Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any.

Status
Not open for further replies.

snaphat

Member
I guess if there is an anomaly it doesn't show itself here. It will be interesting to find out what the anomaly is.

Excel spreadsheet attached if anyone wants to play with this further.

Right, there is no anomaly in that data set or the LIDAR paper, so I don't understand where Sandor's claim is coming from regarding the LIDAR paper. Perhaps, he is referring to unreleased LIDAR data that he cannot talk about yet?
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
understood now :)

NO they did not say my experiment matches their as they know marginal about my experiment yet.

I said to them and to you that my experiment matches their results.

SO we will be back to this question in about max 10 days- okay?

This is more believable but exactly the opposite of what you've been claiming. You've been implying that they think their data agrees with yours, now you're saying you think your data, which they haven't seen, agrees with theirs.

They said: the water is truly flat level surface, surely no 465 meters curvature drop is present.
I asked how that would be possible on the GE model?
We agreed it is an anomally
If this is some major discovery, and they don't want THEIR results leaked, and you aren't allowed to tell any details OF THEIR RESULTS... then why would you be mentioning it here? BECAUSE I HAVE A SEPARATE measurement that came to the same conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Sandor Szekely

Banned
Banned
This is more believable but exactly the opposite of what you've been claiming. You've been implying that they think their data agrees with yours, now you're saying you think your data, which they haven't seen, agrees with theirs.

OMG
is this really the debate style here?

NO I DID NOT SAY THAT! NOR IMPIED

"They said: the water is truly flat level surface, surely no 465 meters curvature drop is present. "

I DID NOT REFER TO my experiment here, JUST PUT that 77kms into a drop calculator okay?

so you do think that 465 meters drop is perfectly fine on the lake surface..

well, I got tired and sleepy in this "makes no sense" discussion today - good night.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
so you do think that 465 meters drop is perfectly fine on the lake surface..

Yes. It's a truly level surface, not a planar surface. A truly level surface on Earth would have an apparent drop of 465m over 77km.

However, both ends would still be at the same altitude. They would be equipotential, to use the technical term.
 
I see Sandor has been banned. I also see that he has attempted to start the debate in another forum, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/
(If linking to other forums is against guidlines please let me know and I'll remove)

It's a pity, but Sandor was never interested in finding out which model is correct, he was only interested in "proving it's flat". His conclusion was always going to be that it's flat, that's clear from his style of conversation. It seems like he expected us to be blown away upon seeing the video and comparing it with the numbers. The term pigeon chess comes to mind, I mean that in a jovial sense rather than outright insulting the man.

It's clear he not only doesn't want to hear our criticisms, but that he displays the close-minded attitude that flat earthers often accuse people of having. He derailed this discussion all on his own bat. I think a lot of people did very well not to engage him in a dismissive way, he certainly warranted it at times.

Basically, well done those who engaged in the discussion, and hopefully those that didn't, learned something interesting about research and burden of proof, I know I learned much from following and participating.

I look forward to mulling over future threads with this interesting group of people.

"You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic." Robert A. Heinlein
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
I see Steve Torrence has joined in over there too. The members in the other forum seem to be pointing out many of the same issues already explained here. They also seem to be a little less forgiving of Sandor's posting methods.

Ray Von
 
I see Steve Torrence has joined in over there too. The members in the other forum seem to be pointing out many of the same issues already explained here. They also seem to be a little less forgiving of Sandor's posting methods.

Ray Von
WHAT'S WRONG WITH HIS POSTING METHODS?? lol omg smh (I only learned what the last one meant a few weeks ago...)

Yes I hope he's strapped in for the journey this time, but his posts thus far don't indicate he is.
 

DougW

Member
Why was Sandor banned? I know his posts were being moderated before they could be posted. I thought the last few days he was being more reasonable in his replies and not so 'aggressive'.
Personally I expected a better prepared experiment and collection of data - I'm not very edumacated to say the least and I understand that we are all bound by where we live but I just thought doing this all on water - it just seemed a hard way to do it in my eyes.
I also agree with Bernard - once Sandor began sharing his data etc that he was really only interested in 'proving it's flat' and once I saw his attitude, I felt this thread was now just a dead end street.
Anyway it has been an interesting ride.
 
