflector with a grease pencil, you'd have to close one eye and line your head up in a precise position in order to get it to lay on the horizon. But HUDs don't work that way. Because of the way the image is focused, a line projected on the reflector will keep the same relationship to the horizon no matter where your head is, and you can keep both eyes open without experiencing the parallax issues that you would see with something actually drawn on the HUD reflector. It works like this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflector_sight#/media/File:Mark_III_free_gun_reflector_sight_mk_9_variant_reflex_sight_animation.gif

    Here's the article explaining it in detail:

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

    So all 18.75 minutes of this video is just you demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about. The instruments know the orientation of the aircraft relative to the gravitational acceleration, allowing the HUD to display a line of sight that is perfectly level relative to the aircraft, and its spatial relationship to the horizon won't change no matter where you move your eyes as long as you are still looking through the HUD.

  9. I have one very simple question for you. When you film or photograph the view from the cockpit, is your camera pointing in the direction of true level (horizontal / perpendicular to plumb) or is it pointing at an angle in line with the aircraft's attitude / pitch?

  10. I had a conversation once with a guy that was convinced he had solved perpetual motion. His idea was based around using 2 rings of magnets. As one ring rotates the magnets pass each other and due to the correct offset between them, together with gears that would rotated the magnets, they would pull the other ring around. With the correct timing, a magnet will pull another, and then be rotated to push it away. With an overlap of this cycle, it seems plausible. I spent quite a lot of time trying to explain why it wouldn't work. That there would be a point on the ring where the offset would be wrong and the forces would balance out.

    It was the same as talking to a flat earther. He believed he had a solution, but he just had to "figure it out". He will probably spend the rest of his life in that state, never actually creating a working model, and never realising it was flawed.

Leave a Comment