The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Alchemist21 on January 15, 2014, 05:32:30 PM
-
Show me your proof, and I will argue for the sake of arguing.
-
Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.
What a lazy OP.
-
Show me your proof, and I will argue for the sake of arguing.
Look out a window. I recommend doing this while on an airplane for the best results, but even a rather tall building will work. The Earth will appear, minus a few negligible bumps and whatnot, to be flat. Hence, we should assume it is flat until we can find evidence otherwise. So this is the point where we turn the question back to you: Can you provide proof of a round earth?
-
Looking out a window has been shown many times to be an insufficient method of determining the roundness or flatness of the Earth on the two most prevalent competing models.
-
There is ample evidence of a flat earth. Use your eyes.
The lack of evidence, in my experience, is on the spherical earth side. "The eye can't perceive the curvature because it's too gradual" sounds good and all, but isn't it easier to simply call it what it is? Flat.
Every locally observable piece of 'evidence' for a spherical earth could just as easily apply to a flat one. I simply prefer to call things as I see them.
-
There is ample evidence of a flat earth. Use your eyes.
The lack of evidence, in my experience, is on the spherical earth side. "The eye can't perceive the curvature because it's too gradual" sounds good and all, but isn't it easier to simply call it what it is? Flat.
Every locally observable piece of 'evidence' for a spherical earth could just as easily apply to a flat one. I simply prefer to call things as I see them.
Your eyes are incapable of perceiving the curvature predicted by the RE model. End of story. It does not falsify a RE.
-
There is ample evidence of a flat earth. Use your eyes.
The lack of evidence, in my experience, is on the spherical earth side. "The eye can't perceive the curvature because it's too gradual" sounds good and all, but isn't it easier to simply call it what it is? Flat.
Every locally observable piece of 'evidence' for a spherical earth could just as easily apply to a flat one. I simply prefer to call things as I see them.
What about the "globular" or "planar" pieces of evidence? Which model do those support?
-
Looking out a window has been shown many times to be an insufficient method of determining the roundness or flatness of the Earth on the two most prevalent competing models.
I'm hardly claiming it to be the end-all and be-all of proof for the shape of the earth. However, if observation leads us to one conclusion, and there is a model refuting that conclusion, we would need evidence in support of that model.
-
Looking out a window is not proof. If I assumed everything about the earth by looking out my window, I would have to assume there are no deserts, or volcanoes, or glaciers, or kangaroos.
-
Looking out a window is not proof. If I assumed everything about the earth by looking out my window, I would have to assume there are no deserts, or volcanoes, or glaciers, or kangaroos.
You will never come to the conclusion that earth is round by looking out of your window. It will appear flat from any window in any part of the world. Please stop taking the conversation off topic with talk of kangaroos and volcanoes.
-
Looking out a window is not proof. If I assumed everything about the earth by looking out my window, I would have to assume there are no deserts, or volcanoes, or glaciers, or kangaroos.
You will never come to the conclusion that earth is round by looking out of your window. It will appear flat from any window in any part of the world. Please stop taking the conversation off topic with talk of kangaroos and volcanoes.
Its a perfectly valid criticism of the vaunted, yet flawed "look out your window" school of thought. If I look out my window it is quite hilly; how am I to infer flatness from that? How am I to falsify an oblate spheroid with an approximate diameter of 12,700kms? "Looking out your window" is not a proof that the Earth is flat.
-
Looking out a window is not proof. If I assumed everything about the earth by looking out my window, I would have to assume there are no deserts, or volcanoes, or glaciers, or kangaroos.
Yes, but you did not believe in kangaroos until you saw picture/video evidence of one as a child. You did not automatically believe in kangaroos before seeing evidence of one.
-
I have seen picture/video evidence of a round earth. If pics/vids of kangaroos is enough to believe in kangaroos, it's enough to believe in a round earth.
-
I have seen picture/video evidence of a round earth. If pics/vids of kangaroos is enough to believe in kangaroos, it's enough to believe in a round earth.
So then, you believe in a round earth only because an organization founded by Nazi war criminals showed you an image of one. I see.
-
That's not my only reason, but the point of that was to argue against the validity of dismissing photo evidence. If you can simply photo evidence of a round earth, I can dismiss photo evidence of a kangaroo.
-
That's not my only reason, but the point of that was to argue against the validity of dismissing photo evidence. If you can simply photo evidence of a round earth, I can dismiss photo evidence of a kangaroo.
The photographic evidence of the Kangaroo creature would be discredited if the originator was a criminal, and photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent. That would leave you back to where you started: Kangaroos do not exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxFWF8NPOio
-
NASA was not started by rocket scientists, it employed rocket scientists; NASA was started by President Eisenhower. The preceding agency predates the Nazi movement. This claim
Is specious and misleading. Many of the rocket scientists working for NASA were nazis yes, but in what sense were they war criminals? Were they convicted as such? For what war crimes? Please cite evidence. Not every Nazi is a war criminal, and developing rockets is not a war crime.
Even if they were war criminals, why would that mean photos of the Earth are faked? This is the genetic fallacy in action.
On faked photos: NASA is very clear when photos are composites, but that does not help your case since a composite of a dozen photos of a round Earth means there are 12 photos that need to be falsified. Perhaps we can cut to the chase? Can you show that every photo of a round Earth is a fake? Only one photo if a round Earth is needed to falsify a flat Earth.
EDIT: Is there a source for the computer enhanced photos in the video you posted? I would like to look in to that.
-
That's not my only reason, but the point of that was to argue against the validity of dismissing photo evidence. If you can simply photo evidence of a round earth, I can dismiss photo evidence of a kangaroo.
The photographic evidence of the Kangaroo creature would be discredited if the originator was a criminal, and photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent. That would leave you back to where you started: Kangaroos do not exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxFWF8NPOio
Let's start from scratch.
