The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: xenotolerance on December 21, 2017, 06:24:07 AM
-
Here's some solid goodness: (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/)
A classic experiment to demonstrate the curvature of a body of water is to place markers (like flags) a fixed distance above the water in a straight line, and then view them along that line in a telescope. If the water surface is flat then the markers will appear also in a straight line. If the surface of the water is curved (as it is here on Earth) then the markers in the middle will appear higher than the markers at the ends. Here's a highly exaggerated diagram of the effect by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/d3024eed228cdb781223b0c872643aaf.jpg)
This is a difficult experiment to do as you need a few miles for the curvature to be apparent. You also need the markers to be quite high above the surface of the water, as temperature differences between the water and the air tend to create significant refraction effects close to the water.
However Youtuber Soundly has found a spot where there's a very long line of markers permanently fixed at constant heights above the water line, clearly demonstrating the curve. It's a line of power transmission towers at Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, Louisiana.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADO7nkt-rk
What do you think, fellow free thinking person? Good shit, or bunk shit?
-
Looks like a decent demonstration. Not sure why it's in slow motion with weird jumps in it though...
-
Looks good to me :)
-
Looks like Earth. Big and round! Sadly, no one will be convinced. This will either be ignored here or called a fake. I was watching some other flat Earth videos over water where they were filming things that supposedly couldn't be seen on a globe Earth. (over water) All of them ignored the very clear horizon on the water with objects partially hidden behind it. According the FEH, you shouldn't be able to see that far. You can only see until the perspective lines meet or some other such nonsense.
-
I have a general policy of not watching videos on this site (sorry, most of my browsing is done in a quiet location and some get posted that are multiple hours long often enough) but the main image is one that has shown up on the other site just recently. I'm interested to see if anyone comments on it here, but there it was simply dismissed as being an optical illusion ::). It's good looking stuff though from the additional information presented about the video over there. Definitely curious to see any FE response.
-
This is stupid and clearly super-imposed on top. Look how tall those pylons are on the horizon.
Look how small a battleship appears when not very far away
(http://pacificwarphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/battleships.jpg)
And then look at the curve. Earth would be about 500 miles right the way round with a curve like that.
This is photoshopped to hell. In fact, here are some of the layers used to make that hoax.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/a4fa1f9c4a4746d90e7e23020700768f.png)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCunxYOUIAEAiEU.jpg)
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170722-105552-feohd-jpg.27878/)
Sad that you are all so gullible. You do the same whooping and shouting when NASA photoshops you a ball. "Yey! A ball. I thought it was ball, I love normailsation confirmation".
*Spoiler alert *
Lake Pontchartrain doesn't even have any power cables. It has a road running through its middle and outside of links to this 'flat earth busted' youtube video, there is no photo or mention of transmission lines anywhere. They aren't on google earth, google maps, there's no images of them, nothing ...
You can see this is a crude attempt to discredit a flat earther who used the actual causeway that exists on Lake Pontchartrain to prove earth flat ...
taking the same lake, photoshopping on some pylons and saying haha!
https://twitter.com/FlatEarthTshirt/status/795495278920994816/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fflatearthinsanity.blogspot.com%2F2016%2F12%2Fflat-earth-lies-lake-pontchartrain.html
Leave this thread here though. It shows the lengths round earther's will go to hide from the truth.
-
fake or not, take into account the reality of the questions and theory brought here.
The photo of the lake for example, don't you think the horizon would be further off if the Earth was flat?
find an equation to simulate a flat earth horizon, and tell me what you find.
-
fake or not, take into account the reality of the questions and theory brought here.
The photo of the lake for example, don't you think the horizon would be further off if the Earth was flat?
find an equation to simulate a flat earth horizon, and tell me what you find.
What?
Evidence is produced, it is soundly busted and then you want me to keep on talking about the points brought up? It is a hoax.
Here is the original author asking his friends for help to make the photoshop.
https://twitter.com/skeptropolis/status/868277163937718277
This is his pinned tweet! He says he's going out of his way to discredit the flat earth.
https://twitter.com/skeptropolis/status/932826450956349440
And here is another abomination he has concocted using his photoshop skills.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRWv8rvUMAEzFnV.jpg)
Clearly he thinks we live on Kerbal.
Its over. This thread belongs to flat earth now, and will lay testament to the cheer-leading and fakery behind round earth.
-
Lake Pontchartrain doesn't even have any power cables. It has a road running through its middle and outside of links to this 'flat earth busted' youtube video, there is no photo or mention of transmission lines anywhere. They aren't on google earth, google maps, there's no images of them, nothing ...
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=758&ei=WKUCWtrCOIfCmwHOyrCQCQ&btnG=Search&q=lake+pontchartrain+power+lines
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u61oOOjwm7Q
And: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Flatearth's+End/@30.0773007,-90.4055521,783m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8620cc2ffc0eb14f:0xaef60871bf02ca5e!8m2!3d30.0773007!4d-90.4033634
so. yeah, they exist
-
The video you posted is from the SAME hoaxster!
And on google maps those are the same hoax images he photoshopped earlier and has uploaded!
No. Find another source. Anything anywhere. Different images and not anything to do with this one individual.
Edit: reported that to google with the maps and they took them down agreeing it was a falsehood. (I happen to be a long time member of google guides and I'm a level 5 guide).
-
Thork has shown plenty of evidence that the images are fakes. The world would have to be tiny if those images were true, especially based on the last image of the bridge Thork posted.
-
The video you posted is from the SAME hoaxster!
And on google maps those are the same hoax images he photoshopped earlier and has uploaded!
No. Find another source. Anything anywhere. Different images and not anything to do with this one individual.
This thread (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/) on metabunk has a video from someone proclaiming them as proof of a flat Earth. I feel it's safe to say that the towers or what have you DO in fact exist. I would note the metabunk thread ALSO goes over why the curve seems so exaggerated in those images.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3_umFGu_gc&
A direct link to the mentioned video. No comment on what he shows (the metabunk thread discusses much of this in depth) just a secondary source showing/talking about the towers/lines stretching across the lake as requested.
-
They absolutely don't exist.
Find an example where no one is talking about earth's shape. A tourist picture, which power company installed them, plans, planning permission. It makes no sense. The lake is only a couple of metres deep. You'd run cables under the water. Not create an eyesore and ruin the view and cause a hazard for boats and wildlife.
-
You know, I did link to google maps at a location where the cables are visible.
Edit: reported that to google with the maps and they took them down agreeing it was a falsehood. (I happen to be a long time member of google guides and I'm a level 5 guide).
This did not happen. You can scroll to the East along the shore of the lake, and follow the lines through several different sets of satellite photography. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Flatearth's+End/@30.0790037,-90.4044532,686m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8620cc2ffc0eb14f:0xaef60871bf02ca5e!8m2!3d30.0773007!4d-90.4033634)
Also, here: Page 90
https://books.google.com/books?id=poelBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=when+were+the+power+lines+installed+on+lake+pontchartrain&source=bl&ots=eeCBDLCRD3&sig=ye3FCT3aCvqMMgNgv77OVdnorCo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjesqzW0ZvYAhVCc98KHbaBAO4Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=when%20were%20the%20power%20lines%20installed%20on%20lake%20pontchartrain&f=false
The power lines were "first planned by Louisiana Power and Light Company in 1927." The book says the towers are 100 feet tall (which is, incidentally, as tall or taller than a battleship above water (https://www.google.com/search?ei=9PA7WtmGF6ai_Qa3s4fICg&q=how+tall+are+battleships&oq=how+tall+are+battleships&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1.6832.9584.0.9922.26.22.1.0.0.0.175.2470.9j13.22.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..3.23.2446...0j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.ws7Nh6oolHQ)). see attached image if you can't get the book to show page 90
so, evidence asked for and received
the earth is round
-
They absolutely don't exist.
Find an example where no one is talking about earth's shape. A tourist picture, which power company installed them, plans, planning permission. It makes no sense. The lake is only a couple of metres deep. You'd run cables under the water. Not create an eyesore and ruin the view and cause a hazard for boats and wildlife.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rRE0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Lake+Pontchartrain+transmission+lines+installation&source=bl&ots=BsgSI1dbMS&sig=kt1LyoeBgd0moZJZvq31C2aGFv8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ-eS_0JvYAhUkw4MKHZ5mDH4Q6AEIQTAI#v=onepage&q=Lake%20Pontchartrain%20transmission%20lines%20installation&f=false
Let me know if that link doesn't work. I know those can get weird.
Still digging to try and find actual records, but no such luck quite yet.
-
It doesn't matter anyway. The video is a hoax.
-
No, it isn't.
He took multiple videos, including a video of him filming then immediately uploading one of said videos. These videos show power lines (that do exist) soundly proving the curvature of the Earth.
I understand that you are in denial about this and won't accept anything, for some time at least. So that's okay by me. Good luck with your holidays
-
It doesn't matter anyway. The video is a hoax.
How? The crux of your original argument was that he photoshopped the transmission lines in. Now it suddenly doesn't matter if they exist or not? The metabunk thread goes over (with visual examples) how such a curve could be 'created' when using some forced perspective tricks, but will not create a curve where none exists.
-
here are photos of the lines being built in 1957: http://louisianadigitallibrary.org/islandora/search/mods_subject_topic_ms:%22Overhead%5C%20electric%5C%20lines%22
here they are in some weather enthusiast's video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbv4wWDLZrE
here they are on a photography enthusiast's dumb website: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-397106-1.html
(http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2016/6/28/t1-572984-m_pascagoula_ms_to_mena_ar.jpg)
literally a stock photo: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/power-grid-in-the-water-royalty-free-image/498502317
-
It doesn't matter anyway. The video is a hoax.
Boy, you got all kinds of beat up on this thread. Lying and trying to say they don't exist. Lying and trying to say they are photoshopped. (it's a video) Now, you stomp your feet and say it is a hoax. I guess that is all you FEers can say since you have no way to debunk it. "The Earf would be real small if it curved that much." Find out the actual distance (the camera has substantial zoom) and prove the amount of curve is wrong.
