3001

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 11:55:34 PM »

Just to put a fine point on it, if I understand you correctly, you're saying the Sinking Ship Effect is the direct result of an inferior mirage whereby the object is mirrored beneath and then squashed down into a into a thin white line.

Are you abandoning SR’s “Laws of Perspective” Sinking Ship Effect explanation in ENAG?

3002

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 10:25:08 PM »

They are already describing that entire bottom area as "compressed." Why can't it be compressed to the point where all you see in a thin line?

As follows:

Why? B/c it's not.

3003

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 09:46:05 PM »

Take a look at this paper. The authors describe something much like what we are seeing, and the authors do not ascribe the hidden area to the curvature of the earth.

The authors describe how:

- When you increase your height you can see more of the object
- The bottom of the object is "compressed" (rather than hidden behind curvature)

The authors are describing the phenomena of inferior and superior mirages. The authors are not talking about earth curvature, they are talking about mirages. They are not even referring to a "hidden area". Curvature and 'hidden' height is not relevant to their paper.

Inferior mirages, as they state, show a mirroring effect. Superior mirages produce a stretched, distorted towering effect. Both mirage types are not evidenced in the the Turning Torso images or videos. There is no mirroring and no distorted towering effect.

3004

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 05:36:33 PM »

So, to summarize, your brand new ad hoc hypothesis is:

Whenever an object is obscured (sinking ship effect) due to what is commonly thought to be earths curvature, it is, in fact not. It is due to refraction. This is evidenced by the always present thin white line that appears at the horizon. When the thin white line is not present, yet an object is obscured, it is b/c the sky is orange.

It is what I said earlier. The line disappears later in the day:

What if it's late in the day, but the sky isn't orange?

3005

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 05:30:56 PM »

It appears that your ship is already white.

No white line:

Look at that orange sky.

From the full Skunkbay timelapse, when the sky is orange later in the day and the water is much lighter than the background, the light line disappears:



I would say that this observation is consistent with the effect.

So, to summarize, your brand new ad hoc hypothesis is:

Whenever an object is obscured (sinking ship effect) due to what is commonly thought to be earths curvature, it is, in fact not. It is due to refraction. This is evidenced by the always present thin white line that appears at the horizon. When the thin white line is not present, yet an object is obscured, it is b/c the sky is orange.

3006

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 04:43:00 AM »

Link to video:

But now I'm confused, I thought your "white line" theory was this:

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many high resolution Round Earth sinking phenomena photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

So in the image I presented, you stated:

We can see that a lot of refraction is occurring by looking at the straightness of the masts on the ship.

By your theory, with refraction present as you stated, there should be a white line. There isn't.

3007

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 04:17:57 AM »

It appears that your ship is already white.

No white line:

3008

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 04:12:52 AM »

If you want to die on the "White Line" hill, fine by me.

No white line:

3009

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 12:12:27 AM »

Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

In my estimation the light line should not actually be there in the "sunken" version of the Skunkbay images. The light line seems to be there on the horizon when the sinking effect occurs, except when it gets late and dark in the day.

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many Round Earth sinking ship photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

What if there are many that don't? What does that suggest?

A light line as an indication that the refractive sinking ship effect is occurring seems like a grasp, at best.

3010

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 11, 2018, 12:02:33 AM »

The light line is interesting. I notice that it appears in many of the "sunken" Round Earth images.

https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/6nrf5h/ship_well_below_the_horizon_zooming_in_didnt/

Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

3011

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 10, 2018, 11:51:49 PM »

Are we supposed to believe that the earth went from round to flat to round to flat?

No.

Are we to say that the curvature of the earth was blocking the bottom 35-50 feet of the houses but only sometimes?

No, at that distance curve height hidden would be about 5 feet.

I am of the opinion that what is blocking the view of 35-50 feet of buildings in the distance here is 100% optics 0% curve of earth.
If 35 feet can be obscured by optics traveling through what maybe 5 miles of atmosphere then couldn't 120 feet be obstructed traveling through 20 miles of atmosphere?

Agreed, in this case, 100% optics.

As to your second point, I suppose. But in the TT timelapse, the water line doesn't budge, there is no miraging, yet there is a persistent hidden amount of the tower of about 90+ feet. Which does fit RE curve calculations at that distance.