Please take the original picture AS11_44_6642 (LEM, moon and earth) and give us the step by step procedure used to reveal the fraud.
Photoshop should be a good tool for that.
-
That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.
-
NASA was not started by rocket scientists, it employed rocket scientists; NASA was started by President Eisenhower. The preceding agency predates the Nazi movement. This claim Is specious and misleading.
One of Hitler's top ranking SS officers was made director of NASA, and oversaw the entire Saturn and Apollo programs. Other Nazis also held high ranking positions in NASA.
They were made managers of NASA, not merely 'rocket scientists'.
Many of the rocket scientists working for NASA were nazis yes, but in what sense were they war criminals? Were they convicted as such? For what war crimes? Please cite evidence. Not every Nazi is a war criminal, and developing rockets is not a war crime.
Slave labor and mistreatment of prisoners are absolutely war crimes.
Even if they were war criminals, why would that mean photos of the Earth are faked? This is the genetic fallacy in action.
I don't see how it is a fallacy that an organization is discredited because it is operated by criminals.
-
That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html
-
NASA was not started by rocket scientists, it employed rocket scientists; NASA was started by President Eisenhower. The preceding agency predates the Nazi movement. This claim Is specious and misleading.
One of Hitler's top ranking SS officers was made director of NASA, and oversaw the entire Saturn and Apollo programs.
Are you talking about Wernher Von Braun? If you are, he claimed to be an honorary member of the SS and there is no substantial link between him and nazi war crimes other than that he witnessed them, was appalled by them, and was afraid to speak out about it. He was also arrested by the SS near the end of WWII. This is definitely murky ground, as many of the actions by both sides occupy, but he is not definitively a war criminal since he was not responsible for the slave labor used in the V-2 program.
He was never the chief administrator of NASA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
Other Nazis also held high ranking positions in NASA.
They were made managers of NASA, not merely 'rocket scientists'.
Many nazis were not war criminals as well. You need to establish which were war criminals.
Many of the rocket scientists working for NASA were nazis yes, but in what sense were they war criminals? Were they convicted as such? For what war crimes? Please cite evidence. Not every Nazi is a war criminal, and developing rockets is not a war crime.
Slave labor and mistreatment of prisoners are absolutely war crimes.
Not all nazis used, supported or ordered slave labor and/or mistreated prisoners. You are painting every German in the employ of the Third Reich with the same brush. This would be a big mistake.
Even if they were war criminals, why would that mean photos of the Earth are faked? This is the genetic fallacy in action.
I don't see how it is a fallacy that an organization is discredited because it is operated by criminals.
You are assuming that their past actions necessarily influenced their future endeavors, that because they were employed by the Nazi regime, that this makes their scientific and engineering work a fraud; this is what the genetic fallacy is. I might accept that if the scientists in question you were guilty of fraud as it relates to their scientific work, but I can find nothing to indicate that they were dishonest scientists, merely that they were on the losing side of WWII. Last I checked this does not make them war criminals or untrustworthy.
-
Oh hey look, blocking artifacts that can be reproduced in pretty much every digital image ever. He doesn't specify what image he used. He doesn't specify what he did to the image. What a joke. But it's in a Youtube video, so Tom believes it.
http://www.iti.gr/files/csvt_10-2002.pdf
THE BLOCK-based discrete cosine transform (B-DCT) scheme is a fundamental component of many image and video compression standards including JPEG, H.263, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and others, used in a wide range of applications. The B-DCT scheme takes
advantage of the local spatial correlation property of the images by dividing the image into 8 x 8 blocks of pixels, transforming each block from the spatial domain to the frequency domain using the discrete cosine transform (DCT) and quantizing the DCT coefficients. Since blocks of pixels are treated as single entities and coded separately, correlation among spatially adjacent blocks is not taken into account in coding, which results in block boundaries being visible when the decoded image is reconstructed.
I don't get any of the technical stuff, but I gather that JPEG images are composed of lots of blocks, and the edges of those blocks can be rendered visible.
You'd be amazed what you can learn with a modicum of skepticism and an genuine desire to learn new things.
e: Here is a demonstration of these artifacts that anyone can reproduce:
Step 1: Open MS Paint and open a new file. It doesn't really matter about the dimensions. To make this something like the Apollo images, fill the background with black and then use the circle tool to make a white circle in the middle of the image, like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/sHI9zyh.png)
Step 2: Save this file as a JPEG.
Step 3: Use the fill tool to fill in the black space with different colors and look at what happens. You'll see something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/EziGkgA.jpg)
-
You'd be amazed what you can learn with a modicum of skepticism and an genuine desire to learn new things.
Indeed. Such as the earth's flatness.
-
The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjdl9USIPUQ
-
Let's start from scratch.
Please take the original picture AS11_44_6642 (LEM, moon and earth) and give us the step by step procedure used to reveal the fraud.
Photoshop should be a good tool for that.
Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative. The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.
-
The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjdl9USIPUQ
What is that some sort of music video?
-
That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.
Tom Bishop claimed
photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent
I'm asking for the demonstration process. The forensic photo analysis expertise of Tom Bishop doesn't matter here, the original claimer should have some, and should show how he applies it to the image processing. Unfortunately, auris.com does not meet these criteria.
Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative. The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.
Indeed, that's part of the demonstration process. As far as I know, there is no information about the source pictures used.
-
Are you talking about Wernher Von Braun? If you are, he claimed to be an honorary member of the SS and there is no substantial link between him and nazi war crimes other than that he witnessed them, was appalled by them, and was afraid to speak out about it.
Von Braun doesn't seem too appalled here (http://books.google.com/books?id=yjiPpJOwYXoC&lpg=PT198&ots=piqpNpe2Hn&dq=%22We%20were%20therefore%20often%20called%20upon%20to%20go%20into%20the%20tunnel%22&pg=PT196#v=onepage&q=Guy%20Morand&f=false) by the atrocities of the concentration camps to me.
