Видео

@@prorez-retrofit This one was a 2007 if I remember rightly. Sorry, no idea on your question.

Yes, words exist. Your point?

@@ReValveiT_01 horizontal is an orientation

Uh-oh, Mikey boy is crying over tiny percentage rounding errors. Funny thing though, he isn't whining about the AE map's 300% distance discrepancies over on daddy flerf DITRH's channel.

Measurements using my 9” George F. Cram Co. Classic Globe with a scale of 880 miles per 1 inch (standard 9” globe scale) rounded to the nearest 0.05” : • London to New York measures 3.8”. 3.8 x 880 = *3344 miles* . • London to Mumbai measures 5.1”. 5.1 x 880 = *4488 miles* . • San Francisco to Auckland, NZ measures 7.45”. 7.45 x 880 = *6556 miles* . • Auckland, NZ to Santiago, Chile measures 6.9”. 6.9 x 880 = *6072 miles* . • New York to Singapore measures 10.9”. 10.9 x 880 = *9592 miles* . • Southern tip of UK to southern tip of Florida measures 4.8”. 4.8 x 880 = *4224 miles* . • Southern tip of South Africa to southern tip of Argentina also measures 4.8”. 4.8 x 880 = *4224 miles* . • Auckland, NZ to Cape Town, SA measures 8.2”. 8.2 x 880 = *7216 miles* . • Buenos Aires to Perth, AU measures 9”. 9 x 880 = *7920 miles* . Everyone is free to check these distances against any source.

Looks like Mikey boy wants to "wager" his fake $250K again, so I offered to wager which measures more accurately : my desk globe or his papa flerf DITRH's AE map. He's not too keen to take that bet for "some reason".

@@ReValveiT_01This is really unfair for little Mikey boy, you used math.

Can't you read? "rounded to the nearest 0.05" Crying about rounding errors just makes you look stupid and desperate.

"that I ever claimed a flat world. Or a map of such a nonsense world" Good god you are thick. Hasn't the penny dropped yet that if you haven't got a scaled flat world map, the earth can't be flat? GLOBE - millions of accurate scaled models exist. FLAT - no accurate scaled map/model exists. Are you getting it yet? Is it sinking in to that thick skull of yours?

"desk toy" Does calling it a "toy" help to soothe the pain of your cognitive dissonance, Mikey boy? Or perhaps you're quoting from the script of your lying, back peddling high priest Dubay? Either way, "toy"s aren't useful, my desk globe is.

Measurements using my 9” George F. Cram Co. Classic Globe with a scale of 880 miles per 1 inch (standard 9” globe scale) *rounded to the nearest 0.05” * : • London to New York measures 3.8”. 3.8 x 880 = *3344 miles* . • London to Mumbai measures 5.1”. 5.1 x 880 = *4488 miles* . • San Francisco to Auckland, NZ measures 7.45”. 7.45 x 880 = *6556 miles* . • Auckland, NZ to Santiago, Chile measures 6.9”. 6.9 x 880 = *6072 miles* . • New York to Singapore measures 10.9”. 10.9 x 880 = *9592 miles* . • Southern tip of UK to southern tip of Florida measures 4.8”. 4.8 x 880 = *4224 miles* . • Southern tip of South Africa to southern tip of Argentina also measures 4.8”. 4.8 x 880 = *4224 miles* . • Auckland, NZ to Cape Town, SA measures 8.2”. 8.2 x 880 = *7216 miles* . • Buenos Aires to Perth, AU measures 9”. 9 x 880 = *7920 miles* .

@@ReValveiT_01 do the division, little buddy.

It's all in the video that you can't name a scaled flat world map on, about one minute in. Just let me know if you're too dumb to understand simple multiplication and I'll try and dumb it down further for you.

@ReValveiT_01 it's not in the video. All you said was, "Check google." Let's see the math. First, you said PERFECTLY, then you claimed 99% after I called out your initial lie. 99% is also a lie.

@@DrEMichaelJones The math IS in the video at 58 seconds. You are blind and stupid. If you can't be bothered to check the distances that's on your lazy arse.

@@DrEMichaelJones "Rounded to the nearest 0.05" Crying about rounding errors eh? The desperation is palpable. Meanwhile, you don't even have a map I can measure. Impotent religion much?