"Its over. This thread belongs to flat earth now, and will lay testament to the cheer-leading and fakery behind round earth." You were way premature on this one.
-
They absolutely don't exist.
Find an example where no one is talking about earth's shape. A tourist picture, which power company installed them, plans, planning permission. It makes no sense. The lake is only a couple of metres deep. You'd run cables under the water. Not create an eyesore and ruin the view and cause a hazard for boats and wildlife.
Wait, what? Are you claiming the power lines don't even exist? Just when I thought this couldn't get any crazier.
-
Thork has shown plenty of evidence that the images are fakes. The world would have to be tiny if those images were true, especially based on the last image of the bridge Thork posted.
Now that Thork claims the power lines don't even exist, do you still want to stand by his claims?
They absolutely don't exist.
Find an example where no one is talking about earth's shape. A tourist picture, which power company installed them, plans, planning permission. It makes no sense. The lake is only a couple of metres deep. You'd run cables under the water. Not create an eyesore and ruin the view and cause a hazard for boats and wildlife.
-
Here's some solid goodness: (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/)
A classic experiment to demonstrate the curvature of a body of water is to place markers (like flags) a fixed distance above the water in a straight line, and then view them along that line in a telescope. If the water surface is flat then the markers will appear also in a straight line. If the surface of the water is curved (as it is here on Earth) then the markers in the middle will appear higher than the markers at the ends. Here's a highly exaggerated diagram of the effect by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/d3024eed228cdb781223b0c872643aaf.jpg)
This is a difficult experiment to do as you need a few miles for the curvature to be apparent. You also need the markers to be quite high above the surface of the water, as temperature differences between the water and the air tend to create significant refraction effects close to the water.
However Youtuber Soundly has found a spot where there's a very long line of markers permanently fixed at constant heights above the water line, clearly demonstrating the curve. It's a line of power transmission towers at Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, Louisiana.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADO7nkt-rk
What do you think, Guest? Good shit, or bunk shit?
Looks pretty convincing. I drive down that way every now and then. Next time I will take my own pics and post them.
-
Here's some solid goodness: (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/)
A classic experiment to demonstrate the curvature of a body of water is to place markers (like flags) a fixed distance above the water in a straight line, and then view them along that line in a telescope. If the water surface is flat then the markers will appear also in a straight line. If the surface of the water is curved (as it is here on Earth) then the markers in the middle will appear higher than the markers at the ends. Here's a highly exaggerated diagram of the effect by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/d3024eed228cdb781223b0c872643aaf.jpg)
This is a difficult experiment to do as you need a few miles for the curvature to be apparent. You also need the markers to be quite high above the surface of the water, as temperature differences between the water and the air tend to create significant refraction effects close to the water.
However Youtuber Soundly has found a spot where there's a very long line of markers permanently fixed at constant heights above the water line, clearly demonstrating the curve. It's a line of power transmission towers at Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, Louisiana.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADO7nkt-rk
What do you think, Guest? Good shit, or bunk shit?
Looks pretty convincing. I drive down that way every now and then. Next time I will take my own pics and post them.
Do take note Tom, the images showing that curve are making use of a special 'forced perspective' effect. The metabunk thread I dug up has some info on how it works and how to replicate it. Neat stuff honestly, but it boils down to exaggerating curves where they exist, but flat lines will stay flat.
-
fake or not, take into account the reality of the questions and theory brought here.
The photo of the lake for example, don't you think the horizon would be further off if the Earth was flat?
find an equation to simulate a flat earth horizon, and tell me what you find.
What?
Evidence is produced, it is soundly busted and then you want me to keep on talking about the points brought up? It is a hoax.
Here is the original author asking his friends for help to make the photoshop.
https://twitter.com/skeptropolis/status/868277163937718277
This is his pinned tweet! He says he's going out of his way to discredit the flat earth.
https://twitter.com/skeptropolis/status/932826450956349440
And here is another abomination he has concocted using his photoshop skills.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRWv8rvUMAEzFnV.jpg)
Clearly he thinks we live on Kerbal.
Its over. This thread belongs to flat earth now, and will lay testament to the cheer-leading and fakery behind round earth.
You misunderstood, I am not saying they exist, but the lake does exist, the oceans exist. The horizon is why FE exists, and the horizon is where RE began. Lets calculate where a horizon line would be in perspective to a 10ft object on a flat world. And then well do it on a sphere world, and compare the two to a real photo!
-
fake or not, take into account the reality of the questions and theory brought here.
The photo of the lake for example, don't you think the horizon would be further off if the Earth was flat?
find an equation to simulate a flat earth horizon, and tell me what you find.
What?
Evidence is produced, it is soundly busted and then you want me to keep on talking about the points brought up? It is a hoax.
Here is the original author asking his friends for help to make the photoshop.
https://twitter.com/skeptropolis/status/868277163937718277
This is his pinned tweet! He says he's going out of his way to discredit the flat earth.
https://twitter.com/skeptropolis/status/932826450956349440
And here is another abomination he has concocted using his photoshop skills.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRWv8rvUMAEzFnV.jpg)
Clearly he thinks we live on Kerbal.
Its over. This thread belongs to flat earth now, and will lay testament to the cheer-leading and fakery behind round earth.
You misunderstood, I am not saying they exist, but the lake does exist, the oceans exist. The horizon is why FE exists, and the horizon is where RE began. Lets calculate where a horizon line would be in perspective to a 10ft object on a flat world. And then well do it on a sphere world, and compare the two to a real photo!
The subject is not worth discussing anymore. Do you realize how small the world would be if that curve were real?
Thork has shown plenty of evidence that the images are fakes. The world would have to be tiny if those images were true, especially based on the last image of the bridge Thork posted.
Now that Thork claims the power lines don't even exist, do you still want to stand by his claims?
I don't care whether they exist or not. The main topic is the curve in these photos.
-
At 10ft. a horizon would appear 7 miles (assuming perfect curvature) from the viewer(in RE) Objects that are smaller than 1ft past the horizon appear not to be there.
On a flat Earth, the horizon (dissapearance point) would be as far as the human eye could see clearly (30 mi.)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSV8fsmT66GVnq7HvdW2r1oUG2nptXVq7yZcMwShzqnCaibv7QL)
-
The subject is not worth discussing anymore. Do you realize how small the world would be if that curve were real?
Yes Tom, the Earth is a pretty small planet!
-
I don't care whether they exist or not. The main topic is the curve in these photos.
One has to look at the source of data and in this case, your source is proven unreliable.
-
Do you realize how small the world would be if that curve were real?
This is innuendo. Without trying to demonstrate an understanding of how these photos and videos actually show a curve, and without committing to an actual analysis, Tom is dismissing the evidence as absurd. This is one of his common tactics and is a form of denialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism).
For actual rigor, demonstrations of understanding, and well-supported claims of evidence, see the Metabunk thread (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/) that I quoted to start this one.
-
I don't care whether they exist or not. The main topic is the curve in these photos.
You should know that camera in question has an 83x optical zoom.
What does that look like?
(https://media.memoryexpress.com/Assets/Products/MX63629/P900_zoom.jpg)
https://media.memoryexpress.com/Assets/Products/MX63629/P900_zoom.jpg (https://media.memoryexpress.com/Assets/Products/MX63629/P900_zoom.jpg)
Tell me again how that curve is too great?
-
Yes Tom, the Earth is a pretty small planet!
Are you suggesting that the Earth is round, but much smaller than mainstream round Earthers would have you believe? This seems to come up exceptionally often, especially with people who are adamant they could clearly see curvature from a commercial aircraft - something that should be largely impossible in the standard RE model.
-
Yes Tom, the Earth is a pretty small planet!
Are you suggesting that the Earth is round, but much smaller than mainstream round Earthers would have you believe? This seems to come up exceptionally often, especially with people who are adamant they could clearly see curvature from a commercial aircraft - something that should be largely impossible in the standard RE model.
Planet, Pete, Planet. comparatively, Earth is on the small side.
But to our tiny perspectives, the Earth is Huge, its everything it's the center, and for some, they just can't imagine a world that isn't the biggest thing ever.
-
Planet, Pete, Planet. comparatively, Earth is on the small side.
Ah, so your comment was deliberately off-topic? My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
-
? Good shit, or bunk shit? (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-
What do you think, [you)
Haha I've been offline for a couple of days so got to read the whole saga in one go. Out came the obvious "it's fake" followed up with some pretty absolute factual statements of proof of the fakery, which were then themselves proved to be incorrect. Then the post dwindles into the same old denials. To answer your question, yes looks good to me :D
-
Yeah, this got really off topic since the first denial.
All evidence and opinions aside, that first post linked an example photo of what it would look like to have all those power lines there. That same picture has been used a lot all over the place, it is not supposed to look real, it is supposed to display the natural curve of the earth as you look to the horizon for proper art rendering and visual effects in any form of art. (digital or non)
So yeah, pretty cool huh?
-
Planet, Pete, Planet. comparatively, Earth is on the small side.
Ah, so your comment was deliberately off-topic? My apologies for giving you the benefit of the doubt.
That's called a fallacy, by the way. (more specifically an Ad hominem)
-
? Good shit, or bunk shit? (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-
What do you think, [you)
Haha I've been offline for a couple of days so got to read the whole saga in one go. Out came the obvious "it's fake" followed up with some pretty absolute factual statements of proof of the fakery, which were then themselves proved to be incorrect. Then the post dwindles into the same old denials. To answer your question, yes looks good to me :D
Yeah, this thread went crazy for a bit. Baby Thork really looked a fool by claiming the power lines weren't even there. (in fairness, you do have to look for them) I wonder if he or Tom will return to the thread after being so blatantly wrong? I hope so.
-
Here's some solid goodness: (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/)
A classic experiment to demonstrate the curvature of a body of water is to place markers (like flags) a fixed distance above the water in a straight line, and then view them along that line in a telescope. If the water surface is flat then the markers will appear also in a straight line. If the surface of the water is curved (as it is here on Earth) then the markers in the middle will appear higher than the markers at the ends. Here's a highly exaggerated diagram of the effect by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/d3024eed228cdb781223b0c872643aaf.jpg)
This is a difficult experiment to do as you need a few miles for the curvature to be apparent. You also need the markers to be quite high above the surface of the water, as temperature differences between the water and the air tend to create significant refraction effects close to the water.