Many of the rocket scientists working for NASA were nazis yes, but in what sense were they war criminals? Were they convicted as such? For what war crimes? Please cite evidence. Not every Nazi is a war criminal, and developing rockets is not a war crime.
No one forced them to join the Nazi party, join the SS, or work for Hitler as ranking members in his concentration camps. There were plenty of Germans who chose not to join the Nazi party.
You are assuming that their past actions necessarily influenced their future endeavors, that because they were employed by the Nazi regime, that this makes their scientific and engineering work a fraud; this is what the genetic fallacy is. I might accept that if the scientists in question you were guilty of fraud as it relates to their scientific work, but I can find nothing to indicate that they were dishonest scientists, merely that they were on the losing side of WWII. Last I checked this does not make them war criminals or untrustworthy.
Von Braun and his team of scientists are guilty of fraud in their past careers. Here they are tricking Hitler with a fake video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeUduMch8Js&t=30m20s)
-
That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.
Tom Bishop claimed
photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent
I'm asking for the demonstration process. The forensic photo analysis expertise of Tom Bishop doesn't matter here, the original claimer should have some, and should show how he applies it to the image processing. Unfortunately, auris.com does not meet these criteria.
Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative. The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.
Indeed, that's part of the demonstration process. As far as I know, there is no information about the source pictures used.
Here's a demonstration of one the the scenes in the video I made several ago on the old forum:
http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e
-
Oh hey look, blocking artifacts that can be reproduced in pretty much every digital image ever. He doesn't specify what image he used. He doesn't specify what he did to the image. What a joke. But it's in a Youtube video, so Tom believes it.
http://www.iti.gr/files/csvt_10-2002.pdf
THE BLOCK-based discrete cosine transform (B-DCT) scheme is a fundamental component of many image and video compression standards including JPEG, H.263, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and others, used in a wide range of applications. The B-DCT scheme takes
advantage of the local spatial correlation property of the images by dividing the image into 8 x 8 blocks of pixels, transforming each block from the spatial domain to the frequency domain using the discrete cosine transform (DCT) and quantizing the DCT coefficients. Since blocks of pixels are treated as single entities and coded separately, correlation among spatially adjacent blocks is not taken into account in coding, which results in block boundaries being visible when the decoded image is reconstructed.
I don't get any of the technical stuff, but I gather that JPEG images are composed of lots of blocks, and the edges of those blocks can be rendered visible.
You'd be amazed what you can learn with a modicum of skepticism and an genuine desire to learn new things.
e: Here is a demonstration of these artifacts that anyone can reproduce:
Step 1: Open MS Paint and open a new file. It doesn't really matter about the dimensions. To make this something like the Apollo images, fill the background with black and then use the circle tool to make a white circle in the middle of the image, like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/sHI9zyh.png)
Step 2: Save this file as a JPEG.
Step 3: Use the fill tool to fill in the black space with different colors and look at what happens. You'll see something like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/EziGkgA.jpg)
JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS11/37/5442.jpg)
(http://i47.tinypic.com/34ycjyg.jpg)
(http://i45.tinypic.com/34o7gpw.jpg)
(http://i45.tinypic.com/xp600j.jpg)
To reproduce, do the following in photoshop:
add sharpness
add light to shadows
the earths imaged during A11 appear tampered with.
-
The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjdl9USIPUQ
What is that some sort of music video?
I don't know what the music is. The video is 1929 science fiction movie from the silent movie era. This movie almost looks like a NASA launch.
-
JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.
Correct, no one mentioned anything about "ringing". However, pixel block artifacts are a different story and are quite evident in your examples. Again, you must start with an uncompressed original to prove any type of valid point about editing since the JPEG compression process itself is a lossey and is well known to lose image information, especially at high compression ratios.
-
The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjdl9USIPUQ
What is that some sort of music video?
I don't know what the music is. The video is 1929 science fiction movie from the silent movie era. This movie almost looks like a NASA launch.
Amazing how life imitates art sometimes, isn't it?
-
Tom Bishop is a lunatic.
-
Are you talking about Wernher Von Braun? If you are, he claimed to be an honorary member of the SS and there is no substantial link between him and nazi war crimes other than that he witnessed them, was appalled by them, and was afraid to speak out about it.
Von Braun doesn't seem too appalled here (http://books.google.com/books?id=yjiPpJOwYXoC&lpg=PT198&ots=piqpNpe2Hn&dq=%22We%20were%20therefore%20often%20called%20upon%20to%20go%20into%20the%20tunnel%22&pg=PT196#v=onepage&q=Guy%20Morand&f=false) by the atrocities of the concentration camps to me.
You are cherry picking a quote, you have to do better. You also have not shown that he is responsible for any war crimes.
Many of the rocket scientists working for NASA were nazis yes, but in what sense were they war criminals? Were they convicted as such? For what war crimes? Please cite evidence. Not every Nazi is a war criminal, and developing rockets is not a war crime.
No one forced them to join the Nazi party, join the SS, or work for Hitler as ranking members in his concentration camps. There were plenty of Germans who chose not to join the Nazi party.
Being a member of the Nazi Party does not make you a war criminal. Who was part of the SS? Who were ranking members in concentration camps? What were there ranks? What was their role at NASA and for how long?
You are assuming that their past actions necessarily influenced their future endeavors, that because they were employed by the Nazi regime, that this makes their scientific and engineering work a fraud; this is what the genetic fallacy is. I might accept that if the scientists in question you were guilty of fraud as it relates to their scientific work, but I can find nothing to indicate that they were dishonest scientists, merely that they were on the losing side of WWII. Last I checked this does not make them war criminals or untrustworthy.
Von Braun and his team of scientists are guilty of fraud in their past careers. Here they are tricking Hitler with a fake video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeUduMch8Js&t=30m20s)
I don't have the time right now to watch the entire video. Can you please point me to an appropriate place to start?