Why was Sandor banned? I know his posts were being moderated before they could be posted. I thought the last few days he was being more reasonable in his replies and not so 'aggressive'.
Personally I expected a better prepared experiment and collection of data - I'm not very edumacated to say the least and I understand that we are all bound by where we live but I just thought doing this all on water - it just seemed a hard way to do it in my eyes.
I also agree with Bernard - once Sandor began sharing his data etc that he was really only interested in 'proving it's flat' and once I saw his attitude, I felt this thread was now just a dead end street.
Anyway it has been an interesting ride.
Only the moderators know, maybe it's to do with posts that they saw in moderation and warned him about, maybe it's over private messages he's sent, maybe it's a combination, or something completely unrelated. I can only imagine they have their reasons, and the thread really finished two pages ago. The experiment has been debunked enough to say that it was inconclusive as to what it showed, but that the data actually leans more towards the globe model. He's going to do more tests, so I'll check back the YouTube channel every so often for updates, and hopefully they improve things.

That said, even if they do improve the experiment I can't see Sandor ever agreeing that the earth is a globe.
 

DougW

Member
As someone mentioned pages ago - if amateurs are picking holes in his data then I can't see how peers will take what he presents with any seriousness!
I honestly expected more.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
I would guess that he was banned because the thread was going nowhere. Sandor could not acknowledge or recognize his own basic errors and would not answer questions satisfactorily, instead just saying "you're wrong, lol" in a number of ways.

Two examples: Never acknowledging that there might be more beam divergence than he was claiming. Never trying to understand that level surface has a special meaning in the science of Geodesy.

( On the other forum he says that the LIDAR study found that the lake surface is level and is still misinterpreting it as meaning flat in the flat earth sense. Although I don't think the members there fully realize that yet.)

His opening post in the other forum, by design or accident, seems to imply that he was involved in the LIDAR experiment. Hard not to see that as deceptive. And he was at least borderline deceptive here as well.
 
Last edited:

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
... The experiment has been debunked enough to say that it was inconclusive as to what it showed, but that the data actually leans more towards the globe model ..

I completely disagree.

There is no real data after C5, so the experiment is equally inconclusive for both Flat Earth and Globe Earth. You cannot estimate the beam height without knowing the beam spread, without knowing the beam center. Even if you knew that, you cannot estimate what is the impact of the refraction if you don't really take that into account.

This experiment should be considered as a preparation, a Proof of Concept, for the next one. The data itself unfortunately is useless.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I see Sandor has been banned. I also see that he has attempted to start the debate in another forum, http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/

It's a pity, but Sandor was never interested in finding out which model is correct, he was only interested in "proving it's flat". His conclusion was always going to be that it's flat, that's clear from his style of conversation.
I notice that Sandor has also gone "NUDTZ" over there...which has not yet been called out.

I am a bit intrigued (being less science-literate than many here) by the discussion (by studiot) of rift lake topography...
it seems like a red herring...but I don't know enough...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
His opening post in the other forum, by design or accident, seems to imply that he was involved in the LIDAR experiment. Hard not to see that as deceptive. And he was at least borderline deceptive here as well.

I asked the lead author of the LIDAR paper, as his email address is in the paper, and he responded with absolute clarity.

Sandor was banned for a cumulation of violations of the posting guidelines, ending with his blatant misrepresentation of this paper, typified by the following post:

I spoke with them in Hungarian so I know what I am talking about.
They have an anomaly that is likely the one I am talking about.

just look at the conext of those words:

"Variations in the ellipsoidal height of the lake water surface are mainly a product of the variations in local gravity potential represented here by the quasi-geoid height; the slight water-level changes induced by movement of water during the flight period were corrected for."

this means that the slight water level changes of the lake water surface inducted by the movement of the water - were corrected for.

truly level means flat surface

truly level does not mean curved surface
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
I asked the lead author of the LIDAR paper, as his email address is in the paper, and he responded with absolute clarity.