However Youtuber Soundly has found a spot where there's a very long line of markers permanently fixed at constant heights above the water line, clearly demonstrating the curve. It's a line of power transmission towers at Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, Louisiana.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADO7nkt-rk
What do you think, Guest? Good shit, or bunk shit?
The world is round and such info proves it.
Same as shortest distance flying from the Falkland Islands to south Australia takes you over the south pole. 1/4th the distance of flying over the North pole flat Earther style.
-
The Round Earth is far too large to see curvature like that. If you could see vertical curvature, you should be able to see horizontal curvature on the horizon.
-
The Round Earth is far too large to see curvature like that. If you could see vertical curvature, you should be able to see horizontal curvature on the horizon.
This objection is refuted on Metabunk.
People have asked why the curve is so apparent in one direction, but not in the other. The answer is compressed perspective. Here's a physical example:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170723-070948-ojfta-jpg.27888/)
That's my car, the roof of which is slightly curved both front to back and left to right. I've put some equal sized chess pawns on it in two straight lines. If we step back a bit and zoom in we get:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170723-071222-p9cvp-jpg.27889/)
Notice a very distinct curve from the white pieces, but the "horizon" seems to barely curve at all.
Similarly in the front-back direction, where there's an even greater curve:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170723-071534-xodmc-jpg.27890/)
If the pieces were actually level, placed on a similar length line:
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170723-071644-sgzir-jpg.27891/)
Then straight lines would remain straight, and it would look like this, even with extreme perspective compression.
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170723-071728-5gkoh-jpg.27892/)
-
You do realize that the top of that car isn't the surface of a sphere or equally curved in all directions, right?
There is more curvature on that roof front to back than there is from left to right.
Also, the camera is deceptively zooming in and only capturing the first two horizontal pieces; not the entire length.
-
]
What do you think, Guest? Good shit, or bunk shit?
[/quote]
That's good shit man.
Amazing video.
Ultimate proof.
Thanks
-
You do realize that the top of that car isn't the surface of a sphere or equally curved in all directions, right?
There is more curvature on that roof front to back than there is from left to right.
Yes, of course there is. The author says as much in the quoted post, and it's why he included photos taken along both directions. It is plain to see that the curve facing the camera is emphasized by the compressed perspective of the chess pieces compared to the other curve, in either direction, just as the curved surface of the Earth is emphasized by the power lines on Lake Pontchartrain compared to the horizon.
Readers, note that Tom is cherry-picking what he thinks the weak link is. He's no longer talking about the video, and he ignored the photographs of the chess pawns on a level surface. He'll nitpick, dodge, and deny until the cows come home, drawing out the argument because that's what denialists do.
-
Here's some solid goodness: (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/)
A classic experiment to demonstrate the curvature of a body of water is to place markers (like flags) a fixed distance above the water in a straight line, and then view them along that line in a telescope. If the water surface is flat then the markers will appear also in a straight line. If the surface of the water is curved (as it is here on Earth) then the markers in the middle will appear higher than the markers at the ends. Here's a highly exaggerated diagram of the effect by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/d3024eed228cdb781223b0c872643aaf.jpg)
This is a difficult experiment to do as you need a few miles for the curvature to be apparent. You also need the markers to be quite high above the surface of the water, as temperature differences between the water and the air tend to create significant refraction effects close to the water.
However Youtuber Soundly has found a spot where there's a very long line of markers permanently fixed at constant heights above the water line, clearly demonstrating the curve. It's a line of power transmission towers at Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, Louisiana.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADO7nkt-rk
What do you think, Guest? Good shit, or bunk shit?
Why was this addressed to me?
-
It's the forum code (you), but with [] instead of (). It shows everyone their own username.
-
Readers, note that Tom is cherry-picking what he thinks the weak link is. He's no longer talking about the video, and he ignored the photographs of the chess pawns on a level surface. He'll nitpick, dodge, and deny until the cows come home, drawing out the argument because that's what denialists do.
I'll ask you to stick to the arguments and keep the rants out of the upper fora, as well as the [you] tag, as it is confusing for those entering discussion.
One warning since you already have a previous ban. Next one will be a week off.
-
mmk
-
mmk
Ah, I see simple rules are obviously beneath you. Have a week off.
-
If you could see vertical curvature, you should be able to see horizontal curvature on the horizon.
why do you think this is true? can you justify this claim beyond your assertion?
-
You do realize that the top of that car isn't the surface of a sphere or equally curved in all directions, right?
I agree, the car was a bad example, but let me just say, the earth isn't nice and round 'equally curved' as most of the population may think. the Earth was created by the collection and clumping of proto-planets, and so on, making the Earth look more like this:
(https://spaceyug.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/earth-image.jpg)
And depending on where you are, the Earth may seem more extremely flat or extremely curved.
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
-
You do realize that the top of that car isn't the surface of a sphere or equally curved in all directions, right?
I agree, the car was a bad example, but let me just say, the earth isn't nice and round 'equally curved' as most of the population may think. the Earth was created by the collection and clumping of proto-planets, and so on, making the Earth look more like this:
(https://spaceyug.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/earth-image.jpg)
And depending on where you are, the Earth may seem more extremely flat or extremely curved.
I think "extremely" is pushing it a bit. The measurements in the source article talk about differences of ~20 or ~40 metres in the Earth's radius, so it's still fair to say that the Earth is a sphere to about 0.3% radially.
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.
You do realize that the top of that car isn't the surface of a sphere or equally curved in all directions, right?
I agree, the car was a bad example, but let me just say, the earth isn't nice and round 'equally curved' as most of the population may think. the Earth was created by the collection and clumping of proto-planets, and so on, making the Earth look more like this:
https://spaceyug.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/earth-image.jpg
And depending on where you are, the Earth may seem more extremely flat or extremely curved.
That image isn't showing actual terrain. Its a gravity discrepancy map. There isn't a huge impression into the earth near the coast of India. The sea level altitude is the same there. The levels of g are simply much less there according to gravimeters (which actually is a mystery that contradicts the Round Earth model), and this is a map which illustrates the discrepancies in g.
See: https://www.sciencealert.com/don-t-be-fooled-by-a-viral-gif-that-claims-earth-is-actually-lumpy-not-round
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.
Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.
Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.
Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.
Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.
Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. You also linked to a video of these lines on page 1 which does not show the curving. What more is there to explain?
Thork was shown to be lying. Saying the power lines absolutely don't exist. He didn't question their existence. He claimed, quite boldly, that they didn't exist. He also made some comment about him asking google to remove the images or something. (not bothering to go back) Thork also claimed the pic of the 3d model was used to create the scene. That is another lie. They created 2 models One flat and one curved. The video matched the curved pic. Finally, you claim it is photoshopped. I will forgive the fact that you don't know that Photoshop can't edit videos. Prove the video was edited. You don't seem to realize that the still from the video is zoomed in quite tightly. You're seeing miles of towers in that image.
So, what is your proof the video isn't real?
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.
Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.
Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?
He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.
He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.
That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.
Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.
Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.
Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?
He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.
He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.
That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.
Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.
1) Just because someone posts a video does not make it credible evidence to suggest anything other than they have an objective in sharing the video. With the quality of editing software, lenses and capturing equipment, processors and video cards there is no rational reason to believe what you see in a video. In fact, the way we have classically tested these things is with personal observations. You have observed Youtube.com and believe what you see. That's fine, but for you to expect anyone else to "dissprove" what you see and therefore choose to believe in fact is of faulty logic. There is no way for me or anyone to disprove your beliefs. You may believe The Lion King was 100% actual footage - this does not mean I have (or can for that matter) to prove to you that it is not actual footage for it to be what it actually is. The earth may still be flat no matter how foolish we all become. It may be a ball, there may be cheese inside, the cake may in fact be the truth. (The cake is a lie!)
2)One explanation was given as to how this would happen on a flat earth. Video editing. It happens to be a very solid answer. Have you visited this site? Have you done any actual observing of this perspective?
Final thoughts) Thork certainly made himself look foolish early on in this thread, there is no question of that. I don't think that makes his points any more or less valid so attacking his foolishness does not give any further credibility to the OP video. Here is one more video for you to take a look at, it contradicts the other video that you believe already, now you have to make a choice. Both videos hold the same amount of water for me.
<iframe width="642" height="392" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d3_umFGu_gc?ecver=1" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
-
Sorry if this has been pointed out, But on the first picture / illustration of the first post on page one, is a little incorrect!
The two poles, should be leaning outwards at the top, not going straight up. This would bring the 'line of sight' lower too.
Again, sorry if thats been pointed out already ( and sorry if I am incorrect!)
Your video does obviously show curvature. We all know we can only trust ourselves though.
-
The Round Earth is far too large to see curvature like that. If you could see vertical curvature, you should be able to see horizontal curvature on the horizon.
I've been out at sea: The horizon is a straight line all around you, 360°...
All points on the horizon have the same distance to the observer, so it's a circle, and you are nearly close to the center, a tiny bit above it. What is the projection of a circle seen from the side: A straight line.
Or make an analog experiment: Take a hula hoop or a similar ring with enough diameter, put your head in the middle of the ring, raise it to your eye level and hold it horizontal. What do you see: a straight line.
Or, if left and right ends of the horizon dip down, how can you connect them again, if you do a full 360° turn?
Related: Experiment 7 in Earth not a globe
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za12.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za12.htm)
At any altitude above the sea-level, fix a long board--say from 6 to 12 or more feet in length--edgewise upon tripods, as shown in fig. 17. Let the upper edge be smooth, and perfectly leveled. On placing the eye behind and about the centre of the board B, B, and looking over it towards the sea, the distant horizon will be observed to run perfectly parallel with its upper edge. If the eye be now directed in an angular direction to the left and to the right, there will be no difficulty in observing a length of ten to twenty miles, according to the altitude of the position; and this whole distance of twenty miles of sea horizon will be seen as a perfectly straight line.