-
The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjdl9USIPUQ
What is that some sort of music video?
I don't know what the music is. The video is 1929 science fiction movie from the silent movie era. This movie almost looks like a NASA launch.
Oh so completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
-
Are you talking about Wernher Von Braun? If you are, he claimed to be an honorary member of the SS and there is no substantial link between him and nazi war crimes other than that he witnessed them, was appalled by them, and was afraid to speak out about it.
Von Braun doesn't seem too appalled here (http://books.google.com/books?id=yjiPpJOwYXoC&lpg=PT198&ots=piqpNpe2Hn&dq=%22We%20were%20therefore%20often%20called%20upon%20to%20go%20into%20the%20tunnel%22&pg=PT196#v=onepage&q=Guy%20Morand&f=false) by the atrocities of the concentration camps to me.
Using your own logic, you cannot take the word of the person giving the account. This is because he admitted to sabotaging. Therefore the person giving the account is lying in order to portray the Nazis in bad light and sabotage their movement.
It was probably a stupid form of sabotage (because we in fact carried out much more elaborate forms of sabotage) by one of the deportees on night shift.
The man giving the account was an admitted saboteur. Therefore anything he says cannot be trusted.
-
JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.
Just once I'd love to see you actually provide a warrant for any of the claims you make. Once.
Can you provide ANY SOURCE AT ALL that can confirm this statement? Because it looks to me like you took a reduced version of a jpg of a scan of a photo taken in 1969 and found a bunch of artifacts.
Oh hey look at all the people posting fake photos of the Moon on Google images. I can't believe that so many people would forge their own photos of the Moon in the sky. It's unbelievable. Don't worry about getting bogged down in what I did to these photos or if it's a legitimate way to spot a fake photo. Just take my word for it.
(http://i.imgur.com/nJfR3mu.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/UYGBzlZ.png)
-
JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.
Just once I'd love to see you actually provide a warrant for any of the claims you make. Once.
Can you provide ANY SOURCE AT ALL that can confirm this statement? Because it looks to me like you took a reduced version of a jpg of a scan of a photo taken in 1969 and found a bunch of artifacts.
Oh hey look at all the people posting fake photos of the Moon on Google images. I can't believe that so many people would forge their own photos of the Moon in the sky. It's unbelievable. Don't worry about getting bogged down in what I did to these photos or if it's a legitimate way to spot a fake photo. Just take my word for it.
Your photos show artifacting near the moon's edges, which are to be expected in jpeg compression. Tom Bishop's example clearly shows a complete rectangle containing the entire image of the earth, where the artifacting is notably different from that in the surrounding areas. The artifacts are not located only near the edges of the earth-disc, they're expanded to a rectangle around it, as if someone 'clipped' that image and pasted it onto the other one. This does occur in image editing.
-
JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.
Just once I'd love to see you actually provide a warrant for any of the claims you make. Once.
Can you provide ANY SOURCE AT ALL that can confirm this statement? Because it looks to me like you took a reduced version of a jpg of a scan of a photo taken in 1969 and found a bunch of artifacts.
Oh hey look at all the people posting fake photos of the Moon on Google images. I can't believe that so many people would forge their own photos of the Moon in the sky. It's unbelievable. Don't worry about getting bogged down in what I did to these photos or if it's a legitimate way to spot a fake photo. Just take my word for it.
Your photos show artifacting near the moon's edges, which are to be expected in jpeg compression. Tom Bishop's example clearly shows a complete rectangle containing the entire image of the earth, where the artifacting is notably different from that in the surrounding areas. The artifacts are not located only near the edges of the earth-disc, they're expanded to a rectangle around it, as if someone 'clipped' that image and pasted it onto the other one. This does occur in image editing.
How do you know that those things are true? How do you know that the artifacts are different? How do you know that this occurs in manipulated images and not in genuine photos? Do you yourself have any digital imaging expertise that you can bring to bear on the subject? Can you explain the process from start to finish? What causes the difference in the artifacts? Is there some other expert that could explain the difference?
The images I provided aren't reduced and compressed copies of scans of a photo snapped in 1969. There are bound to be differences.
-
That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.
Tom Bishop claimed
photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent
I'm asking for the demonstration process. The forensic photo analysis expertise of Tom Bishop doesn't matter here, the original claimer should have some, and should show how he applies it to the image processing. Unfortunately, auris.com does not meet these criteria.
Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative. The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.
Indeed, that's part of the demonstration process. As far as I know, there is no information about the source pictures used.
Here's a demonstration of one the the scenes in the video I made several ago on the old forum:
http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e
Fine, thank you for the link.
Please try the same demonstration with the following image:
http://www.photos-public-domain.com/2011/11/19/bright-sun/ (http://www.photos-public-domain.com/2011/11/19/bright-sun/)
from
(http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/909826whitesun.jpg)
to
(http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/321289blacksun.jpg)
Hexagonal sun...
You can obtain a lot of weird images when applying this kind of massive effects. As an addition, you didn't use the original uncompressed TIFF images.
Please start with them, before claiming some anomalies.
-
To reproduce, do the following in photoshop:
add sharpness
add light to shadows
the earths imaged during A11 appear tampered with.
Also, why do you get to sharpen the image? I dunno much about digital imaging, but I gather that sharpening parts of an image increases contrast between different pixels, and it exaggerates artifacts in images.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/unsharp-mask.htm
Note how it does not transform the edges of the letter into an ideal "step," but instead exaggerates the light and dark edges of the transition. An unsharp mask improves sharpness by increasing acutance, although resolution remains the same...
Unsharp masks are wonderful at sharpening images, however too much sharpening can also introduce "halo artifacts." These are visible as light/dark outlines or halos near edges. Halos artifacts become a problem when the light and dark over and undershoots become so large that they are clearly visible at the intended viewing distance...