Measurements using my 9” George F. Cram Co. Classic Globe with a scale of 880 miles per 1 inch (standard 9” globe scale) *rounded to the nearest 0.05” * : • London to New York measures 3.8”. 3.8 x 880 = *3344 miles* . • London to Mumbai measures 5.1”. 5.1 x 880 = *4488 miles* . • San Francisco to Auckland, NZ measures 7.45”. 7.45 x 880 = *6556 miles* . • Auckland, NZ to Santiago, Chile measures 6.9”. 6.9 x 880 = *6072 miles* . • New York to Singapore measures 10.9”. 10.9 x 880 = *9592 miles* . • Southern tip of UK to southern tip of Florida measures 4.8”. 4.8 x 880 = *4224 miles* . • Southern tip of South Africa to southern tip of Argentina also measures 4.8”. 4.8 x 880 = *4224 miles* . • Auckland, NZ to Cape Town, SA measures 8.2”. 8.2 x 880 = *7216 miles* . • Buenos Aires to Perth, AU measures 9”. 9 x 880 = *7920 miles* .

"BWAHHHHHH". Stop crying and name the scaled flat world map that you claim.

@@ReValveiT_01 make a video of when I claimed a flat world.

@@DrEMichaelJones Your attempts to backpedal away from not having a scaled flat world map for your Flatopian religion isn't going to work, fella. Word games don't work here.

@ReValveiT_01 make a video for me, little buddy. Surely, video 9 will be the one that gives you the comfort you need.

@@DrEMichaelJones Educating your ass has been a monumental chore, but you finally understand that desk globes are accurately scaled models of planet globe earth, and scaled flat world maps do not exist. Now, go forward and be slightly less dumb.

You just posted. You still have the freedom, idiot. Why do you keep insisting on showing everyone what a big whiny baby flerf you are? Is that your kink at play again?

@@ReValveiT_01 lol you need an echo chamber over there just to cope and seethe together with your deluded weirdo buddies.

@@ReValveiT_01 lol you need an echo chamber over there just to cope and seethe together with your deluded weirdo buddies.

@@ReValveiT_01 you: "OK. Mikey boy finally plucked up the courage to name a SCALED FLAT WORLD MAP." Lol when do I get my admin rights? :D YOU wrote those words, not me, little buddy. :D They're in the same thread where you're now disavowing your own words.

@@ReValveiT_01 Are you still wondering why other people ban you from their channels? :D

Not to mention the fact that desk globes are far too small to display even the most basic road detail. This pretend doctor is all kinds of deluded.

@@toastthehostwiththemosttoa9922 Indeed. Dumb flerfs believe we should all be driving around with 200ft wide globes strapped to our dashboards to navigate 50 miles down the road.. They think everyone is as stupid as they are.

Paused overnight to prevent your spam. I'm always 50 steps ahead of you, Mikey boy. Got the name of that SCALED flat world map that you keep lying about yet?

@@ReValveiT_01 lol you're terrified of me

@@DrEMichaelJones Terrified of your utter inability to name a map?! Yeah alright, sure sport. Another day, another bunch of Mikey LIES.

You posted this 7 hours ago, so my prediction that you were going to try and spam that video overnight was correct. You are a predictable little worm. Try harder.

@@ReValveiT_01 keep spiraling little buddy. It won't make Boon Island magically add elevation

As expected, we have lots of crying about "freedom", but no name of the SCALED flat world map that Mikey boy claims. Mikey boy gets that freedom back once he's named the *SCALED* flat world map that has every distance between any two points correct *LIKE MY SCALED DESK GLOBE DOES* .

@@ReValveiT_01 Normally I'm not a fan of deleting comments but I think your actions with regard to little bidet are calibrated and reasonable. His unwillingness to present a flat earth map with a scale and a coordinate system yet demand citations from others and his willful misrepresentation of others' comments justify targeted deletion.

@@marcg1686 He's been allowed to obfuscate for over a month on my other videos. Enough is enough. The terms are simple: once he names the *SCALED* flat world map that *HE KEEPS CLAIMING* , he gets to post again. Liars don't get to spread their garbage claims on this video.

@@ReValveiT_01 What? No more Mikey boy rigorous analysis of the shape of our world?