Rowbotham does not give a hight above sea level, he said "any altitude", so I take 2 meters, than the horizon is about 3 miles (nautical) away. How does a line of 20 miles fit into a circle of 3 miles radius?
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.
Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.
Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?
He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.
He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.
That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.
Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.
1) Just because someone posts a video does not make it credible evidence to suggest anything other than they have an objective in sharing the video. With the quality of editing software, lenses and capturing equipment, processors and video cards there is no rational reason to believe what you see in a video. In fact, the way we have classically tested these things is with personal observations. You have observed Youtube.com and believe what you see. That's fine, but for you to expect anyone else to "dissprove" what you see and therefore choose to believe in fact is of faulty logic. There is no way for me or anyone to disprove your beliefs. You may believe The Lion King was 100% actual footage - this does not mean I have (or can for that matter) to prove to you that it is not actual footage for it to be what it actually is. The earth may still be flat no matter how foolish we all become. It may be a ball, there may be cheese inside, the cake may in fact be the truth. (The cake is a lie!)
2)One explanation was given as to how this would happen on a flat earth. Video editing. It happens to be a very solid answer. Have you visited this site? Have you done any actual observing of this perspective?
Final thoughts) Thork certainly made himself look foolish early on in this thread, there is no question of that. I don't think that makes his points any more or less valid so attacking his foolishness does not give any further credibility to the OP video. Here is one more video for you to take a look at, it contradicts the other video that you believe already, now you have to make a choice. Both videos hold the same amount of water for me.
<iframe width="642" height="392" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d3_umFGu_gc?ecver=1" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
1) Simply claiming "FAKE" to anything that disagrees with your worldview isn't how this works. He's posited that it's fake. He needs to conclusively back this up in order to dismiss the evidence presented. If you want to dismiss all video and photographic evidence on the basis of "Well anything can be faked nowadays" then why bother engaging in a debate or discussion? To dismiss such evidence you must present a compelling reason or evidence to it's fakery. Thork tried by claiming the towers did not exist, and some images that made sense within that context. Those images and that tweet now need more context, in light of the towers existing. By themselves they are not evidence of trickery, only a curiosity that could use some more information.
2) It's a good answer, but it requires actual proof. See answer to #1. Waving your hands and shouting "FAKE" only makes you look the fool.
As to your video, yes I've seen that one. Couple of issues with it though. First, his camera leaves much to be desired in resolution further out. Makes it hard to tell a whole lot. BUT I would point out how the pylons on the bottom appear to see less and less of them the further out you go. Why would that be? Could they be vanishing behind the curve? Second, the original photo and video makes use of a very specific perspective effect to enhance/embellish the appearance of a curve. I have no doubt looking at it in such a way as this video does could make them appear flat and level. The curve is very small compared to the 100 foot tall towers. Lastly, some commenters suggest he might be showing a different set of towers all together. I'm not certain how likely this is without more information, but it's at least a reasonable explanation regardless of how much stock one puts in it.
Both videos can in fact show the truth. That's the fun part. There's no need for either to have doctored the videos using software, as with the naked eye those towers probably do look very flat! This is why the first video and the images brought in a very specific perspective effect to help amplify the appearance of the curve. There's no need whatsoever to have to pick one, when both can be correct in so far as what they're showing!
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.
Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.
Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?
He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.
He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.
That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.
Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.
1) Just because someone posts a video does not make it credible evidence to suggest anything other than they have an objective in sharing the video. With the quality of editing software, lenses and capturing equipment, processors and video cards there is no rational reason to believe what you see in a video. In fact, the way we have classically tested these things is with personal observations. You have observed Youtube.com and believe what you see. That's fine, but for you to expect anyone else to "dissprove" what you see and therefore choose to believe in fact is of faulty logic. There is no way for me or anyone to disprove your beliefs. You may believe The Lion King was 100% actual footage - this does not mean I have (or can for that matter) to prove to you that it is not actual footage for it to be what it actually is. The earth may still be flat no matter how foolish we all become. It may be a ball, there may be cheese inside, the cake may in fact be the truth. (The cake is a lie!)
2)One explanation was given as to how this would happen on a flat earth. Video editing. It happens to be a very solid answer. Have you visited this site? Have you done any actual observing of this perspective?
Final thoughts) Thork certainly made himself look foolish early on in this thread, there is no question of that. I don't think that makes his points any more or less valid so attacking his foolishness does not give any further credibility to the OP video. Here is one more video for you to take a look at, it contradicts the other video that you believe already, now you have to make a choice. Both videos hold the same amount of water for me.
<iframe width="642" height="392" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d3_umFGu_gc?ecver=1" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
1) Simply claiming "FAKE" to anything that disagrees with your worldview isn't how this works. He's posited that it's fake. He needs to conclusively back this up in order to dismiss the evidence presented. If you want to dismiss all video and photographic evidence on the basis of "Well anything can be faked nowadays" then why bother engaging in a debate or discussion? To dismiss such evidence you must present a compelling reason or evidence to it's fakery. Thork tried by claiming the towers did not exist, and some images that made sense within that context. Those images and that tweet now need more context, in light of the towers existing. By themselves they are not evidence of trickery, only a curiosity that could use some more information.
2) It's a good answer, but it requires actual proof. See answer to #1. Waving your hands and shouting "FAKE" only makes you look the fool.
As to your video, yes I've seen that one. Couple of issues with it though. First, his camera leaves much to be desired in resolution further out. Makes it hard to tell a whole lot. BUT I would point out how the pylons on the bottom appear to see less and less of them the further out you go. Why would that be? Could they be vanishing behind the curve? Second, the original photo and video makes use of a very specific perspective effect to enhance/embellish the appearance of a curve. I have no doubt looking at it in such a way as this video does could make them appear flat and level. The curve is very small compared to the 100 foot tall towers. Lastly, some commenters suggest he might be showing a different set of towers all together. I'm not certain how likely this is without more information, but it's at least a reasonable explanation regardless of how much stock one puts in it.
Both videos can in fact show the truth. That's the fun part. There's no need for either to have doctored the videos using software, as with the naked eye those towers probably do look very flat! This is why the first video and the images brought in a very specific perspective effect to help amplify the appearance of the curve. There's no need whatsoever to have to pick one, when both can be correct in so far as what they're showing!
When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.
There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.
Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.
-
When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.
There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.
Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.
There's no need to bring faith in here in an attempt to steer the conversation away from facts. You don't need to act condescending, it's unbecoming.
Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded, and it was demonstrated how the effect seen could be created using certain techniques that were also shown to not create a curve where there is none. If we're to go with your court analogy, it's now on the defendant to cast doubt onto the evidence once again. Which has been attempted with the second video, and as I pointed out that video is taken both from a poor quality camera (and still might be displaying signs of curvature) but it doesn't appear to be using the correct angle required to create this visual 'trick' of enhancing the curve. Now, in a court case this would indeed be up to the jury how much they wish to allow this statement to allay the doubts about the original information that has been raised. But I would also point out (despite the FES insistence it's not the case) the default position is that of a round Earth. So while the second video may create doubt upon the first video, I personally feel even to a neutral observer there is not yet reason to doubt the evidence within the first.
You keep coming back to "You can't trust YouTube videos" which is fair. But when we have information presented to us from other sources showing how an odd effect is created, there creates more certainty for a video showing things correctly. You once again appear to be operating from this stance of "No visual media is to be trusted" which....alright. That's fine. But, why discuss or debate a visual media when you don't think it's reliable to begin with? Not to mention raising the second video. Why is that one any more trustworthy to you than the first? I would posit they are BOTH unedited in any way, and one is simply making use of a very specific technique to show something, while the other is not. Once again, even a couple feet of dip will be quite negligible compared to the heights of the towers, AND the supporting pillars at the bottom *appear* to become shorter in comparison to the height of the water in the second video. But as for the second bit, his video is not of sufficient quality to be certain.
-
I'm back after my 3 day ban, having missed this entire thread. The OP asked what I thought of the video so I will respond to him first. I think the video is interesting and would be difficult to fake such a complex moving image in any software that I know. It would be possibly simpler if the video was not zooming in and out and showing handheld movement. It has certainly been taken with a high degree of zoom to enhance the effect of curvature, did someone say 83x? One of my video cameras has an optical zoom of 40 times and a digital zoom of 1500x so I can confirm from my own experiences that extreme zoom can give views that the naked eye wouldn't. The video shown by the OP seems to have been taken at a lower height then the later video and at a much more acute angle to the pylon line, which would make it much clearer if there apparent curvature in the relationship between the height of the towers receding into the distance. The second video is taken from a little higher as far as I can see, but more importantly, is taken at a far less acute angle and with a poor quality lens, probably a phone, so with less towers clearly visible close together it's not really practical to say there is no curvature visible. As has been said, neither video is conclusive proof of RE or FE, although the OP is more convincing. There are better bays to conduct the horizon experiment that I will have a go at next Spring as I am in a part of the UK that has some suitable areas. I will also be taking my boat out to sea again and taking some video of things appearing over the horizon in real time, both at deck height and with a masthead camera.
What is quite interesting from this thread is that both Baby Thork and Tom love to use the 'anything can be photo shopped' get out, but in common with many other denials quite clearly have absolutely no idea of what is possible and not possible in photo shop.I would love to here from either of them how they would go about the process in technical detail as evidence. Photo shop is a photographic processing software programme that can enable the user to do some amazing editing and is a programme that I use almost every day in my business. I also use a couple of video editing programmes daily, and after 35 years of making videos, would love to be able to do half the things that are claimed on this forum. Using High end film company CGI facilities, rotoscoping and very sophisticated techniques are possible to highly trained and skilled operatives, but they are hardly going to waste their time on amateur handheld footage when they can earn big money in the CGI industry.
Roger
-
The OP asked what I thought of the video so I will respond to him first.
Just a FYI, OP didn’t ask you specifically. OP used the [you] tag, which displays the name of whoever is viewing the post. It is fine and fun in the lower fora, but misleading in the upper fora.