Another complication of using an unsharp mask is that it can introduce subtle color shifts. Normal unsharp masks increase the over and undershoot of the RGB pixel values similarly, as opposed to only increasing the over and undershoots of luminance. In situations where very fine color texture exists, this can selectively increase some colors while decreasing others.
http://www.scantips.com/simple6.html
Sharpening will greatly emphasize dust spots and will aggravate JPG artifacts.
To be honest, I can't even replicate what Jack White shows on his page. Your final images looks much different than his. It would be nice to know exactly what he did to the images so that we could subject obviously genuine photos to his method and test for false positives. I imagine that that's exactly why he didn't bother to provide those details.
This is the closest I've come:
(http://i.imgur.com/kJGWelY.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/b8MfGO4.png)
It looks just like the stair-step pattern/ringing artifacts I demonstrated previously. I get the same thing if I sharpen the image with Smart Sharpen.
(http://i.imgur.com/oLrkVqE.png)
Until someone can reproduce the image Jack White did, I'm not sure why I should even believe that he didn't just directly edit the image himself to make it look as it does.
-
Here is some proof. I will document this better later on.
(http://imgur.com/iUBPPWM.jpeg)
(http://imgur.com/Otx5xG1.jpeg)
Use the google lat long co ordinates to locate this house. It is the only octagonal house on this shore. Location is Cecil County, Maryland.
(http://imgur.com/AEuNITM.jpeg)
I was next to the pier sitting on rocks,at Perry Point VA hospital, the camera was 2' above the water. I was at one end of the yellow line, the octagon house was at the other end.
-
Here is some proof. I will document this better later on.
(http://imgur.com/iUBPPWM.jpeg)
Excellent, Hoppy. I look forward to seeing your data.
-
Here is some proof. I will document this better later on.
(http://imgur.com/iUBPPWM.jpeg)
This photograph has obviously been altered.
-
This photograph has obviously been altered.
I concur.
It looks like some text has been added.
-
lol, Hoppy, how do they keep the breakers off of their porch?
-
lol, Hoppy, how do they keep the breakers off of their porch?
I don't know, I don't live there or even know those people.
-
lol, Hoppy, how do they keep the breakers off of their porch?
I don't know, I don't live there or even know those people.
Then how do you know how close to the shore the house really is? For all you know, that house could be 10-12 feet above the shoreline.
-
Since Hoppy decided to repost this picture from .org depicting what he calls a 12.9 ft drop, I'm going to repost my response here:
Here we go: Using the calculator on this page (http://www.cohp.org/local_curvature.html) we can determine how far the horizon is for a given elevation. So for 2 ft the distance to the horizon is 1.73 miles.
Which means you subtract the distance 1.73 miles from your 4.4 miles to get 2.67 miles.
Using rowbothams method for deriving the drop:
To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required.
2.67^2 * 8 / 12
This makes the new drop 4.75 feet.
And without a good image to indicate what that beach really looks like it is difficult to determine what is going on but I would guess that a typical beach like the one we see in the picture is at least over 5 ft.
Later on in the thread Silhouette29 posted a great picture to help hoppy understand why you don't simply subtract the height of 2 ft from Rowbotham's 12.9 ft to get the drop:
Like I said earlier with an example using 6 feet for the observation height. At 4 miles, one doesn't simply subtract that height from the drop (10-6), as that would indicate a 4 foot drop over the distance of 1 mile. It needs to be recalculated using the distance advantage of added height from the starting point.
Using Rowbotham's diagram:
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/853/eieo.png)
The drop is 4.75 feet and the image he posted sucks.
Also, note that in the picture he took there are some stark differences in topography when compared with the octagon house on Google Earth.
On Google Earth there is clearly a walkway and a lot of shrubbery in the way. This makes the picture highly suspect.
-
Here is some proof. I will document this better later on.
(http://imgur.com/iUBPPWM.jpeg)
(http://imgur.com/9U9cxIE.jpeg)
Excellent, Hoppy. I look forward to seeing your data.
I went over to the house and took a picture from the right side of it, my picture from across the bay comes in from the left. I am a flat earth believer but the pic from across the water sure looks like it has at 10' wall of water in front of it. Just as RE theory would predict.
-
How about a Fe'er chiming in, what is with the 10' wall of water?..... Bishop? .....Thork?.... Anyone?
-
How about a Fe'er chiming in, what is with the 10' wall of water?..... Bishop? .....Thork?.... Anyone?
A couple of things at play - I don't see a ten foot wall of water, I see the lower section of the house sort of "compressed" - this is partially an optical trick which occurs close to the horizon (sunsets do it too, the sun sort of collapses into itself when its image is on the horizon, and partially due to the way light travels on a Flat Earth. See the Electromagnetic Accelerator thread. The lower areas of the house are hidden behind water because that light "dips" before bending upward again.
-
How about a Fe'er chiming in, what is with the 10' wall of water?..... Bishop? .....Thork?.... Anyone?
A couple of things at play - I don't see a ten foot wall of water, I see the lower section of the house sort of "compressed" - this is partially an optical trick which occurs close to the horizon (sunsets do it too, the sun sort of collapses into itself when its image is on the horizon, and partially due to the way light travels on a Flat Earth. See the Electromagnetic Accelerator thread. The lower areas of the house are hidden behind water because that light "dips" before bending upward again.
Oh boy, an actual experiment grinds against your world view and instead of taking this data and reconsidering your views, you treat your views as infallible and come up with an excuse.
Let's be clear, there is no such thing as bendy light. The closest real world example of such a thing is refraction, which, while nearly always present over water, it does not work in light of this picture.