​@@robertlafleur5179 "dUr sLaNtEd HoRiZoNtaL" is about as rigorous an analysis as Mikey boy can muster.

@@DrEMichaelJones You get that freedom back once you've named the scaled flat world map that has every distance between any two points correct *LIKE MY SCALED DESK GLOBE DOES* . Go ahead.

*Deleted Mikey boy comment due to obfuscating from naming the scaled flat world map that he claims*

*Deleted Mikey boy comment due to obfuscating from naming the scaled flat world map that he claims*

*Deleted Mikey boy comment due to obfuscating from naming the scaled flat world map that he claims*

Keep showing everyone that you can't name a single *SCALED* flat world map that can be used for the basic task of measuring distances *LIKE MY SCALED DESK GLOBE CAN* . You wilfully demonstrate how impotent and weak your social media cult religion is. Well done fella. Well done.

*Deleted Mikey boy comment due to obfuscating from naming the scaled flat world map that he claims*

*Deleted Mikey boy comment due to obfuscating from naming the scaled flat world map that he claims*

*Deleted Mikey boy comment due to obfuscating from naming the scaled flat world map that he claims*

@@DrEMichaelJones Coping with the flat map you have never provided although you claimed to be accurate? 🤡

@@primonomeultimonome Mikey's projection generator is working overtime today.

I wouldn't be so sure. I confidently expect little bidet to smear himself across the comments section soon.

@@marcg1686 _''smear himself''_ I was thinking that he'll _''make a fool of himself''_ but _''smear himself''_ is much more descriptive of Mikey boy.

He FINALLY learnt his lesson to NOT comment here. I guess flerfs DO learn... Eventually.

⁠@@ReValveiT_01He was busy ‘’smearing himself’’ (thanks MarcG for that expression) on your preceding video.

@@ReValveiT_01 he is still commenting on your part 6 video but thats it. He continues to repeat that he provided the numbers and his usual thing about citations but has no answers for the other sources I provided or the lidar plots showing 20 ft MHW. Keep asking him to show the math to have it line up with his claimed elevation and height. He of course can't do it and claims to have already provided the numbers. His only attempt was weeks ago and he tried to claim focal height of light was MSL not MHW. When I provided him multiple sources showing MHW he went quiet and has not attempted to use numbers since. He just repeats his 14 ft claim. Coping and seething.

You have been provided sources and shown measurements using scaling. You can look up the lidar data and measurements confirming the elevation is much higher than what you claimed. You already admitted that we are only seeing about 7 ft of the top of the island only leaving the rest of it obstructed. That lines up perfectly with the globe prediction. Thanks again for coping and seething for us all.

@@Requiem4aDr3Am lol called it!

@@DrEMichaelJones Good you finally called it quits. Glad to see you admit you are wrong. Game. Set. Match.

@@Requiem4aDr3Am Cope. Seethe. Mald.

@@DrEMichaelJones Yes those are the things you seem to do the best. Thanks for calling it quits and admitting that the numbers you claimed were all wrong.

I've added you to "always approve comments", so give it a try.

@@ReValveiT_01 Thanks. ICYMI. ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/43.1206/-70.4766 Check my Community tab.

Post the link to the NHLPA NOA from May 16, 2012. :D

@@DrEMichaelJones Name the scaled flat world map that has every distance between any two points correct *LIKE MY SCALED DESK GLOBE DOES* (that you keep claiming exists) and I will post any link you like. Ball's in your court, fella.

@@ReValveiT_01 All accurate to-scale maps are rendered in 2D and linearly scaled. Now delete this just like you're deleting all my comments on your next video because you are terrified of the implications of this fact. Ball's in your court to prove me wrong, little buddy. :D

The US NPS Notice of Availability says the height of the lighthouse above the ground is 123' and the elevation of the island above MSL is 14'. "At 123' high, the property is the tallest light structure along the Maine coast. The island is a barren outcrop of granite 14 feet above sea level."

@@DrEMichaelJones While I respect the NPS, its mandate and the work that it does, if I have to choose between the NPS and the USCG and USGS, I know which one I would choose.

@@marcg1686 feel free to link an elevation for Boon Island from USCG or USGS that differs from the 14' elevation cited by NPS.