Sandor was banned for a cumulation of violations of the posting guidelines, ending with his blatant misrepresentation of this paper.
Wow! At first glance, two guys named "Székely" looks (to this myopic American) :p like a pretty amazing coincidence.

But a quick search suggests that it's a pretty common name in that neck of the woods:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Székelys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Székely_(surname)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Why was Sandor banned?

How about because he steadfastly avoided answering direct questions about his experiment and refused to acknowledge data gleaned from his own video which demonstrated problems with his experiment? Why let him continue with that?
 
Sandor's opening post on ScienceForums.net is incredibly misleading, making it seem like he himself was part of the LIDAR study, and presenting that study again as if it detected a flat surface. That post alone is sufficient reason for banning him here.
I did notice that yes. I only stumbled across that forum because I was searching for further info on the LIDAR paper. I'd like to say he's one of a kind but alas he's quite on type for the average flat earthers. And apologies I wasn't intending to turn the tail end of this thread into a one way mud slinging match. I just find his total lack of give on the topic a conundrum.
 
Interesting to see two science forums debate this with mb being sure the water can't be flat and science forums being sure it can be flat because the bottom is flat. Both sides have explanations for their point. Maybe we should see if science supports either theory. Can the lake be flat and the earth be round?
Sandor got banned because he doesn't answer 'some' questions? Is that really the policy here? If you are being that strict on posting guidelines then you should have banned quite a few more than Sandor. It looks like he is just being silenced because some don't like where the debate is heading and refuse to even consider that the shape of the earth could be something else than we've been told. That is not science. That is support of dogma.
 
I did notice that yes. I only stumbled across that forum because I was searching for further info on the LIDAR paper. I'd like to say he's one of a kind but alas he's quite on type for the average flat earthers. And apologies I wasn't intending to turn the tail end of this thread into a one way mud slinging match. I just find his total lack of give on the topic a conundrum.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Insulting someone because of their beliefs is not the way science should be conducted. This looks looks more like a Facebook or youtube discussion with insults being politely lobbed back and forth and no real facts discussed. Especially the ones that some are allergic to.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sandor got banned because he doesn't answer 'some' questions? Is that really the policy here?

No, he was banned for multiple posting guidelines violations and being misleading. The last straw was him misrepresenting the LIDAR paper, and the authors of that paper.

Interesting to see two science forums debate this with mb being sure the water can't be flat and science forums being sure it can be flat because the bottom is flat.

Perhaps one participant there thinks the surface of a lake conforms to the bottom, but even the briefest consideration of that idea would show it to be entirely without merit.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
...insults being politely lobbed back and forth and no real facts discussed. Especially the ones that some are allergic to.
Except that that's not remotely true.
For 900 posts, posters have politely pointed out hundred of details, including countless minute measurements
and calculations...heck, posters here appear to have put more thought into Sandor's experiment than he did.
He claimed to welcome observations, but repeatedly complained--with the CAPS LOCK on--defensively.
Let's be honest: It was an exercise to promote FE...not a true scientific inquiry.
 
Last edited:
I have a question for Mick since he seems to be the leader here. If another test is done (and it will be) and all the complaints about the first test are addressed, will you ignore the evidence if it supports the lake being truly planar? Do you already have an explanation prepared for that outcome or is it simply an impossibility in your mind? Will you claim it's refraction causing the beam to wrap around the curved lake or surface tension as claimed in the other forum? You are even welcome to participate and film and monitor it yourself. I'm sure Sandor would extend the invitation to anyone here.
 

snaphat

Member
Interesting to see two science forums debate this with mb being sure the water can't be flat and science forums being sure it can be flat because the bottom is flat. Both sides have explanations for their point. Maybe we should see if science supports either theory. Can the lake be flat and the earth be round?