First off, I'd like to mention that my job is refraction. I create atmospheric profiles for various locations around the planet and determine how those profiles will effect the propagation of radar signals and light. Over water there is ALWAYS an effective trapping layer that causes propagation for as much as 256 miles but the problem with your analysis is that this trapping layer in my experience doing literally 1000's of profiles is never less than 25 ft and 9 times out of 10 it is 30 ft. It is never 10 ft which is exactly what it would have to be for your suggestion to even have potential. Furthermore, if what we are seeing is compression then there would be a couple of things wrong with that. The index of refraction between a medium of air above the trapping layer and a medium of air in it would differ by small amounts causing changes that could not be as dramatic as what you are seeing. Secondly, compression suggests that the refraction would cause the refracted light to change direction at both the top and the bottom of the trapping layer but that is not how this works because the refracted light would be unaffected within the trapping layer medium. Refracted light is the effect that causes light to change direction from one medium to the next but not within the medium itself.
-
rottingroom sounds like he is drunk again. Don't worry people, he can't actually hurt anyone.
-
How about a Fe'er chiming in, what is with the 10' wall of water?..... Bishop? .....Thork?.... Anyone?
A couple of things at play - I don't see a ten foot wall of water, I see the lower section of the house sort of "compressed" - this is partially an optical trick which occurs close to the horizon (sunsets do it too, the sun sort of collapses into itself when its image is on the horizon, and partially due to the way light travels on a Flat Earth. See the Electromagnetic Accelerator thread. The lower areas of the house are hidden behind water because that light "dips" before bending upward again.
How did Rowbotham's experiments work so well? He did similar ones where he does not mention this effect. The picture I posted sure looks like a wall of water.
-
rottingroom sounds like he is drunk again. Don't worry people, he can't actually hurt anyone.
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks in the upper forums. It's especially poor form for a mod.
-
rottingroom sounds like he is drunk again. Don't worry people, he can't actually hurt anyone.
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks in the upper forums. It's especially poor form for a mod.
I have to agree. Please tone it down.
-
How about a Fe'er chiming in, what is with the 10' wall of water?..... Bishop? .....Thork?.... Anyone?
A couple of things at play - I don't see a ten foot wall of water, I see the lower section of the house sort of "compressed" - this is partially an optical trick which occurs close to the horizon (sunsets do it too, the sun sort of collapses into itself when its image is on the horizon, and partially due to the way light travels on a Flat Earth. See the Electromagnetic Accelerator thread. The lower areas of the house are hidden behind water because that light "dips" before bending upward again.
How did Rowbotham's experiments work so well? He did similar ones where he does not mention this effect. The picture I posted sure looks like a wall of water.
I want to say that he did mention the compression effect - I'm re-reading ENaG this week, in fact, because it's been a while and it's nice to get my head out of the theoretical and back to the empirical now and again. I'll let you know if I find anything relevant to your experiment.
-
I used the Pythagorean Theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) to calculate the drop over 4.4 miles.
(http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.1.gif)
Suppose that the earth is a sphere of radius 3963.1676 miles (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=radius+of+the+earth++in+miles&btnG=Search). If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangel as in the diagram.
3963.1676^2 + 4.4^2 = 15706716.7857
When we square root that figure we get 3963.17004249
Thus your position is 3963.17004249 - 3963.1676 = 0.00244248999 miles above the surface of the earth
Converting to feet, 0.00244248999 miles = 5280 * 0.00244259 = 12.8963471472 feet
Hence after 4.4 miles the earth drops approximately 12.9 feet, or over 1 story of a building.
-
(http://i42.tinypic.com/25yx9u0.jpg)
Judging from the pictures presented, it does not appear that the beach drops over one story below the water line.
-
Tintagel is correct, there does seem to be some sort of optical effect going on.
Why is the first story of the house compressed into the beach?
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2wea1hi.jpg)
-
Tintagel is correct, there does seem to be some sort of optical effect going on.
Why is the first story of the house compressed into the beach?
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2wea1hi.jpg)
That is what I am asking, why is all of the beach and over 1/2 of the first floor covered with what seems to be a wall of water. Especially considering the "wall of water" is the approximate size predicted by RET. Judging by the white railing, I did mislabel the 1st floor as 2nd floor in the original image. When I first took the picture I thought it verified FE, and labeled the photo.
(http://i.imgur.com/n2HZiUs.jpg)
This image is from the same rock as the original image, camera 32" above the water.
(http://i.imgur.com/SnDtIuy.jpg)
This image is from a pier , camera is 8' above the water.
Here are two pictures from today, Today the pictures look entirely different. It looks flat today. ??? ??? ??? WTF
I also want to add, the water level was within 6" of the first image. Low wind conditions, but the haze in the area seemed thicker today. There was heavy chemtrail spraying today.
-
Interesting documentation of an optical anomaly, and not an uncommon one if the RET folks are any indication. The side-by-side at the end is pretty compelling, though, I'd say.
Perhaps the tides could be contributing somehow to the anomaly in the first photo?
-
Here are two pictures from today, Today the pictures look entirely different. It looks flat today. ??? ??? ??? WTF
Different atmospheric conditions produce different atmospheric refractive results. That and yes, the tide can be a factor as well.
-
I used the Pythagorean Theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) to calculate the drop over 4.4 miles.
(http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.1.gif)
Suppose that the earth is a sphere of radius 3963.1676 miles (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=radius+of+the+earth++in+miles&btnG=Search). If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangel as in the diagram.
3963.1676^2 + 4.4^2 = 15706716.7857
When we square root that figure we get 3963.17004249
Thus your position is 3963.17004249 - 3963.1676 = 0.00244248999 miles above the surface of the earth
Converting to feet, 0.00244248999 miles = 5280 * 0.00244259 = 12.8963471472 feet
Hence after 4.4 miles the earth drops approximately 12.9 feet, or over 1 story of a building.
Nobody as been in dispute over what the drop would be from 0 elevation. Hoppy was at 2 ft making the drop significantly less at 4.75 ft.
-
Tintagel is correct, there does seem to be some sort of optical effect going on.
Why is the first story of the house compressed into the beach?