@@DrEMichaelJones you were provided those weeks ago with the chart and topographical map. You also now have lidar measurements and plots showing that the island is not 14 ft. But hey Mikey show us how a lantern that is installed 118 ft up the tower and is about 6 ft tall can possibly ever have a focal height above MHW of 137 ft with a 14 ft elevation. I want to see how you are able to squeeze that together. Show us because your first attempt tried to use MSL instead and had you trying to claim the light was 5 ft from the very top of the tower which is smaller than the size of the actual lantern. Show us this mysterious math that somehow changes sizes, shapes, and reality itself. Go on I'll wait.

@@marcg1686 Mikey is so pathetic he is now trying to use his claims between two others to deflect. He claimed you said I lied. He is so desperate.

Thank you, marc. It is indeed impossible to accurately scale an image of objects 10+ miles away

@@DrEMichaelJones Misrepresenting what I said. Again. 10 miles is more than sufficient distance to scale subjects in an image with a useful degree of accuracy. Just look at dozens of photos of Ferris wheels on the web

@@marcg1686 you should use your posting privileges to add a link to New England Lighthouses: A Virtual Guide salient quote: "In June 1811, General Lincoln recommended a lighthouse on Boon Island. The tower, completed by that winter, exhibited a fixed light 32 feet above the water. The first keeper, after witnessing the vulnerability of the low island (14 feet above sea level at its highest point ) to storms, left after only a few weeks."

@@marcg1686 So you need a circle in sideview in order to properly scale at long distance. Got it. Maybe you can see about putting a Ferris wheel on Boon Island.

@@DrEMichaelJones I'm going with what the Light List says. I doubt any skipper or navigator has the book you mentioned onboard or considers it a safety relevant publication.

It's also worth noting that you haven't made an argument about where you imagine MSL would be relative to the camera when the tide came in and went right past that tripod that's sitting in the wet sand on the beach... :D Lacking an argument is you being you.

Glad you agree that you can see the island (14' in max elevation btw which is irrefutable) squeezed into that shot thus refuting roohif's absurd and impossible claim that there's a 23' tall vertical hump of water obstructing your view of the island. :D

Worth noting number 2 : Mike spent the best part of a WEEK claiming that the entire height of the island in TC's far shot is visible, right down to the lapping waves. This video clearly proves he was lying. He has to lie. He has no choice. Why? Because... Flerf.

worth noting: Valvy has spent the last week making 7 separate videos about me.

@@ReValveiT_01 When is video 8 coming out with a single citation showing that I have have incorrectly cited the elevation of the island?

Run out of excuses, lad? Finally resorted to the flatty default : 'YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S DEVASTATING TO MY CASE!', eh? Well, I can, and I have, so...

@ReValveiT_01 make video #8 the one where you show all your sources for that height of the land being anything but 14' 🍿

@@DrEMichaelJones Internet numbers are infallible, eh Mikey boy? How about THIS one --------> 3959 ? Are all internet numbers infallible, or is "infallible" reserved for just the ones you like? Hypocrite.

@@DrEMichaelJones The elevation of the island doesn't help you. TC's observation matches the globe prediction, NOT the flat earth prediction. TC's observation FALSIFIES flat earth, period. Cope and seethe, lil fella.

@@ReValveiT_01 what elevation of the island do you imagine doesn't help?

Is that your next excuse? Well, I suppose it's on par with all your others.

@ReValveiT_01 you can make 20 videos about me, ma'am, and I still won't date you.

Coming up on a 16 day cope and seethe beano now. He'll have one hell of a hangover.

I got him to make 7 videos, and each one he makes shows how much he's obsessed with me as he loses his grip on reality. :D

@@DrEMichaelJones That's some hilarious projection there, _little buddy!_

ruclips.net/video/_2eGvni_QoM/видео.html Make that 7 videos as of now. Idiot boy just went and made things worse for himself.

@@DrEMichaelJones "he's obsessed with me" I'm obsessed with showing you up for the lying idiot that you are. There is a difference.

Aligning the LOW tide waterline in TC's shot with the HIGH tide waterline in Namad's shot artificially elevates the lighthouse in TC's shot HIGHER, which is precisely what you need. You are literally complaining about something that's *WORKING IN YOUR FAVOUR* . Utter CRETIN.