The person who said the surface is flat on the other forum misunderstands that elevation doesn't show curvature. Sandor misrepresented the paper on there also and we have confirmation from Mick that indeed the authors' LIDAR data does not show a flat surface. He's working under the misonception that it does because Sandors OP indicates that despite it not being true.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If another test is done (and it will be) and all the complaints about the first test are addressed, will you ignore the evidence if it supports the lake being truly planar?

No, the entire point of this site is to look at claims of evidence.

And I'd actually really like to see this test done well.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Insulting someone because of their beliefs is not the way science should be conducted. This looks looks more like a Facebook or youtube discussion with insults being politely lobbed back and forth and no real facts discussed. Especially the ones that some are allergic to.
I object to this. Sandor responded to one of my posts where I pointed out issues (such as the obvious divergence visible in C11 and C12). Rather than directly respond to those issues he chose to try to take me to task because I'd used phrases like "I think", which I'd only used to try and avoid offending, since saying "Look here, you're wrong" clearly would.

In the same post I posed a direct question, which again he ignored because, he claimed, I was presuming to try and "teach him". Sandor's responses here have typically been evasive and diversionary, and he's followed up with what looks like a clear attempt at misrepresentation.

Ray Von
 
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Insulting someone because of their beliefs is not the way science should be conducted. This looks looks more like a Facebook or youtube discussion with insults being politely lobbed back and forth and no real facts discussed. Especially the ones that some are allergic to.
I wouldn't go so far as to compare here to a Facebook or YouTube thread. Many cordial disagreements have happened between others here, and it has been rationally discussed. Sandor did create most if not all of his own problems here.
 
No, he was banned for multiple posting guidelines violations and being misleading. The last straw was him misrepresenting the LIDAR paper, and the authors of that paper.



Perhaps one participant there thinks the surface of a lake conforms to the bottom, but even the briefest consideration of that idea would show it to be entirely without merit.

I don't see how he misrepresented the LIDAR paper. Someone else posted it here and he said it agreed with our result and that they were interested in further research about it. You decided to contact the lead author, assuming that is who was contacted, and then used his response to insinuate that Sandor was being less than honest.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't see how he misrepresented the LIDAR paper. Someone else posted it here and he said it agreed with our result and that they were interested in further research about it. You decided to contact the lead author, assuming that is who was contacted, and then used his response to insinuate that Sandor was being less than honest.

Sandor said the study showed the lake was flat, and that the authors agreed with him, This was false.

I spoke with them in Hungarian so I know what I am talking about.
They have an anomaly that is likely the one I am talking about.

just look at the conext of those words:

"Variations in the ellipsoidal height of the lake water surface are mainly a product of the variations in local gravity potential represented here by the quasi-geoid height; the slight water-level changes induced by movement of water during the flight period were corrected for."

this means that the slight water level changes of the lake water surface inducted by the movement of the water - were corrected for.

truly level means flat surface

truly level does not mean curved surface
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't go so far as to compare here to a Facebook or YouTube thread. Many cordial disagreements have happened between others here, and it has been rationally discussed. Sandor did create most if not all of his own problems here.
You might not but from an outsiders point of view, it started out professional and then when the tests results started coming out, it went south from there and is now just a thread going nowhere. Probably the reason Sandor decided to find another site with maybe a group of more open minded scientists.
 
Sandor said the study showed the lake was flat, and that the authors agreed with him, This was false.
He has spoken personally to them and posted what they said. You doubted his honesty so decided to contact them yourself. He never spoke to the individual you emailed and never stated such. That was just your assumption and is disingenuous.
 

snaphat

Member
You might not but from an outsiders point of view, it started out professional and then when the tests results started coming out, it went south from there and is now just a thread going nowhere. Probably the reason Sandor decided to find another site with maybe a group of more open minded scientists.

It's fairly clear from the discussion there that they've started asking the very same questions asked here. Questions he ignored and did not answer...
 
No, the entire point of this site is to look at claims of evidence.