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2wea1hi.jpg)
That tan sliver is not the beach and this can be verified from Hoppy's close ups and from Google Earth. The beach does not extend across the entire waterfront.
-
Hoppy the new drop at 32 inches in elevation is 3.47 ft while the 8 ft elevation shot is .589 ft.
You figure this out by using this calculator (http://www.cohp.org/local_curvature.html).
You use the first calculator by putting in your elevation. It gives you distance which you subtract from your 4.4 miles.
Then you take that distance and put it in the second calculator which gives you your drop.
-
Hoppy the new drop at 32 inches in elevation is 3.47 ft while the 8 ft elevation shot is .589 ft.
You figure this out by using this calculator (http://www.cohp.org/local_curvature.html).
You use the first calculator by putting in your elevation. It gives you distance which you subtract from your 4.4 miles.
Then you take that distance and put it in the second calculator which gives you your drop.
I already told you what the drop should be on RE, 12.9 feet across 4.4 miles. Then you can subtract the nearly 3' elevation of the camera = Total drop of 9.9'.
-
Hoppy the new drop at 32 inches in elevation is 3.47 ft while the 8 ft elevation shot is .589 ft.
You figure this out by using this calculator (http://www.cohp.org/local_curvature.html).
You use the first calculator by putting in your elevation. It gives you distance which you subtract from your 4.4 miles.
Then you take that distance and put it in the second calculator which gives you your drop.
I already told you what the drop should be on RE, 12.9 feet across 4.4 miles. Then you can subtract the nearly 3' elevation of the camera = Total drop of 9.9'.
Problem is that that is completely incorrect. Did you miss math class or something?
-
We even drew you pictures which clearly explain why. If you think you just subtract then show a good diagram about why. I can tell you now it is impossible.
-
We even drew you pictures which clearly explain why. If you think you just subtract then show a good diagram about why. I can tell you now it is impossible.
Look man. The most important variable is the drop across the distance. Even your calculator gave the same answer as Rowbotham's chart. So I think we can agree that the drop over 4.4 miles is 12.9'. Just because I move the camera up 2' feet doesn't change the drop over 4.4 miles. So the end of the drop is going to 10.9' instead.
Think of it like this, if the drop over a distance was 10', and blocked the entire view of a 10' bldg sitting right at the water. If you climbed a 10' ladder you would be able to see the entire building.
-
I think Rottingroom is saying that:
1. You can see the entire building at the horizon
2. The building would only be obscured by the drop between the horizon and the object.
So at a distance if 4.4 miles and an altitude of 2ft the object is unobscured for 1.73 miles and then is obscured by the curvature of the remaining 2.67 miles.
Hoppy, let me know what part of this you disagree with.
-
I think Rottingroom is saying that:
1. You can see the entire building at the horizon
2. The building would only be obscured by the drop between the horizon and the object.
So at a distance if 4.4 miles and an altitude of 2ft the object is unobscured for 1.73 miles and then is obscured by the curvature of the remaining 2.67 miles.
Hoppy, let me know what part of this you disagree with.
I think what he is saying on the points you bring up are correct.
What I am saying is correct also:
"Think of it like this, if the drop over a distance was 10', and blocked the entire view of a 10' bldg sitting right at the water. If you climbed a 10' ladder you would be able to see the entire building."
You have to think of the total distance, don't divide it up to 2 different distances. If you do divide it, you will get the wrong answer.
-
If what I am saying is correct it cannot also be wrong. Your analogy does not exclude the truth of what I said either. The wall analogy is also not entirely apt since you are not dealing with a curve.
Basically if everything I have asserted is true, then my conclusion must be true. The drop that you claimed is not incorrect, but I think should be classified as an upper limit of drop, not the correct drop.
-
You have to think of the total distance, don't divide it up to 2 different distances. If you do divide it, you will get the wrong answer.
Incorrect. You must divide the total distance into two different distances to get the correct answer. First there is the distance from the observer to the horizon, then there is the distance from the horizon to the house.
-
Even your calculator gave the same answer as Rowbotham's chart.
Yes, because Rowbotham's chart is completely correct for an elevation of 0 FT.
Just because I move the camera up 2' feet doesn't change the drop over 4.4 miles. So the end of the drop is going to 10.9' instead.
It absolutely does change the drop. It isn't a matter of simple subtraction.
Think of it like this, if the drop over a distance was 10', and blocked the entire view of a 10' bldg sitting right at the water. If you climbed a 10' ladder you would be able to see the entire building.
Yes because climbing to 10 ft in elevation would account for the entire height of the building but the problem is that between the elevation of 0 and 10 ft there is an exponential curve.
I have made 2 charts representing the relationship in Rowbotham's chart between height and distance. \
HERE THEY ARE (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgWwYmdlMY6KdDdnNDdIV3F1RjZTVGVmMlU2dVVMc2c&usp=sharing)
One of them shows the relationship for elevations 0-10 and the other shows relationship for elevations 0-20. In both examples distance grows exponentially. For what you are saying to hold true... that we simply subtract a number then the growth in distance should not be exponential but linear. This should tell you that there is more involved that just subtracting the height.
I hope this clears things up.
-
You have to think of the total distance, don't divide it up to 2 different distances. If you do divide it, you will get the wrong answer.
Incorrect. You must divide the total distance into two different distances to get the correct answer. First there is the distance from the observer to the horizon, then there is the distance from the horizon to the house.
Marrrrkjo. That how to get the wrong answer.
That is why the drop over 3 miles is 6' = 72". Correct
Not a drop of 1 mile(8") +(8") + (8") = 24" Incorrect
-
You have to think of the total distance, don't divide it up to 2 different distances. If you do divide it, you will get the wrong answer.
Incorrect. You must divide the total distance into two different distances to get the correct answer. First there is the distance from the observer to the horizon, then there is the distance from the horizon to the house.
Marrrrkjo. That how to get the wrong answer.