@ReValveiT_01 Yeah, you lined up that you claimed were low and high tide as the same water line... thanks for that concession. It's almost like you finally realized you can't scale two images from different distances and focal lenghts and compare them... :D

@@DrEMichaelJones Your tide height excuse it eliminated : ruclips.net/video/_2eGvni_QoM/видео.html Oops. You made it worse for yourself, fool. One day you will learn to keep it shut. Nah, you definitely won't. Just too dumb.

@ReValveiT_01 LMAO. 8 VIDEOS! When do plan to make a single video showing a single source with an elevation of island being annoying but 14'? :D

@@DrEMichaelJones "LMAO. 8 VIDEOS!" www.youtube.com/@ReValveiT_01/videos - 7 videos, idiot boy. One for each of the island's feet measured in TC's shot. ruclips.net/video/gVVlkkIrCYQ/видео.html ruclips.net/video/7TSi54BViYY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/5eNcQCAYUH8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/mLAXswQ93iE/видео.html ruclips.net/video/MguEBWRwwsc/видео.html ruclips.net/video/10mRDgCF6k8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/_2eGvni_QoM/видео.html Counting isn't really a "you" thing, eh Mike?

"Be sure to include sources for your 26' of island elevation" Measured. Twice.

@@ReValveiT_01 "measured twice" by putting a ruler on a computer screen? Lol

@@DrEMichaelJones Yes. Scaling is a perfectly legit way of measuring. In fact, I've seen members of your own cult do it on multiple occasions. Seethe.

@ReValveiT_01 trying to scale an image taken over TEN MILES and then do a comparison with one taken from a few hundred yards??? Lmfao

@@DrEMichaelJones Why can't I? Oh, right, because it's devastating to your case.

"The top of the tower doesn't actually become physically lower and closer to the water" - Mike "little buddy" Jones, yesterday. Ooops. Yes it does. Everyone watching this video can clearly see that it does *PRECISELY* what you tried to claim it didn't do. So let's try and forget all about yesterday's LIE and invent a new one, eh Mike? That's how you like to roll, isn't it lil fella?

Go ahead and explain how "optics" makes objects physically sink downward into the horizon on a plane with no physical drop. You won't.

@ReValveiT_01 optics make things in the distance APPEAR smaller and thus the top of objects APPEAR TO BE CLOSER to the ground, little buddy.

@@DrEMichaelJones "optics make things in the distance APPEAR smaller" Yeah? Then explain the selective "optics" that make the ISLAND 75% smaller, yet leaves the tower EXACTLY the same size. Good GOD.

@@DrEMichaelJones "and thus the top of objects APPEAR TO BE CLOSER to the ground' Yet yesterday you said : "The top of the tower doesn't actually become physically *lower and closer to the water* " Change of story, eh? Now suddenly it DOES, "but because reasons that my lie failed to dismiss".

You did it. You actually went there. I wasn't sure if you could stoop to those levels of utter idiocy, but there it is, right there. ruclips.net/video/10mRDgCF6k8/видео.html How about now, little buddy? Enough "inches" for you?

@@ReValveiT_01 cool demonstration of optics. Where's roohifs 23' water hump again? :D

@@DrEMichaelJones Where's roohifs 23' water hump again? 19ft measured of the island hidden, plus the extra several feet observer height that Taboo tried to keep quiet, There's you 23ft. Seethe. Meanwhile, where's the ZERO feet hidden that your cult predicts? Ooops.

@ReValveiT_01 what happened to your "measured 7' visible," little buddy?

Measurements trump words. 22ft measured on Nomad's high tide photo, 7ft measured on TC's low tide photo. We still haven't received an explanation for this glaring discrepancy from you, probably because you have no explanation. Ya know what does have an explanation? The globe model has an explanation.

@ReValveiT_01 and by "measurement," you mean you put a ruler on your computer screen ... LOL

@ReValveiT_01 surely you know better than that first lighthouse keeper that lived there. You measured your computer screen after all...