3012

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 10, 2018, 11:33:06 PM »

at 53 seconds entire houses are visible. These houses are a good 15-30 feet tall (depending on the house) by my estimation when looking at google street view. These houses are not at sea level. When I look at the altitude of Hansville it says 20 feet. So for 15-30 foot building to be completely obscured at 20 feet above sea level we are talking about obstructing 35-50 feet.

at 1:24 and again at 2:24 only the tips of the tallest houses are visible. 

I'm not questioning house height and such, but it appears the camera POV is located in Hansville, not looking at Hansville. This from the SkunkBayWaether.com site, orientation of cameras:

3013

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 10, 2018, 11:03:40 PM »

That light line on the horizon should not actually be there if you look at the revealed version.

Then, from the original Turning Torso video look at the border between water and the building(s):

At 0:50, for example:





Like the skunkbay effect, there is a distinct light line.

You just wrote this a minute ago:

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018, whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description.

Are you now saying the 2 year time difference between shots doesn't matter and some line line should be in both?

3014

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 10, 2018, 10:50:29 PM »

My notes from the above videos:

- That timelapse is only two hours long, whereas the skunkbay timelapse was taken over an entire day. 

Yes, but it's not the overall duration of the footage being captured. It's points within the footage. There are many points within the skunk bay videos where the visual changes occur within the time span of minutes, not hours.

- To test refraction the author did a 2 hour time-lapse from 13 miles away from "around sunset" when there would "often be changes" when, in fact it, was the higher temperatures of the midday affected refraction of the skunkbay timelapse.

Ok, I guess. Kind of a stretch.

- It was taken at 13 miles, whereas his other images of the "sunken tower" were taken further away.

I'm not necessarily directly comparing these videos to the original one we were examining, but these would be roughly reflective of example A in the original, distance wise.

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018, whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description.

Again, I'm not necessarily directly comparing these videos to the original one we were examining. Just another examination of the same subject.

- Author admits there there is "often" refraction:



Author's conclusion:


This conclusion is perplexing, considering that he is also simultaneously claiming "refraction" to get the sunken towers to the height he needs them to be at for this sunken tower images to work with the RET.

Actually, your assertion is incorrect. He states that often there is visible refraction/miraging. But at 3:20 he states that there is none in this timelapse.

3015

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 10, 2018, 08:29:26 PM »

If there was fog along the surface? Sure. Is there? I don't see any. No fog. No mist. What little haze that begins to show with increasing distance isn't opaque. It's still transparent and not obscuring increasing lower heights with each increase of viewing distance.

The time lapse was so eye opening because it really shows how, over a matter of minutes, the conditions for optics can change dramatically. I think if this was recreated using a tripod and time lapse over the course of an hour or two (or more) we could obtain some sort of optical variance range. It would be interesting to see how this specific tower would be affected in time lapse images. Also, for the sake of flat earth delta, we could use whatever part of the time lapse showed the most of the tower.

iamcpc, if you mean a time-lapse of the Turning Torso, Mathias kp, the creator of the first TT videos which started this baseline examination, has two. First is just the 2 hour time-lapse and the other is the in-depth examination of such:

3016

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race

« on: September 10, 2018, 04:56:24 PM »

it's difficult to see how interpretation can factor into it any more

Really? You don't think humans need to interpret images in order to understand them? This is revolutionary stuff - do elaborate!

Back in 2015, NASA posted 1000’s of Apollo mission photos on Flickr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/

And yes, humans certainly need to interpret images. Here are a few I picked out from the Apollo Flickr archive that are open to human interpretation and for those who believe that Apollo was real yet feel that all involved were mistaken in what they saw:

3017

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race

« on: September 09, 2018, 08:09:42 AM »

Don’t all FET roads lead directly back to the moon landing, i.e., human observed direct evidence that earth is a globe?

Absolutely not. There are plenty of FE'ers who fully accept the mainstream view on space travel. Others, like myself, remain cautiously undecided on the subject.

Cool, I have not come across any yet, I guess until now. How do they reconcile observational/visual evidence of a globe earth if they accept the moon landing as true? Or are these FE moon landing believers more of the number 3 types you describe below; the "All involved were mistaken" types?