That is why the drop over 3 miles is 6' = 72". Correct
Not a drop of 1 mile(8") +(8") + (8") = 24" Incorrect
That isn't what Markjo is saying. When you raise the elevation of the observer. You get a new distance to the horizon. Then you measure the drop from that horizon to the target. You don't just divide things to your liking in the same way as your crude example. You have to try and think about this.
Have a good look at 29silhouette's picture again:
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/853/eieo.png)
For a distance of 4 miles there should be a drop of 10.7 ft
The top of the image shows the observers horizon (when viewing from an elevation of 6 ft) to be 3 miles.
From this point we can use Rowbotham again because NOW we are at 0 elevation for the remaining mile giving us the 8 inch drop.
-
I used the Pythagorean Theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) to calculate the drop over 4.4 miles.
(http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.1.gif)
Suppose that the earth is a sphere of radius 3963.1676 miles (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=radius+of+the+earth++in+miles&btnG=Search). If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangel as in the diagram.
3963.1676^2 + 4.4^2 = 15706716.7857
When we square root that figure we get 3963.17004249
Thus your position is 3963.17004249 - 3963.1676 = 0.00244248999 miles above the surface of the earth
Converting to feet, 0.00244248999 miles = 5280 * 0.00244259 = 12.8963471472 feet
Hence after 4.4 miles the earth drops approximately 12.9 feet, or over 1 story of a building.
Tom, please don't post other people's work as your own.
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html (http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html)
-
Did you miss math class or something?
Please, argue against the argument, not the person. Ad hominems are not welcome here.
-
Did you miss math class or something?
Please, argue against the argument, not the person. Ad hominems are not welcome here.
It was an apt question. He seems to not want to understand my arguments or he is incapable. I can't possibly make this whole thing easier to understand and he still doesn't get it, so the conclusion logically follows.
-
You have to think of the total distance, don't divide it up to 2 different distances. If you do divide it, you will get the wrong answer.
Incorrect. You must divide the total distance into two different distances to get the correct answer. First there is the distance from the observer to the horizon, then there is the distance from the horizon to the house.
Marrrrkjo. That how to get the wrong answer.
That is why the drop over 3 miles is 6' = 72". Correct
Not a drop of 1 mile(8") +(8") + (8") = 24" Incorrect
Are you saying that the distance to the horizon does not depend on the observer's elevation? Or are you saying that the "wall of water" in the picture is not the horizon viewed from a low elevation?
-
You have to think of the total distance, don't divide it up to 2 different distances. If you do divide it, you will get the wrong answer.
Incorrect. You must divide the total distance into two different distances to get the correct answer. First there is the distance from the observer to the horizon, then there is the distance from the horizon to the house.
Marrrrkjo. That how to get the wrong answer.
That is why the drop over 3 miles is 6' = 72". Correct
Not a drop of 1 mile(8") +(8") + (8") = 24" Incorrect
That is not the method that is being put forth. You must break up the distance in to two segments:
1st-The distance from the observer to the horizon. There is no curve obstructing the object.
2nd-The distance from the horizon to the object. This is the only length of curve that is obscuring the object.
-
I can't possibly make this whole thing easier to understand and he still doesn't get it, so the conclusion logically follows.
An ad hominem that logically follows (at least in your view - I'm not gonna waste my time discussing that) is still an ad hominem, and it still does not contribute to the conversation. Just don't be that guy.
-
I can't possibly make this whole thing easier to understand and he still doesn't get it, so the conclusion logically follows.
An ad hominem that logically follows (at least in your view - I'm not gonna waste my time discussing that) is still an ad hominem, and it still does not contribute to the conversation. Just don't be that guy.
I'll concede to the rule but for your information the point of it was not to attack him but make him consider that he just doesn't get it.
-
Show me your proof, and I will argue for the sake of arguing.
Water. When you poor water into a cup the surfice is flat. Even wen the botom is curved upwerd or downwerd the surfice is still flat. There is a fanominon caled "meniscus" in wich the top surfice of water apers to curve in a gradruated silindar but this is simpeley caused by molcules in the glas. So were is the glas in the ocens? You cant have a round earth because the water in the ocens should be flat acording to this truth. The top surfice of water naturaley stays flat so therfore it is imposibel that a round earth can exist. There you have it
Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham.
What a lazy OP.
Agred. It is a fantastic pece of litratur a must reed! How can you posibley deny dr. Rowbothoms argumints?
-
Agred. It is a fantastic pece of litratur a must reed! How can you posibley deny dr. Rowbothoms argumints?
Quite easily, for the most part.
-
Agred. It is a fantastic pece of litratur a must reed! How can you posibley deny dr. Rowbothoms argumints?
Quite easily, for the most part.
Try me
-
Agred. It is a fantastic pece of litratur a must reed! How can you posibley deny dr. Rowbothoms argumints?
Quite easily, for the most part.
Try me
Please read chapter 3 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm) and tell me what you think of Rowbotham's view of projectile motion.
-
I have seen picture/video evidence of a round earth. If pics/vids of kangaroos is enough to believe in kangaroos, it's enough to believe in a round earth.
So then, you believe in a round earth only because an organization founded by Nazi war criminals showed you an image of one. I see.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/
-
Look out a window. I recommend doing this while on an airplane for the best results, but even a rather tall building will work. The Earth will appear, minus a few negligible bumps and whatnot, to be flat. Hence, we should assume it is flat
The circumference of the earth in RE is the same as the circumference of the equator in FE yet you argue that the curvature of the surface is flat but the curvature of the equator only appears to be flat. IOW you can't tell you are traveling in a circle at the equator yet mysteriously not being able to tell you are traveling on a sphere with the same curvature is proof of flatness. Hmmm.
-
"So then, you believe in a round earth only because an organization founded by Nazi war criminals showed you an image of one." —Tom Bishop
"That's not my only reason..." —Alchemist21
LOL!