-
The OP asked what I thought of the video so I will respond to him first.
Just a FYI, OP didn’t ask you specifically. OP used the [you] tag, which displays the name of whoever is viewing the post. It is fine and fun in the lower fora, but misleading in the upper fora.
Sorry Junker I must still be battered by the ban, so it would be great if you could explain please. The OP concluded his original post with 'What do you think, Roger G? Good shit, or bunk shit?' My apologies if I misunderstood, but he did appear to be asking me what I thought, especially as I hadn't previously viewed it as you banned me earlier.
I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but it would help my future posting if I understand :)
Thanks for your help,
Roger
-
Roger if you go back and use the quote function on the OP you won’t see your name but a bbcode tag instead.
-
When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.
There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.
Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.
There's no need to bring faith in here in an attempt to steer the conversation away from facts.
Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...
YOU are the one bringing faith into this discussion. You believe the youtube tapes are fact, or you at the very least use that position as a basis for your argument. I am saying they can be disputed and lack the credibility of personal observation and data gathering. Your faith in this document as representing fact is being passed off as just beliving a fact when it is presented. This aims to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with you as a denyer of fact since they do not accept the evidence presented as a legitimate document. The video is not enough, we need reliable data based on ovservation that can be interperated, taught, understood, and observed.
Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...
They were never PROVEN unfounded. Certainly he made himself look like a fool, but it gave no new credibility to the video, and it did not PROVE anything.
Lastly, I won't engage in this back and forth with you any longer. You throw words like "fact" and "proven" around like they are tools to sharing your point of view. This is futile if you refuse to play by the rules of argument.
-
When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.
There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.
Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.
There's no need to bring faith in here in an attempt to steer the conversation away from facts.
Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...
YOU are the one bringing faith into this discussion. You believe the youtube tapes are fact, or you at the very least use that position as a basis for your argument. I am saying they can be disputed and lack the credibility of personal observation and data gathering. Your faith in this document as representing fact is being passed off as just beliving a fact when it is presented. This aims to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with you as a denyer of fact since they do not accept the evidence presented as a legitimate document. The video is not enough, we need reliable data based on ovservation that can be interperated, taught, understood, and observed.
Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...
They were never PROVEN unfounded. Certainly he made himself look like a fool, but it gave no new credibility to the video, and it did not PROVE anything.
Lastly, I won't engage in this back and forth with you any longer. You throw words like "fact" and "proven" around like they are tools to sharing your point of view. This is futile if you refuse to play by the rules of argument.
Thork's objections were based on the fact the poles did not exist. They were shown to exist, and as such proven unfounded. You are the one who can't seem to figure out the rules of debate. You've presented no evidence to doubt the contents of the video beyond "It's a video and could have been doctored". We've had one person commenting as well that the amount of work doing such a thing would take is beyond the paygrade of most home shop people. The second video shown doesn't dispute the contents of the first video in any way. If you refuse to take anything presented at face value until proven otherwise (or because of knowledge you hold yourself) then I have to ask once again. Why bother discussing anything? I take the video at face value because other images have shown the effect is one that can be properly duplicated, and objections to it have not been properly sourced. As well I cannot find reason to suspect the author was acting in poor faith in this instance. Has Thork raised the potential for tomfoolery with the video? Sure. But has it conclusively rejected the video? Not at all. What he's presented lacks context, or has been demonstrated to be false.
We have data given on how to recreate the video. We have data showing how the video was created. As it stands I see no reasonably supported objection to the video. Yes, it 'lacks the credibility of personal observation and data gathering' but if you only trust or believe what you yourself experience and witness, there's no discussion to be had. I don't have the equipment to recreate such an effect, much less live close enough to do it. But a friend with more knowledge in the field assures me such an effect is possible as well.
-
Here's some solid goodness: (https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/)
A classic experiment to demonstrate the curvature of a body of water is to place markers (like flags) a fixed distance above the water in a straight line, and then view them along that line in a telescope. If the water surface is flat then the markers will appear also in a straight line. If the surface of the water is curved (as it is here on Earth) then the markers in the middle will appear higher than the markers at the ends. Here's a highly exaggerated diagram of the effect by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/d3024eed228cdb781223b0c872643aaf.jpg)
This is a difficult experiment to do as you need a few miles for the curvature to be apparent. You also need the markers to be quite high above the surface of the water, as temperature differences between the water and the air tend to create significant refraction effects close to the water.
However Youtuber Soundly has found a spot where there's a very long line of markers permanently fixed at constant heights above the water line, clearly demonstrating the curve. It's a line of power transmission towers at Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, Louisiana.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADO7nkt-rk
What do you think, Guest? Good shit, or bunk shit?
This is some good shit. It'd take too much faith for it to be fake. Too many plans, photos, and 3rd party videos all showing the same thing for it to be fake. In no way would it converge if it were perspective. Those power lines are perfectly straight. Can't be anything but curvature.
-
I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do we agree these transmission lines exist?
Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?
Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.
Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.
Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?
He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.
He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.
That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.
Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.
1) Just because someone posts a video does not make it credible evidence to suggest anything other than they have an objective in sharing the video. With the quality of editing software, lenses and capturing equipment, processors and video cards there is no rational reason to believe what you see in a video. In fact, the way we have classically tested these things is with personal observations. You have observed Youtube.com and believe what you see. That's fine, but for you to expect anyone else to "dissprove" what you see and therefore choose to believe in fact is of faulty logic. There is no way for me or anyone to disprove your beliefs. You may believe The Lion King was 100% actual footage - this does not mean I have (or can for that matter) to prove to you that it is not actual footage for it to be what it actually is. The earth may still be flat no matter how foolish we all become. It may be a ball, there may be cheese inside, the cake may in fact be the truth. (The cake is a lie!)
2)One explanation was given as to how this would happen on a flat earth. Video editing. It happens to be a very solid answer. Have you visited this site? Have you done any actual observing of this perspective?
Final thoughts) Thork certainly made himself look foolish early on in this thread, there is no question of that. I don't think that makes his points any more or less valid so attacking his foolishness does not give any further credibility to the OP video. Here is one more video for you to take a look at, it contradicts the other video that you believe already, now you have to make a choice. Both videos hold the same amount of water for me.
<iframe width="642" height="392" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d3_umFGu_gc?ecver=1" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?
-
You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?
Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.
-
You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?
Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.
Google something along the lines of "Chicago skyline from lake Michigan" or "Toronto skyline from lake Ontario". There are plenty of pics where people have zoomed in from long distances that show portions of the skyline hidden by the curve of the Earth. I'm guessing you've seen them as they do show up on this site from time to time.
-
You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?
Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.
Try these
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Chicago+skyline+from+lake+Michigan%22&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd6Mj0kajYAhVo6YMKHb5tBLsQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=949#imgrc=jLqjHFTGpFLeMM:
-
You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?
Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.
Google something along the lines of "Chicago skyline from lake Michigan" or "Toronto skyline from lake Ontario". There are plenty of pics where people have zoomed in from long distances that show portions of the skyline hidden by the curve of the Earth. I'm guessing you've seen them as they do show up on this site from time to time.
Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
Show us something that looks like things are actually curving away, like the images in the op, but taken by someone else.
-
You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?
Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.
Google something along the lines of "Chicago skyline from lake Michigan" or "Toronto skyline from lake Ontario". There are plenty of pics where people have zoomed in from long distances that show portions of the skyline hidden by the curve of the Earth. I'm guessing you've seen them as they do show up on this site from time to time.
Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
Show us something that looks like things are actually curving away, like the images in the op, but taken by someone else.
Here you go. Same subject. Different person, no zoom, different angle - curve still visible in the far distance. Further, this person appears to be just a photographer - I see no mention of FE/RE.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7267/6993318942_f2eb76a143_b.jpg)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/romamar76/6993318942 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/romamar76/6993318942)
-
So, where's the curve?
-
Towards the horizon. It’s tough to tell if it is a linear recession due to shrinking angular diameter of the towers or if the line is curving though. It looks like it could be curving but without a visual aide it is fought to tell if it is a tromp d’oeil or not.
-
Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
No they aren’t. Unless light bends in strange and erratic ways while appearing to travel in a straight line, ENaG utterly fails to explain how stadiums and the lower half of office towers can be missing.
-
So, where's the curve?
It is there. Easiest to see it if you enlarge the image and draw a line. It isn't going to be as obvious as the video because it isn't zoomed in 83x.
-
Where's the curve? It's visible near the end of the line of towers. Remember that the curve is only 8 inches in the first mile, and up to about 6 feet by the third mile and if you can see 12 miles it's about 100 feet.
https://imgur.com/a/Bpb64
The towers are about 800-1000 feet apart from the Google Maps aerial photography:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0832458,-90.4019739,441m/data=!3m1!1e3
So, somewhere between 5 and 7 towers per mile.
You can count towers up to at least 5 miles away, after which the towers are clearly diverging from a straight line.
-
Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
Is this the idea that the bottom of objects disappear first as objects recede on a flat plane?
I have no idea how you think that would work. Can you provide any proof of this?
If I'm walking away from you on a flat plane then no matter how far away I get you have a clear line of sight to all of me.
Perspective makes things smaller and distance makes things less clear but on a flat plane the bottom half of me isn't going to disappear first.
I might become hard to see, optical zoom will then make me visible again because you have clear line of sight to me.
In another thread you said that items only appear to sink beneath the horizon but optical zoom can restore them. But this image is already zoomed in
(https://orchardparkway.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/toronto-at-sunset.jpg)
It's clear you can only see the tops of the tallest buildings, the buildings in between cannot be seen as they are hidden by the curve of the earth.
I guess you're probably going to claim that it's waves hiding the rest although it's clear the water is pretty calm in this photo.
-
If we enlarge the photo we see that some of those buildings are floating in the air above the water. How can you present it as any kind of evidence with a straight face?
-
Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
Is this the idea that the bottom of objects disappear first as objects recede on a flat plane?
I have no idea how you think that would work. Can you provide any proof of this?