You have one of two options to consider at that crossroad

I can think of a third, very popular option: What this handful of individuals has seen was the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the Earth. They were simply mistaken in their interpretation. A fourth option also exists - as a consequence of EAT, you'd *expect* to see a significantly curved Earth from sufficiently high up. I'm sure there are more possibilities that didn't immediately jump to mind.

3) Hadn't heard this one either. Especially considering that the contents within the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the earth would seemingly have been observed as different by different mission observers given a rotating globe.
4) Hadn't heard this one either. Interesting.

Forcing people to accept a dichotomy that you've made up yourself does not advance the discussion. Indeed, it boxes you in, forcing you to think about what must be the case in your head, rather than what actually occurs.

No one is forcing anything. And actually you are wrong, as evidenced by your response - My made up dichotomy utterly advanced the discussion in that you provided 3 more options not widely known to some becuase if it. I would consider that an advancement.

3018

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race

« on: September 09, 2018, 06:45:19 AM »

I am a round earther, and have always believed in a spherical (not totally smooth, obviously) earth, due to the overwhelming solid evidence given that can be replicated time and time again. After looking at each of  the topics, I felt this would be the best place for my question. In the over 70 years since the first picture of earth taken from space in 1946, how is it possible that multiple space programs and agencies (including the U.S. and Russian programs that would love to prove each other wrong) have all maintained the truth for this long, not to mention the dozens of non-government space programs, including the (in total) hundreds of thousands of people involved in the calculation, construction, launching, and even the people inside those spacecraft? I am open to questions.

Don’t all FET roads lead directly back to the moon landing, i.e., human observed direct evidence that earth is a globe? I mean, one could firmly believe all of the tenants of 'Earth Not a Globe' all the way up until 1969 where it all collapses. You have one of two options to consider at that crossroad:

1) Damnit! The earth is a globe
2) I’m not buying it, I know the earth is flat, this all must be fake

You choose #2. Everything is downstream from that one selection. Even if your belief system works backward from today, you suddenly find yourself slamming into the existential crisis that is created for FET by the Apollo missions.

In essence a moon landing denier can be an REr or an FEr.
But an FEr can never be a moon landing believer

So, one is an FE, the moon landing absolutely has to be fake, all supposed space endeavors prior to and henceforth from the moon landings has to be fake otherwise credence would be lent to the 1969 spherical earth “proof” relayed by NASA.

So once you’re there with that belief system, no amount of evidence of space travel, no matter how convincing or credible, can be allowed into your psyche, it’s just plain too damaging to all you hold dear.

TL;DR - “The (NASA) Conspiracy” is not for NASA/Space Agencies to make make money, oppress humans, masonic order/lumanati or whatever one's standard conspiracy motivation may be, "The Conspiracy” is that an FE’r can never accept space travel of any kind b/c it immediately and devastatingly blows up FET in it’s entirety.

3019

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)

« on: September 08, 2018, 06:15:56 PM »

Considering the data/evidence gathered I would say the Salton Sea Tower portion of J Tolan’s video is decidedly debunked. There is no tower that meets his 130’ description nor one that remotely corroborates his claims at 7 miles distance. The only tower referenced by him (visually) is 199’ tall and 335’ above the Salton Sea level, not 130’ as claimed. Zero evidence of a flat earth and actually it fits perfectly into the RE model, no refraction required. Case closed.

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.

As for the Turning Torso baseline discussion, is there any ability to move forward?

3020

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites

« on: September 08, 2018, 04:36:54 AM »

And that's where I thought SHARP was a plausible explanation.  It could theoretically fly at very high altitudes.  I'd have to ask one of the engineers what altitude he expected it to be capable of flying.  Looked it up.  ~70,000ft.  It has no need to land because the craft would be able to indefinitely convert microwaves to dc power.  It wouldn't depend on sunlight, and I would imagine depending on the frequency used the power transmission wouldn't be affected by clouds or bad weather.

From what I was just reading, the tests in the 80's required an 80m diameter array to beam up the power. Seemingly, you would need a globe littered with arrays to manage the number of satellites today. Subsequent to the early SHARP tests, solar tech go a lot better thereby dispensing with the need for the microwave power.  Fast forward to Google's recent attempts to build solar drones for internet relays, an effort they abandoned in 2016.

All in all, kind of seems easier to just launch a satellite.