*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #80 on: September 01, 2018, 09:31:44 AM »
As far as we know, JTolan just picked out a picture of one of those towers because a lot of those towers don't even have street view images. I checked. Street view is absent in the areas around many of those towers.

JTolan clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet. The tower you selected was not 130 feet. It was 200 feet. And there are no matching mountains or hills in the background. He clearly got that number of 130 feet from somewhere for the tower he is talking about.

Ok, fair enough. He picked a random street view picture of a tower on the Salton Sea that resembles a different tower on the Salton Sea that he actually shot just to show what towers look like. Check. Then he "clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet" on top of the image of a random tower on the Salton Sea that is not the tower he was shooting...as an example of what 130 feet looks like. Check.

Curious note that he wrote 130 feet as the height of the tower and the RE curvature calculator puts that exact tower & land I referenced, 17 miles away, at 130 feet hidden.

Btw, I looked at all of the towers around the Salton Sea. The shortest one was 187', with exception of one that was 124'. This one:


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #81 on: September 01, 2018, 02:33:12 PM »
As far as we know, JTolan just picked out a picture of one of those towers because a lot of those towers don't even have street view images. I checked. Street view is absent in the areas around many of those towers.

JTolan clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet. The tower you selected was not 130 feet. It was 200 feet. And there are no matching mountains or hills in the background. He clearly got that number of 130 feet from somewhere for the tower he is talking about.

Right. I can't reconcile it. That's without a doubt the tower whose image he inserted on the upper right hand corner of his slide and annotated with the 130' value. At this point, only JT can explain how he derived that figure or why he chose that tower to display if it's not the right one. But the standalone slide suggests that that's the tower he sighted in camera lens from 17 miles away. Is it not what you believed when you counter-challenged with that example?

Perhaps he was mistaken, either about the tower or its height.

As for trying to find a point of perspective that gets the background hills to align and fit the profile seen in the image, I don't know if Google Earth is sufficient for that with low relief elevations. The vertical terrain visualization Google Earth presents is synthetic and, from my experience anyway, is far from perfect. It tries to render elevation from data, which is pretty amazing in itself and maybe better than anything else available, but just not the same as seeing the actual view. The long focal length of the telephoto creates dramatic foreshortening, making it even more difficult to recognize against a synthetic view. I've panned throughout that westerly view from that tower trying to find a background profile match. I've found a couple perspectives that I think MIGHT be a match, but I'm far from confident enough to even speculate at this point.

Which is all we're doing right now. To constructively assess that slide, we really need for JT to provide some additional detail.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #82 on: September 01, 2018, 05:11:51 PM »
As far as we know, JTolan just picked out a picture of one of those towers because a lot of those towers don't even have street view images. I checked. Street view is absent in the areas around many of those towers.

JTolan clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet. The tower you selected was not 130 feet. It was 200 feet. And there are no matching mountains or hills in the background. He clearly got that number of 130 feet from somewhere for the tower he is talking about.

Right. I can't reconcile it. That's without a doubt the tower whose image he inserted on the upper right hand corner of his slide and annotated with the 130' value. At this point, only JT can explain how he derived that figure or why he chose that tower to display if it's not the right one. But the standalone slide suggests that that's the tower he sighted in camera lens from 17 miles away. Is it not what you believed when you counter-challenged with that example?

Perhaps he was mistaken, either about the tower or its height.

As for trying to find a point of perspective that gets the background hills to align and fit the profile seen in the image, I don't know if Google Earth is sufficient for that with low relief elevations. The vertical terrain visualization Google Earth presents is synthetic and, from my experience anyway, is far from perfect. It tries to render elevation from data, which is pretty amazing in itself and maybe better than anything else available, but just not the same as seeing the actual view. The long focal length of the telephoto creates dramatic foreshortening, making it even more difficult to recognize against a synthetic view. I've panned throughout that westerly view from that tower trying to find a background profile match. I've found a couple perspectives that I think MIGHT be a match, but I'm far from confident enough to even speculate at this point.

Which is all we're doing right now. To constructively assess that slide, we really need for JT to provide some additional detail.

What was the altitude of the tower and the altitude of camera? for all we know it was looking downhill.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #83 on: September 02, 2018, 09:21:44 PM »
And no one is screaming "I win". Simply do the math and show the numbers that explain FE deltas for this challenge.

Like I said in the third post of this thread: "Rowbotham generally recommends that the experiment is conducted on calm days, on the most calm body of water that can be found. I would say that the amount hidden has more to do with that than than 'this is how much is hidden at this distance.'"