If I'm walking away from you on a flat plane then no matter how far away I get you have a clear line of sight to all of me.
Perspective makes things smaller and distance makes things less clear but on a flat plane the bottom half of me isn't going to disappear first.
I might become hard to see, optical zoom will then make me visible again because you have clear line of sight to me.
In another thread you said that items only appear to sink beneath the horizon but optical zoom can restore them. But this image is already zoomed in
(https://orchardparkway.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/toronto-at-sunset.jpg)
It's clear you can only see the tops of the tallest buildings, the buildings in between cannot be seen as they are hidden by the curve of the earth.
I guess you're probably going to claim that it's waves hiding the rest although it's clear the water is pretty calm in this photo.
Again, if you go up that tower and watch the sunset, just check the angle of the sun to your eyeball. Why is the sun lower than you when it should be 3000 miles higher?
-
If we enlarge the photo we see that some of those buildings are floating in the air above the water. How can you present it as any kind of evidence with a straight face?
Bad example, maybe. This one is better.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-LmoE3bgM-IQ/U5uU0QTRtzI/AAAAAAAALDA/X5qbJ5K0XWs/w600-h392-no/3.jpg)
No floating. Happy now?
And I see you ignored the point about perspective. Perspective on a flat plane does NOT make the bottom of objects disappear.
If you think it does then please provide some evidence. No matter how far away I am from you, if we are on a flat plane there will be a clear line of sight between us.
All of me should be visible. With distance I may become unclear and optical zoom would then make me clear again but that is all.
On a curved surface then the bottom of me will become visible till only the top of my is visible. At that point no amount of optical zoom would allow you to see the rest of me.
-
If we enlarge the photo we see that some of those buildings are floating in the air above the water. How can you present it as any kind of evidence with a straight face?
The obvious thing with these images is, that no one takes refraction into account, and there are a lot of these.
I've also seen similar things while out at sea and approaching land. There is often a blur and mirage by refraction, so that small woods or small islands appear to be floating above the horizon, normally only dark blobs due to the blur.
If you do not evaluate refraction, you cannot evaluate curvature.
I see 2 lines 'at the horizon'.
- The sharp water-horizon, seems to have pretty visible structure (waves) till the visible end.
- A mirage line a bit above the water-horizon. The top of lower buildings seem to be inverted/mirrored at that line. The gap between the mirage-line and the water-horizon is filled with parts of the sky mirrored. depending on the hight of these lower buildings the gap is sometimes smaller or larger, for really high buildings there's no gap, the gap filled with the mirror image of the building.
As the water is more structured than the blurred images of the buildings , I can only deduce following:
The water-horizon is much nearer than the buildings.
On a flat earth the structured water surface should be visible until it is blurred in the same way as the buildings behind, but it is not.
-
If we enlarge the photo we see that some of those buildings are floating in the air above the water. How can you present it as any kind of evidence with a straight face?
Welcome to light refraction, Tom. It is the same thing that messed up Rowbotham. Glad you finally can see that it exists.
-
What do you think, Guest? Good shit, or bunk shit?
[/quote]
You know I'm on your side, right? And please don't swear.
-
That's the \you\ flag. Everyone sees their own username there. It continues to trip people up, so I have edited the post.
-
I'm just repeating, what I've seen out at sea:
The sticking point is the sharp "water-horizon-line".
With clear weather and good visibility, the horizon at sea is a sharp line. It looks like, as if your looking over some near mountain ridge and see other blurred mountains (sea, e.g. islands) behind it. This is all around you, all 360°. So on first sight, it looks like your sitting at the bottom of a very flat bowl. But as you proceed, the "bowl" is moving with you, you never reach the rim.
The only other geometry, which gives a similar view and can explain, that the view is sustained as you proceed, is the surface of a big sphere...
And don't try to explain this with "waves obscuring your view". I've been out in a storm, watching another yacht near by (less than a mile away). You clearly see the difference, when sometimes the yacht is obscured by waves so high, that you only see the higher part of the mast of the other yacht.
-
Anyone have a photo of a curved cloud?
-
Anyone have a photo of a curved cloud?
As opposed to the regular cube shaped ones, you mean?
-
Thork has shown plenty of evidence that the images are fakes. The world would have to be tiny if those images were true
Yes, probably agree, although I have not seen or observed this myself.
However let's have the round earthers have their day for one moment and allow them their many assumptions.
They say the earth is approx. 6371km radius. The causeway looks very interesting. Standing at the beginning of it, the end would be there and abouts 115m lower. If we believe the round earthists, and if we believe the causeway to be as long as they say it is.
It's very simple sinus and cosinus. I'll post below how it works:
(https://preview.ibb.co/fV0Kn7/034deg.png) (https://ibb.co/hAKqun)
So the angle is teeny tiiny 0.34 degrees, so I'll post another photo below to show what it shows:
(https://preview.ibb.co/h2kwZn/45deg.png) (https://ibb.co/fU9OEn)
This is of course give and take a little bit, because they also assume the earth is not exactly round etcetera. Nevertheless I doubt that you could see that far to see the difference. Better to limit ourselves to what we can see or observe, and leave the rest as unknown.
-
Thork has shown plenty of evidence that the images are fakes. The world would have to be tiny if those images were true
Yes, probably agree, although I have not seen or observed this myself.
However let's have the round earthers have their day for one moment and allow them their many assumptions.
They say the earth is approx. 6371km radius. The causeway looks very interesting. Standing at the beginning of it, the end would be there and abouts 115m lower. If we believe the round earthists, and if we believe the causeway to be as long as they say it is.
It's very simple sinus and cosinus. I'll post below how it works:
(https://preview.ibb.co/fV0Kn7/034deg.png) (https://ibb.co/hAKqun)
So the angle is teeny tiiny 0.34 degrees, so I'll post another photo below to show what it shows:
(https://preview.ibb.co/h2kwZn/45deg.png) (https://ibb.co/fU9OEn)
This is of course give and take a little bit, because they also assume the earth is not exactly round etcetera. Nevertheless I doubt that you could see that far to see the difference. Better to limit ourselves to what we can see or observe, and leave the rest as unknown.
Simple math to give the distance to the horizonhttp://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm (http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm)
ie. OH=√(V^2+2Vr)
However since no FE has answered the post "what would constitute proof to them", implying there is no proof that they would consider sufficient to make them believe in a round earth, this discussion is relatively pointless.
-
While I applaud your attempt to use trigonometry in response to the Lake Ponchatrain case, you have made a significant error. You are mixing polar and cartesian coordinate systems.
The use of geometry to determine the radius of the earth (geo - earth, merty - measurement) goes back to the ancient Greeks and peoples of the subcontinent of India. Two historical figures whose mathematical computations estimated the radius of a spheroid earth of approximately 6370 kilometers are Eratosthnes (Greece) and Al Beruni (India). These scholars worked independently, as they were significantly removed one from the other in space and time, and arrived at similar results using different methodologies.
-
While I applaud your attempt to use trigonometry in response to the Lake Ponchatrain case, you have made a significant error. You are mixing polar and cartesian coordinate systems.
The use of geometry to determine the radius of the earth (geo - earth, merty - measurement) goes back to the ancient Greeks and peoples of the subcontinent of India. Two historical figures whose mathematical computations estimated the radius of a spheroid earth of approximately 6370 kilometers are Eratosthnes (Greece) and Al Beruni (India). These scholars worked independently, as they were significantly removed one from the other in space and time, and arrived at similar results using different methodologies.
Ok simple experiment go stand in the sea or even better a lake, on a very calm day. Stand up to your belly button (0.5m from eyes to surface) and get you girl friend to take the boat out hold an bright coloured object (eg orange stick) horizontal and close to the water line. When she is 2,5 km out, you wont see the stick. This gives the earth radius of 6378137 metres.
http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm (http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm)
-
you have made a significant error. You are mixing polar and cartesian coordinate systems.
Explain to me your statement: significant error? It does not change the outcome of the calculation. Measurements can be expressed polar or cartesian. Only changes representation.
In our case Polar coordinate is uninteresting, because distance from reference point, the supposedly radius of the earth stays 6371km. The angle is irrelevant too.
What we are interested in are the Base and the Height, or the approximate length of the causeway, and the height difference that it results in.
Supposed length of causeway is 38.442km.
A supposed radius of earth results in a height difference of -115m.
Because angle is so small, around 0.34 degrees, you cannot notice distinction in the graph, the two lines are into one on top of each other, so it seems.
If you still disagree, tell me what you think the answer should be, assuming we pretend to be round earthers for a moment, and we'll discuss further.
-
For sake of completion tidied up the graph a bit. Now the right way up, and labelled.
Of course, we don't believe in round earth, but if we were to allow them to have their assumptions, and we forgot about what we see, observe and experience, we could say that if you were at the start of the causeway and you were to look in a flat line, and the earth were to be round which I highly doubt, this is what it would look like:
Whole earth radius speculated to be 6371 by round earthers:
(https://preview.ibb.co/jXFr4n/03455x1deg.png) (https://ibb.co/mpPUqS)
Zoomed approximately a few times:
(https://preview.ibb.co/m447c7/0_3455x10deg.png) (https://ibb.co/cgopqS)
Zommed in approximately even further:
(https://preview.ibb.co/gKAAVS/03455x100deg3.png) (https://ibb.co/bv6jqS)
Anyway, let's get back to flat earthism before too long. Thank you. But mathematics is a bit of fun. Very simple.
-
Well, this has been an excellent thread. It really has it all.
First, the obvious demonstration of the curve of the Earth. Then, the insistence that a set of power lines perfectly visible to millions of people actually didn't exist, and the whole thing was a photoshop fraud. The incredibly confused mathematical diagrams. The bans for people pointing out the above.
If someone wanted to know the state of current FE thinking, I would point them at this.
-
Yes. All quite amusing.
BabyThork wades in claiming that the whole video is a hoax and the power lines aren't even there.
Then when he is shown that they clearly are he just signs off with
"It doesn't matter anyway. The video is a hoax." and we don't hear any more from in in the thread.
Meanwhile Tom considers the matter case closed, backing up Thork.