Dreamie claims the island 30' in elevation when literally every source says it's 14' LOL

@@DrEMichaelJones So you are lying. You were shown charts and topographical maps and now when I pointed out the focal height of the light above MHW it showed that you claims on the height of the tower and elevation are incorrect. You have no answers for what my, revs, and roohifs measurements have shown. And you were given the elevation of the island at MHW, MSL, and low tide. It all lines up with what the charts and maps show. You have no leg to stand on. Cope and seethe mikey. How tall is the tower? Again if it's 123 ft as you have claimed it makes the elevation of the island HIGHER not lower. So what is it mikey?

@Requiem4aDr3Am shall we wager? Let's wager on what the charts and topographical maps say about the elevation of Boon Island... :D Have you asked dreamsie to provide a NOAA chart # yet? I have... he declined. Multiple times. :D

@@DrEMichaelJones Lying again. You couldn't answer the questions yet again. A complete lack of faith in your source is noted as you continue to run from the facts I shared. You were shown charts and topographical maps and now when I pointed out the focal height of the light above MHW it showed that you claims on the height of the tower and elevation are incorrect. You have no answers for what my, revs, and roohifs measurements have shown. And you were given the elevation of the island at MHW, MSL, and low tide. It all lines up with what the charts and maps show. You have no leg to stand on. Cope and seethe mikey. How tall is the tower? Again if it's 123 ft as you have claimed it makes the elevation of the island HIGHER not lower. So what is it mikey?

@Requiem4aDr3Am why so scared, little buddy. You've made 7 videos about me. Surely you imagine you're right and I'm wrong.... man up.

So you are making things up now to deny reality. Thanks for confirming that. You tried to claim the tower was 10 ft shorter than it actually is to try to make your 14 ft work and yet it still doesn't line up with what we see in reality. The tower is 133 ft tall. Now are you going to stick to your claim that it is 123 ft tall and that the light is only 4 feet from the roof despite us being able to measure how high this all is? But hey if I take your claim and look at it that would make the tower only about 28 to 32 ft tall. That light looks like it is a lot further than only 4 ft from the top. It seems you insist upon showing us all how much you can get wrong about this observation.

@@Requiem4aDr3Am ya got that NOAA chart # yet?

@@DrEMichaelJones Already provided. You tried to claim the tower and elevation was 10 ft lower than it actually is. You tried to claim the light is only 4 ft from the top of the tower yet when I see it here in this video I can see that it's about one eighth of the towers height in distance from the very top of the tower. That means its roughly 16 ft from the top. It's 133 ft tower with 137 ft focal height for that light. That means the top of the tower is 153 ft above MHW. The TC observation was at low tide. Guess how tall that makes the islands elevation in TC's video? Oh my Mikey you walked right into it. At low tide that is nearly 30 ft of island elevation. womp womp womp. Game. Set. Match. Cope and seethe.

@@Requiem4aDr3Am NOAA chart # please.

Poor lil fellow still couldn't get it. How about now, Mikey boy? : ruclips.net/video/10mRDgCF6k8/видео.html

thank you for all the laughs that you're providing :D

@@DrEMichaelJones hey mikey did you notice the small building in your high tide picture? How is it obstructed at low tide so we only see the top of the roof but visible at high tide? Oh my.

@@DrEMichaelJones If I scale to the focal height of the light at 137ft in Seaside Nomad’s *HIGH TIDE* globe proving footage, I get an island height of *22ft* . If I scale to the focal height of the light at 137ft in Taboo Conspiracy’s *LOW TIDE* globe proving photo, I get an island height of *5ft* . That’s *17ft* gone *AWOL* when there should be *4.5ft MORE* in TC’s shot. Oh, and not a single desperately needed 14ft to be found anywhere. Run along now. You can get back to strawmanning my numbers and attacking me personally; but just make sure you don’t bring any Flatopian evidence (no danger).

@DrEMichaelJones Taboo really tried stacking the cards in his favour, hey Mike? Low tide, a higher vantage point than he claimed (lied), and the most refractive conditions possible (over water). But even then, poor fellow only managed to squeeze about a third of the island into his footage. Ooops. Taboo is the new Ranty. A real globe prover.

@ReValveiT_01 you should make your next video one where you put those two tower images (shot from near and far) side-by-side. :D

hey mikey did you notice the small building in your high tide picture? How is it obstructed at low tide so we only see the top of the roof but visible at high tide? Oh my.

"the same height in the frame taken by two observers" Yet the island isn't. Oops. What do you expect? Distance doesn't shape shift objects, Mikey boy. Just when I think you can't get any stupider...