And I'd actually really like to see this test done well.
Good because the feeling I get from reading the comments here, is that noway nohow is the earth not round so therefor we will pull our hairs out looking for the fault in the data. Hopefully that attitude will result in better testing procedures and not another round of "there must be fault somewhere, because we can't accept your conclusion" type of discussion.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Good because the feeling I get from reading the comments here, is that noway nohow is the earth not round so therefor we will pull our hairs out looking for the fault in the data. Hopefully that attitude will result in better testing procedures and not another round of "there must be fault somewhere, because we can't accept your conclusion" type of discussion.
Bearing in mind that absolutely no one here said:
"there must be fault somewhere, because we can't accept your conclusion" or anything like it.
Many, many, many "faults" were detailed.
And it's been stated that many would love to see the experiment repeated, with those problems fixed.
 
It's fairly clear from the discussion there that they've started asking the very same questions asked here. Questions he ignored and did not answer...
Yes it seems a common style of debate when one side can't accept the other sides conclusion as possible. That to me is not a open fair scientific debate that has the goal of getting to the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
LorentzHall 12 June 2021 UFO Over Lake Michigan Chicago (Short Clip) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 24
Mick West 1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo UFOs and Aliens 101
Swifty Blickling Hall Lake UFO UFOs and Aliens 23
Agent K Earthquake at China Lake Current Events 1
edby View across Utah Lake Flat Earth 34
R Utah "Flat Eath" Frozen Lake Experiment Shows Light Visible over Longer Distance than Expected Flat Earth 8
Soundly A Side View of the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain Flat Earth 55
Mick West Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain Flat Earth 91
Mick West Oroville Watershed Weather Forecast, Lake Level and Inflow Calculations Oroville Dam 194
Rory Canandaigua Lake, NY, USA "Flat Earth experiment" Flat Earth 21
Bass In Your Face Stephen Hawking's "Genius" Helicopter Demonstration of Lake Curvature Flat Earth 27
Mick West Folsom Lake Photographs Demonstrating the Curvature of the Earth Flat Earth 36
Mick West Contrails over Sting & Peter Gabriel Concert in Lake Tahoe Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West A Dark Contrail near Salt Lake Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Veronica! Debunked: UFO caught sucking up water out of California Lake (satire) UFOs and Aliens 0
Mick West Local Political Candidate Cindy Lake talks about "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 10
ssfor27 Salt Lake City "Haarp Ring" HAARP 15
jarlrmai ATFLIR and range information (RADAR/LASER/Passive range?) UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 15
R Flat Earth Claim: "The Greatest Laser Experiment In History" - FECORE Flat Earth 11
S Plasma Laser Hologram as a possible UFO sighting Explanation UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 6
M Claim: UFO performs sharp maneuver after laser pointer directly hits craft UFOs and Aliens 20
Mick West Why Flat Earth Laser Tests are Misleading Flat Earth 16
Mick West Improving the Laser Dot Rendering in The Refraction Simulator Tools for Investigating and Debunking 8
Mick West Demonstrating How Refraction Helps You See Over The Horizon Flat Earth 32
Mick West Lasers vs. Flashlights vs. Daylight for Observing the Curve of the Earth Flat Earth 12
Trailblazer Measuring the distance to the moon with laser reflections and the speed of light Flat Earth 5
Trailblazer Greenwich Meridian Laser - Can it Demonstrate Curvature? Flat Earth 20
Z.W. Wolf Upcoming Laser Experiment Flat Earth 3
justanairlinepilot Pilot laser sightings Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Debunked: Chemtrail "Laser Line" and 4 UFOs Contrails and Chemtrails 1
derwoodii Laser could trigger rain and lightning UCF College of Optics & Photonics General Discussion 5
solrey Reward to catch people who point lasers at planes General Discussion 21
Jay Reynolds Laser attacks on airplanes continue Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Jay Reynolds British Pilot's Association Reporting 5 Laser Attacks/Day, Calls for Laser Ban Contrails and Chemtrails 35
Related Articles


































Related Articles

Top