Then claims the curve is too big to be credible.
Then refuses to bother to try and understand the concept of forced perspective and then just says
"Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly."
Bit more back and forth and then Tom says:
"Show us something that looks like things are actually curving away, like the images in the op, but taken by someone else."
Someone then shows him exactly that which does show a more subtle but discernible curve and he never responds.
So another win for FE then!
-
Meanwhile Tom considers the matter case closed, backing up Thork.
Then claims the curve is too big to be credible.
Then refuses to bother to try and understand the concept of forced perspective and then just says
"Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly."
Bit more back and forth and then Tom says:
"Show us something that looks like things are actually curving away, like the images in the op, but taken by someone else."
Someone then shows him exactly that which does show a more subtle but discernible curve and he never responds.
So another win for FE then!
What makes the whole thing completely absurd is that it's open to anyone to go and look for themselves. It's possible to actually go to see the curve of the Earth, right there in front of you. It's telling that in order to explain it away, all kinds of convoluted reasoning have to be applied.
But the really interesting thing is how the existence of the power lines can be a crucial proof of flat Earth at one minute, and totally irrelevant a few posts in. Just as the supposed faking of the image will be crucial at one minute and entirely irrelevant the next.
I assume that simply noticing and commenting on this is probably grounds for another ban. Oh, please don't ban me again! I promise I'll be good.
-
Yes. All quite amusing.
BabyThork wades in claiming that the whole video is a hoax and the power lines aren't even there.
Then when he is shown that they clearly are he just signs off with
"It doesn't matter anyway. The video is a hoax." and we don't hear any more from in in the thread.
Meanwhile Tom considers the matter case closed, backing up Thork.
Then claims the curve is too big to be credible.
Then refuses to bother to try and understand the concept of forced perspective and then just says
"Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly."
Bit more back and forth and then Tom says:
"Show us something that looks like things are actually curving away, like the images in the op, but taken by someone else."
Someone then shows him exactly that which does show a more subtle but discernible curve and he never responds.
So another win for FE then!
You seem to do this in every thread.
You wade in and then you don't talk about the topic at hand. Instead you narrate a summary, like some sort of twisted round earth fairy god-mother in a low-budget panto, making sure your imaginary audience know who to boo and when the big bad flat earther is behind them. People who read this site aren't 7 years old. They don't need you regurgitating everything and then puking it up all over every single thread. Stop insulting the intelligence of the round earther's on this site. I'm sure they are every bit as capable of reading complex sentences as you are.
And for the record, we already looked at the 'evidence', gave our opinions, and you didn't like them. That doesn't mean I have to respond to your petulant ranting for 24 pages.
-
And for the record, we already looked at the 'evidence', gave our opinions, and you didn't like them. That doesn't mean I have to respond to your petulant ranting for 24 pages.
Opinions is the exact phrase I would use. I think what a lot of REers are looking for are facts, which seems to be in short supply from the FEH folks. I mean you did try to dismiss it by claiming the power lines don't even exist, which is undeniably incorrect.
-
You seem to do this in every thread.
Well no, I don't.
And if you look back I did join in with the actual debate at the time. It was only someone else reviewing the thread which prompted me to.
All you did was deny, deny, deny.
First you tried to claim that the pylons don't exist at all.
Then, when it was conclusively shown that they do you just said words to the effect of
"Yeah? Well...it's fake anyway. So there!"
And that was the end of your contribution to the debate. You guys claim to be interested in empirical evidence but when you're shown some you just shout "FAKE!" at it which is pretty lazy and can be used to "prove" yourself right about anything.
-
is it sjoped?
-
No, it's unedited video.
-
who lives near there?
-
who lives near there?
About a million people.
https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+new+orleans+metro+area
-
The incredibly confused mathematical diagrams.
Sorry, will try explain to you, makes it easy:
Blue = earth (with round earth assumed radius of 6371km)
Red = causeway (with supposed length of 38.422km this says wikipedia)
Blue dot and 116m Height difference is how much lower the end of the causeway is, if you look straight ahead from the start, along flath earth line.
If earth were flat, which I see, the height difference is zero (0m) of course. But round earth assumes it drops away, and simple calculation below show it will drop away 116m.
Explained makes better understanding, no?
Or do you think earth is not circle? (round earth assumption)
Or earth is not 6371km radius? (round earth number)
Or do you think causeway is different length? (maybe wiki is wrong)
Or do you not think it will drop away? (you believe in flat earth, great)
(https://preview.ibb.co/jXFr4n/03455x1deg.png) (https://ibb.co/mpPUqS)
(https://preview.ibb.co/m447c7/0_3455x10deg.png) (https://ibb.co/cgopqS)
(https://preview.ibb.co/gKAAVS/03455x100deg3.png) (https://ibb.co/bv6jqS)
(new picture, zommed in even further)
(https://preview.ibb.co/icHXEn/4.png) (https://ibb.co/cDD5Zn)
-
I'm really confused what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you observe a 0m drop as opposed to the expected 116m drop? Where are you observing this? Where do you think there is a contradiction?
The model shows that the causeway will curve away from a straight line, and when we look at the photos of the electrical towers that's what we see.
-
The Round Earth is far too large to see curvature like that. If you could see vertical curvature, you should be able to see horizontal curvature on the horizon.
Curve is easier to see when you look at line along.
At horizon line you look from aside.
We all looked at long stick from aside and it appeared straight.
Then we looked at it along, and we saw all imperfections.
That's how it is easier to see curvature in line that connects you with horizon, than in horizon itself.
-
I'm really confused what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you observe a 0m drop as opposed to the expected 116m drop? Where are you observing this? Where do you think there is a contradiction?
The model shows that the causeway will curve away from a straight line, and when we look at the photos of the electrical towers that's what we see.
For fun I was following round earth assumptions to see how the causeway would drop away to below at the end of it. Turns out about 116m.
Here you can zoom in zoom out see for yourself: Blue circle with 6371km radius (https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ihmtstpp0v)
-
Ah, thanks. And how do you think it compares to the photos in this thread? I see in the Turning Torso thread your math lines up with the photos.
Do you still believe the earth is flat? What is a flat earth interpretation of these results?
-
At distance of 38.422 km the bulge is 29 meters and standard refraction would make it behave like 25 meters.
And yes, drop from observer's horizontal is 116 meters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2klgth.png)
-
Ah, thanks. And how do you think it compares to the photos in this thread?
I don't know where powerlines are and how far distance is. If I know I can put into calculation with RE assumptions and work out. Would be nice to know how high also.
-
Ah, thanks. And how do you think it compares to the photos in this thread?
Did same thing in applying simple mathematics of round earth assumption Blue circle with 6371km Radius (https://www.desmos.com/calculator/dfy6h7wtvm). (times 7/6 for so called 'standard refraction' that we apparently need to do for refraction of light in atmosphere).
Here is result: calculation says looks like this from 5 to 30 km distance from viewer: in 5km steps.
(https://image.ibb.co/iykjKx/lake.png) (https://ibb.co/jVLJex)
black dotted line = line of sight. everything below is hidden by supposed bulge of blue earth.
-
Here you go. Same subject. Different person, no zoom, different angle - curve still visible in the far distance. Further, this person appears to be just a photographer - I see no mention of FE/RE.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7267/6993318942_f2eb76a143_b.jpg)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/romamar76/6993318942 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/romamar76/6993318942)
So, where's the curve?
I am sorry. An explanation must be seen for it to be real. For it to be considered truth it must be shown.
So if someone shows photo and says: this photo has curve. That is someone showing something.
But maybe you have really bad eyes. I'll help. I might not believe in round earth, but I see it.
(https://image.ibb.co/g0tAcH/cu.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mdfqcH)
-
Treep, the sinking ship effect is covered in ENaG. Please familiarise yourself with the theory you're trying to satirise.
-
Treep, the sinking ship effect is covered in ENaG. Please familiarise yourself with the theory you're trying to satirise.
How does that explain the extreme curve when viewed from specific spots like in the first few videos? Are you saying if you zoomed in enough you could see all the way to the end of the cables?
-
Treep, the sinking ship effect is covered in ENaG. Please familiarise yourself with the theory you're trying to satirise.
Thank you. I'm sorry but Mr. Samuel did not pretend he did not see curve.
Mr. Samual wrote his book roundabouts 1860. Made respectable observations. Knowledge is gained by experience. To state that we have stopped experiencing for over 100 years kind of silly. Occam's Razor would say: I assume more knowledge has been gained since. To say gaining of knowledge stopped in 1860 is simply allowed to be called 'ignorant'.
Mr. Samual was using rationalization - speculation and conjecture to arrive at the conclusion. Not following proper flat earth process, which is observe and experience, make direct conclusion from that or otherwise leave subject as unknown.
Would be better saying: I see perspective I cannot explain. Maybe earth is round, maybe not, maybe other phenomena that I don't understand, but maybe found out about in the next 100 years of science. I leave the subject as unknown.
For example, did he see out to 30 statute mile like this gentleman? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk)
Maybe perspective maybe not, but simple mathematics (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8805.msg146014#msg146014) cannot be used to be argued against round earth. Better to leave subject unknown.
-
Treep, the sinking ship effect is covered in ENaG. Please familiarise yourself with the theory you're trying to satirise.
It is, but his explanation isn't borne out by reality. He mixes up a ship which is a long way away and you can't distinguish a dark hull from a dark sea (yes, that can be seen by optical zoom but it isn't "restored", it wasn't hidden in the first place) and a ship which is actually going over the curve of the earth and only the top can be seen (no amount of zoom will restore it, you can find plenty of photos and video which clearly demonstrate this effect.
On a flat earth as a ship sails away you should be able to see all of it at all times:
(https://image.ibb.co/g2saWm/4.jpg)
But don't worry, there is a shape of earth which could actually explain why a ship disappears hull first...
(https://image.ibb.co/jPDrnR/5.jpg)
Ta-daa!
I know there is some muttering about "waves", I've dealt with that in another thread.
-
I know there is some muttering about "waves", I've dealt with that in another thread.