Thanks again for confirming that the top of the tower doesn't actually ever get close to the surface of the water as roohif (absurdly) claimed. Water hump debunked.

@@DrEMichaelJones Thank you for showing everyone here that you know you are wrong as you couldn't answer the question. The tower height gets you every time because it shows that your source got it wrong. Every other source says 133 ft and yours claims 123. How can you have a focal height for the light of 137 ft if the tower is only 123 ft tall? Game. Set. Match. You have no leg to stand on. Cope and seethe.

@Requiem4aDr3Am how do you get a 137' focal height above the water on a 26-30' elevation island? What's the lighthouse height in your fantasy scenario? :D

hey mikey did you notice the small building in your high tide picture? How is it obstructed at low tide so we only see the top of the roof but visible at high tide? Oh my. What 14 ft elevation? All the official NOAA charts and maine gov topographic maps show it's over that. Why do you continue to try to cite from the source that had an error of 10 feet for the height of the tower and the elevation? You were corrected and still choose to share the incorrect information. Not looking good for you mikey.

@@Requiem4aDr3Am hey dreamie, the small brick pile is to the right of the tower. The NOA from the National park service says it's 14 feet. You haven't cited a single source. Name your source and cite the elevation from that source. Not looking good for you dreamie.

@@DrEMichaelJones So you couldn't answer thanks. Small brick pile? I'm talking about the building that is visible in your own shot. It has the generators inside. Yet in the TC video we are only seeing the very top of that building. How is it obstructed at low tide so we only see the top but visible at high tide? Again what 14 ft elevation? Your source was already proven to be wrong. Every other source is showing a tower height of 133 ft and 24 ft elevation. Why do you choose to ignore the NOAA charts and maine gov topographical map? It sure doesn't look good for you Mikey to keep denying facts. My source has been named multiple times over. You are the one that keeps thinking the NOAA is the NOA you tried to use. It shows that you are completely clueless.

@DrEMichaelJones Mike's social media CULT : "The US government lie about everything" Mike : "Except island heights". The hypocrisy and lack of self awareness are astounding.

@@ReValveiT_01 got that NOAA chart # yet, little buddy? :D

New episode dropped : ruclips.net/video/5eNcQCAYUH8/видео.html Enjoy!

@@ReValveiT_01 ROFL 🍿🍿🍿

@@primonomeultimonome Mike just won't drop the stupid, so, another episode : ruclips.net/video/mLAXswQ93iE/видео.html

@@ReValveiT_01 I nailed him using tower height, focal height of light, and distance between that and the top of the tower. Guy is stuck on repeat asking for chart number that was already provided in a comment the other day. He has no answer for the fact that the focal height of the light and the top of the tower is much higher than his stated 4 ft claim. It's almost 16 ft. FHL is 137 ft above MHW makes the top of the tower 153 ft above MHW. So at low tide its nearly 10 ft difference meaning the land is nearly 30 ft above the waterline in the TC vid.

@@ReValveiT_01 Endless comedy gold! 🍿

lol nice copypasta from the other thread. Why don't you post a link to a screenshot of when I was ever demanding that you "must personally measure all of the distances across all of the oceans" or admit you're telling tall tales again, little buddy. :D

@@DrEMichaelJones Sounds like another great idea for a video. Thanks!

@@DrEMichaelJones Yes, I put the same thing in another thread because I knew it would make you cry. And look, I was right, it has made you cry.

@@DrEMichaelJones Measurements using my 9” George F. Cram Co. Classic Globe with a scale of 880 miles per 1 inch (standard 9” globe scale) *All verifiable using freely available flight data* : • London to New York measures 3.8”. 3.8 x 880 = *3344 miles* . • London to Mumbai measures 5.1”. 5.1 x 880 = *4488 miles* . • San Francisco to Auckland, NZ measures 7.45”. 7.45 x 880 = *6556 miles* . • Auckland, NZ to Santiago, Chile measures 6.9”. 6.9 x 880 = *6072 miles* . • New York to Singapore measures 10.9”. 10.9 x 880 = *9592 miles* .

@@DrEMichaelJones So you ACCEPT all of the above now? Yes or no, Mikey boy? Yes or no?