We have no idea what the weather conditions was like on that day at those times. There is no way to quantify this based on Rowbotham's identification of weather as the correlating criteria without knowing more about the scene.

You may as well ask me to predict when the next time it will rain and say that I should be able to predict it based on a few pictures of the sky that you took.

Compare the array of Turning Torso images and the steady "sinking" as distance increases beyond the alleged curve with these images of a lighthouse from a distance before the alleged curved earth:



Do any of these look "cut off" in a way that would explain "sinking ship" phenomenon? Look at the upper right image? Is that an example of how refraction can produce a "sinking ship" effect?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #84 on: September 03, 2018, 05:02:59 AM »
I left a comment on the JTolen Media video asking for more data on the Salton Sea shot. No response yet. So being a lazy Sunday, I reviewed all of the Cell towers around the Salton Sea. Here’s what I found:


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #85 on: September 03, 2018, 05:43:26 AM »
Phew!  That's quite a bit of work.

I had asked the question too. Hoping he gets back to us. I'm very curious now.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #86 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?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #87 on: September 08, 2018, 07:38:49 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.

Have you shown that the tower pictured is the same one from the Google Street View?

According to Bobby and myself the mountains in the background do not line up.

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

I don't believe so. This was picked out in support of a Round Earth model, despite, as we have read in this thread, refraction is still needed to get it to the height it needs to be.

There is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect comes and goes over time.

Here are high resolution versions of the Skunk Bay scenes. The distant island is at times visible and invisible.

Skunk Bay Timelapses

9/7/12 - On this day there was a mixture of sunken and visible effects

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og

9/6/12 - On this day the peninsula was sunken throughout most of the day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3mzJGTjrI

9/1/12 - On this day the peninsula was visible throughout most of the day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTMIMDyp-OQ

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.

You guys scream and shout "refraction did it!" all the time. There is your refraction. The sinking effect comes and goes.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2018, 08:17:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #88 on: September 08, 2018, 07:58:40 PM »
I could find no "sinking ship" in the Skunk Bay video. A lot of squashing, stretching, rising, lowering, mirage-ing, distorting.

But no cutting off of the bottom of objects and leaving the tops visible.

Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough due to confirmation bias. Feel free to find a sequence of "sinking" objects to show us.

The Turning Torso is not sinking due to changing atmospheric conditions. It sank as the photographer changed locations. And it sank without the portion that's lost to sight becoming squashed down into some boundary layer of distortion. There's nothing like that in the Skunk Bay video.

Refraction is more than distorting phenomenon like looming, mirage, Fata Morgana, etc.  The air can be completely stable and the density gradient completely non-anomalous, and refraction over a sphere will still be manifest.

I thought for sure the sectional features of the Turning Torso would help distinguish curvature as the reason for the hidden portion of the tower and dispel the mixed explanations of "perspective, waves + convergence zone" in flat earth rationale. But obviously not. You see Skunk Bay and believe that that same set of phenomena is at work in the Turning Torso scenario. It's not, but how to get you to accept it.

If you can show me how a static object sinks from view or seems to rise into view as atmospheric conditions change, with the viewer not changing distance or elevation, then I'll buy it. I've tried to find one. Lighthouses. Anchored ships. Mountain ranges. Smokestacks. Forest tree lines. City sky lines. I can find time lapses of them getting squashed and stretched or distorted with mirage. But no "sinking ship" effect.

Find that for me. (Just find a segment in the Skunk Bay video, tell me the time frame and I'll do the rest, producing the video or animated GIF.)

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #89 on: September 08, 2018, 08:15:54 PM »
Have you shown that the tower pictured is the same one from the Google Street View?
According to Bobby and myself the mountains in the background do not line up.
You are right, Tom. I can't affirm that the tower JT showed in the street view insert is the same one he IR-photographed across the Salton Sea. If there's a mismatch, it's his mismatch. We just found which cell toward his Google street view image identified. Only JT can tell us if it's the right one.

I think it is, but like you said, I can't find a spot 17 miles away on the far shore where the background hills seem to line up.

Realize, trying to match a synthetic, non-telescopic landscape against a zoomed-in IR image is tough anyway, so failing to find a match doesn't rule out that we have the right cell tower. Again, we've asked JT for additional info. So far, he's not responded. Unless you have a better set of candidate tower/shooting location, I am of the same opinion as Stack.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #90 on: September 10, 2018, 06:01:33 PM »


The Turning Torso is not sinking due to changing atmospheric conditions.



