Is that what her setup looks like? I saw no pictures of how she set her camera.
If what you are saying is correct, if her camera was upright in the morning it would be to be inverted in the evening. I've never seen anybody with a camera mounted upside down on a tripod, what would that look like?
On the video she dismisses the equatorial mount by asserting that two axes of rotation are required, but she doesn't say why. If you think equatorial mounts aren't sufficient for tracking objects we should figure out why.
are we supposed to simply take the author at her word that she stacked these images correctly? she doesn't explain her methodology at all.
also she absolutely needs to be using an equatorial mount. that she doesn't understand how it works does not give me confidence that she's doing this experiment properly.
You are not explaining what is happening here.
You are not explaining what is happening here.
your video author is not explaining how she did what she did. i believe she has incorrectly stacked her images.
the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, right?
Is that what her setup looks like? I saw no pictures of how she set her camera.
If what you are saying is correct, if her camera was upright in the morning it would be to be inverted in the evening. I've never seen anybody with a camera mounted upside down on a tripod, what would that look like?
The pictures of the investigators span over a few hours, not all throughout the day. Watch the video.
In my second post I reposted the rotation of the earth argument that she would have to continuously roll her camera every hour, which is clearly false.Just saying something is clearly false isn't helpful. It isn't clear at all to me that it is false. What is your evidence or your reasoning?
QuoteOn the video she dismisses the equatorial mount by asserting that two axes of rotation are required, but she doesn't say why. If you think equatorial mounts aren't sufficient for tracking objects we should figure out why.
The moon does't roll and rotate like that in the sky. That concept that is totally unprecedented.
If one were to follow the sun through the day passing over you from one horizon to one behind them the camera would be making a vertical 180 degree flip in that scenario as it follows the sun traveling across overhead.
Here's someone tracking the Moon and seeing apparent rotation.
https://youtu.be/ND58ozvVP6U (https://youtu.be/ND58ozvVP6U)
You said "the moon never rolls on the sky". It looks to me like it rolls about 60 degrees in 4 hours.
I know nothing about Karen B's setup other than that she doesn't understand how equatorial mounts work or why they would be useful, so the extra 45 degrees on her video could come from all sorts of bad setup.
For an example of a useful experiment, see Bobby's horizon rig, where he shares pictures of it to receive feedback on how to make it better.
Why didn't Karen do that?
Why would an equatorial mount not be useful?
what is the mechanism for this rollingBecause it's a globe, and the viewing angle from different latitudes change as that globe rotates.
what is the mechanism for this rollingBecause it's a globe, and the viewing angle from different latitudes change as that globe rotates.
There are multiple picture sets from differential people in that video. It is not one person who happens to roll their camera incrementally and quite extremely with each shot.
Why not just yell fake and be over with it already?
Model 29 meant that the Earth is a spinning globe. I suspect that you interpreted the pronoun as referring to the moon.what is the mechanism for this rollingBecause it's a globe, and the viewing angle from different latitudes change as that globe rotates.
I said "tilt". If you tilt your view/camera, everything in that field of view ends up tilted. Something 10 feet away will tilt as much as something 10 miles, 10 million miles, (whatever distance), away.
One's position at sun/moon rise on a globe will be 'tilted' (in relation to the sun/moon) a different way at sun/moon set. (unless at the poles of course)
You are obviously struggling with this concept. Do I need to post a diagram?
But you turn around to keep facing the sun so you see the sun from a different angle. These two photos are of the moon, but the same thing applies.I said "tilt". If you tilt your view/camera, everything in that field of view ends up tilted. Something 10 feet away will tilt as much as something 10 miles, 10 million miles, (whatever distance), away.
One's position at sun/moon rise on a globe will be 'tilted' (in relation to the sun/moon) a different way at sun/moon set. (unless at the poles of course)
You are obviously struggling with this concept. Do I need to post a diagram?
If you are looking at the sun from a slightly tilted angle from 92 million miles away, you are going to keep looking at it from that angle. Perspective won't help you at that distance.
Unless you wish to argue that we have a close sun?
the moon does not suddenly "flip" when it reaches the local meridian. how would that happen?Only situation I know of is around the equator when the person physically turns around 180 degrees at the sun/moons apex, in order to continue tracking it. Also around an equinox.
If you are looking at the sun from a slightly tilted angle from 92 million miles away, you are going to keep looking at it from that angle. Perspective won't help you at that distance.Are you saying that if I aim my camera at a distant object and take a picture, and then tilt my camera while keeping it aimed at that same distant object and take another picture, that when I upload and view the two images, the features of that distant object will still be oriented the same. No rotation of the features.
Unless you wish to argue that we have a close sun?
Look at this timelapse photography of the moon from Seattle. It keeps it orientation for a long period of time. It does not continuously "roll throughout the night". It only flips at the apex.He also blended multiple images of the city, and added the moon shots as layers. He wasn't clear if the moon images were blended, but it appears that way. Layering the first and last moon image, they are identical pixel for pixel. I'll try taking pictures myself.