How do you know? From my perspective changing atmospheric conditions are definitely playing a role in the observations that you have made. Why is it that you think they are not? What is the logic behind the claim that observations made through the atmosphere are not affected by the atmosphere?

It's like being in a dense cloud of fog and claiming that the limited visibility observations are not because of the fog.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 06:04:17 PM by iamcpc »

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #91 on: September 10, 2018, 06:34:39 PM »


The Turning Torso is not sinking due to changing atmospheric conditions.



How do you know? From my perspective changing atmospheric conditions are definitely playing a role in the observations that you have made. Why is it that you think they are not? What is the logic behind the claim that observations made through the atmosphere are not affected by the atmosphere?

It's like being in a dense cloud of fog and claiming that the limited visibility observations are not because of the fog.
Bobby laid out the effects of the atmosphere upon the images, and showed them in some other images as well. In the the Torso images they are relatively minor, and even in ones heavily affected by atmospheric distortion of the type similar to what was occurring with the turning torso, the buildings did not vanish like the tower does. They squished, they stretched, but they didn't vanish.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #92 on: September 10, 2018, 07:05:23 PM »
The Turning Torso is not sinking due to changing atmospheric conditions.
How do you know?
1. By evaluating the rest of the picture and what the rest of the tower that remains in view looks like.
2. By evaluating changes in observation distance and elevation that much more consistently correlates to heights hidden by spherical earth curve than flat earth atmospheric conditions.

From my perspective changing atmospheric conditions are definitely playing a role in the observations that you have made. Why is it that you think they are not? What is the logic behind the claim that observations made through the atmosphere are not affected by the atmosphere?
That's not what I said.  The atmosphere can definitely affect the observation; just not in the way that is evident here.

We can see distortions in the lower several feet (maybe up to 50') of what remains visible that is obviously atmospheric in nature. There's a squashing effect making the lower floors look thinner than the higher floors. That's caused by light bending downward more extremely at shallower angles than something closer to standard atmosphere refraction at the higher angle/elevation. There's no miraging though. No boundary layer obscuring the interface between ground level/sea level and the tower. There's no place for hundreds of feet of tower to get squashed into if that was what was happening.

Don't mistake what I'm saying. Atmosphere does influence the observation. It's just not making the tower appear to sink.
It's like being in a dense cloud of fog and claiming that the limited visibility observations are not because of the fog.
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.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 07:07:53 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #93 on: September 10, 2018, 07:16:51 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.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #94 on: September 10, 2018, 07:50:39 PM »
By time lapse, I assume you mean the Skunk Bay video?

I asked Tom for this, but can you find me a section of that time lapse demonstrating how the sinking ship effect can be caused by any of those atmospheric phenomena evident in that video? Just give me 1 or more time marks where I can see something like what's happening in the images of the Turning Torso tower?

« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 08:14:50 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #95 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:






*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #96 on: September 10, 2018, 10:22:57 PM »
My notes from the above videos:

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

- 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.

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

- 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.

- 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.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 10:54:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #97 on: September 10, 2018, 10:35:01 PM »
Refraction isn't just mirages and distortions. Without any mirage, looming, stooping or other distorting impacts, there is still refraction -- at least on a globe with an atmosphere. Maybe not on a flat earth with an atmoplane. But light propagation in a non-homogeneous atmosphere, there is always a refracting component when light, following a straight path, encounters more rarefied air because the earth is sloping away. The refraction that allows seeing "beyond the curve" is non-distorting standard refraction. It exists because the atmosphere is an atmoSPHERE.

The Skunk Bay time lapse is illustrating refracting phenomenon that is due to deviations from a standard atmosphere.

But it's all refraction. Refraction doesn't cease to exist or stop having an influence just because the air is stable and you aren't ceasing distortion.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #98 on: September 10, 2018, 10:41:17 PM »
By time lapse, I assume you mean the Skunk Bay video?

I asked Tom for this, but can you find me a section of that time lapse demonstrating how the sinking ship effect can be caused by any of those atmospheric phenomena evident in that video? Just give me 1 or more time marks where I can see something like what's happening in the images of the Turning Torso tower?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og

Consider what the waterline of the Skunkbay horizon looks like when the sinking ship effect is occurring:

At 3:42, for example:





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

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. There may also be some squishing near the surface, but it is hard to tell. We can definitely see the light line, however.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 11:08:29 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #99 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.