There are no waves in "Kansas - as flat as a pancake".
The flatness of Kansas was measured from sea level, not from some imaginary flat plane.
Horizon there, as seen while standing on the ground, is still not at 30 miles, but at 3.
It is not so hard to go there, see horizon at 4.5 km, and no waves.
Even beter place to see the distance to horizon will be Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia.
Section XIII of Rowbotham's book is full of descriptions with ignored refraction, and some of them were "slightly adjusted".
There is the .PDF file online, easy to find if you care to know. (Unless one worships the book, instead of reading it.)
-
I think it’s worth pointing out, that even if the observed curvature at Lake Pontchartrain does not match the prediction of current Geodetic measurements, it would still dis prove a FE, where we would not predict any curvature.
-
I think it’s worth pointing out, that even if the observed curvature at Lake Pontchartrain does not match the prediction of current Geodetic measurements, it would still dis prove a FE, where we would not predict any curvature.
Technically it does not disprove according to proper Zetetic. You are making the same mistake Mr. Samuel Rowbotham makes. He said I see perspective I cannot explain. But then he started using rationalization - speculation and conjecture to arrive at the conclusion. For Mr. Samuel would have been better to say: Maybe earth is round, maybe not, maybe other phenomena that I don't understand, but maybe found out about in the next 100 years of science. I leave the subject as unknown. Mr. Samual wrote his book roundabouts 1860. Better have left the subject as unknown.
-
I think it’s worth pointing out, that even if the observed curvature at Lake Pontchartrain does not match the prediction of current Geodetic measurements, it would still dis prove a FE, where we would not predict any curvature.
Technically it does not disprove according to proper Zetetic. You are making the same mistake Mr. Samuel Rowbotham makes. He said I see perspective I cannot explain. But then he started using rationalization - speculation and conjecture to arrive at the conclusion. For Mr. Samuel would have been better to say: Maybe earth is round, maybe not, maybe other phenomena that I don't understand, but maybe found out about in the next 100 years of science. I leave the subject as unknown. Mr. Samual wrote his book roundabouts 1860. Better have left the subject as unknown.
Rowbotham was giving lectures in small towns and villages for money.
He had to run from his lectures when people asked about sinking ships hull first behind horizon.
He developed his version of "perspective" to confuse and discredit those who would ask "inconvenient" questions again.
He developed the rhetoric through his practice, it worked better each time, so he decided it will work well for his book too.
And on some people obviously it did.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtnqO8rCQnU
-
I don't have an explanation for this.
Why would Paul's and Soundly's images show differently?
-
This is great, more pictures are always better.
We have one picture that shows a curve, and one that shows flat. How can we resolve this? More people can go there and take pictures!
For example, here's some pictures someone else took that show a curve:
https://imgur.com/a/Bpb64
This person does not appear to be a round or flat earther, just a photographer.
The imgur link is one I made referring to an image I found on google. For images where I say I adjusted contrast and brightness, I did the manipulations myself using Gimp - you're welcome to take the original image and manipulate it yourself and see if you believe it shows a curve or not, and if it does what that means.
You're also free to go there and take your own pictures. Be sure to bring a powerful telephoto lens or telescope.
Finally, compare the reactions here to your most recent video to the original reaction from Baby Thork, where the very existence of the power lines was not only questioned, but outright denied. One of these reactions is consistent with being curious about how the world actually is, and one of these reactions is consistent with not wanting anything to challenge your world view.
I look forward to seeing everybody else's pictures from here!
-
I don't have an explanation for this.
Why would Paul's and Soundly's images show differently?
Because of the technique used in one, that was potentially not used in the other. If you dig back earlier in the thread it's described some, but it's a sort of depth of field effect (I don't honestly remember exactly what it was offhand right now) that is essentially a manipulation of perspective. It will enhance the appearance of a curve, but it's been shown it will not create a curve where there isn't one.
Again though, as douglips mentions the best thing possible is to attempt to observe it yourself. When presented with evidence that appears to support both sides, you either bias yourself and pick one, or there's little left to do but try and find more evidence, or create the evidence yourself and see for yourself what's going on.
-
it's a sort of depth of field effect (I don't honestly remember exactly what it was offhand right now) that is essentially a manipulation of perspective. It will enhance the appearance of a curve, but it's been shown it will not create a curve where there isn't one.
Hold on, that doesn't make any sense. Depth of field is just a way of expressing the length between the closest and farthest object that's in focus. Both images are sharp throughout, so their DoF is likely comparable. And, even if it wasn't, it'd just result in one image being blurry - not magically curved or un-curved.
-
it's a sort of depth of field effect (I don't honestly remember exactly what it was offhand right now) that is essentially a manipulation of perspective. It will enhance the appearance of a curve, but it's been shown it will not create a curve where there isn't one.
Hold on, that doesn't make any sense. Depth of field is just a way of expressing the length between the closest and farthest object that's in focus. Both images are sharp throughout, so their DoF is likely comparable. And, even if it wasn't, it'd just result in one image being blurry - not magically curved or un-curved.
Hence why I admitted I don't remember what it was called, and didn't have the time to look up what the effect was. Looking back now, it's a product of 'compressed perspective' is what's stated.
I would also note on the side, the video 'disproving' the first that just came up is also not the first to be presented in this thread with that claim.
-
Soundly, the author of the Lake Pontcharitrain images, has been debunked here as well, using his own video of another "curving" scene. He is apparently just cherry picking images:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JygBcqehnNg
-
Looking back now, it's a product of 'compressed perspective' is what's stated.
Perspective compression?! That would be even more evident - the pylons in one photo would appear to be much closer together as a result of using a telephoto lens.
-
Soundly, the author of the Lake Pontcharitrain images, has been debunked here as well, using his own video of another "curving" scene. He is apparently just cherry picking images:
VID
I'm going to quote one of the comments from that video;
"Not sure if your trying to be a retard or actually are one but Soundlys video is clearly stating that the time laps was to show people how the temperature of the water and atmosphere alter refraction .
Everyone knows (well i thought everyone did)that when the temperature of the water and atmosphere above it change so does the refraction effect , the lights are not physically moving the time is passing at an increase speed aka TIME LAPS VIDEO the lights move up or down in the refraction zone due to the difference in water temp and atmosphere temp .
So I have no idea why you uploaded a video showing the effects of refraction and claiming that Soundly was showing earth curve? You really really need to get a brain or at least listen to the first 30 seconds of the original video where Soundly states what he is doing "
-
Soundly, the author of the Lake Pontcharitrain images, has been debunked here as well, using his own video of another "curving" scene. He is apparently just cherry picking images:
VID
I'm going to quote one of the comments from that video;
"Not sure if your trying to be a retard or actually are one but Soundlys video is clearly stating that the time laps was to show people how the temperature of the water and atmosphere alter refraction .
Everyone knows (well i thought everyone did)that when the temperature of the water and atmosphere above it change so does the refraction effect , the lights are not physically moving the time is passing at an increase speed aka TIME LAPS VIDEO the lights move up or down in the refraction zone due to the difference in water temp and atmosphere temp .
So I have no idea why you uploaded a video showing the effects of refraction and claiming that Soundly was showing earth curve? You really really need to get a brain or at least listen to the first 30 seconds of the original video where Soundly states what he is doing "
I believe that argument is "Your video is dumb because it's just showing refraction"? :-\
-
I feel like flat earthers don't understand perspective and refraction.
Perspective works using light as travelling in straight lines from a light source or from an object which the light has bounced off. It is very simple to understand, simulate, calculate and does explain almost all our observations on a spherical earth, apart from when refraction is involved and light bends over long distances mostly just over the surface of earth, and very slightly when viewing up through the atmosphere.
Refraction bends light as it travels through mediums of different density, which is easily demonstrated.
The atmosphere can cause refraction when there is a high gradient density difference, this shows easily in videos and pictures as moving blur, and will result in either light bending upwards (when the density is lower close to the surface), and bending downwards (when the density is higher close to the surface).
The amount of bending is minuscule, and it is only noticeable over long distances, primarily over water watching from a beach or harbor.
The result of light bending upwards, will result in a vertically compressed visual of the objects near to the horizon, or in more extreme cases a vertical flip (mirroring effect) which can be compressed, normal or even stretched in even more extreme cases. The viewing distance to the horizon is also shortened due to light bending upwards.
Normally hot weather will result in this behavior above water.
The result of light bending downwards, which happens less frequently, will result in a vertically stretched visual of the horizon, and will result in a further viewing distance than normal as light will bend with the spherical earth.
-
Videos from a flat earther posted today of the causeway:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEvMTydESMY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2eoptYM3IU
Appears to me that Soundly's observations are confirmed. Visible curvature and the end of the causeway disappears behind the horizon while the top of the buildings of New Orleans are still visible.
Compliments to Jose Gonzalez for actually doing some research!
-
Take a look at this comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEvMTydESMY&t=14s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEvMTydESMY&t=14s)
Red Pill Philosophy
3 hours ago
What I find interesting is that the apparent curvature from the causeway only seems to start bending at the point where the water's horizon meets the causeway.
Pause at 0:14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEvMTydESMY&t=14s) - follow the start of the causeway (excluding that small portion at the start that juts out more to the side than the vast majority of the causeway), and notice how STRAIGHT the bridge looks---it has that common "perspective" converging straight lines effects.
Now, look at the "horizon line" of the water. From the right side of the screen to where it meets underneath the causeway, that, too, is a fairly straight line.
Now, from where the horizon of water meets underneath the causeway, everything from the causeway TOWARDS the cameraman has a standard straight perspective converging lines appearance.
And again, from where the horizon of water meets underneath the causeway, every portion of the causeway further AWAY from the cameraman now has a more obvious and pronounced "curvature."
A few possible explanations:
a) if the earth is a globe, the further away the causeway is, the more pronounced and obvious the curvature is (because the causeway is more "compressed" (visually). Thus, at a greater distance, the curvature is easier to notice, which is what Jose's video shows.
b) if the earth is a globe, then the "horizon line" of the water COULD be the actual bulge "peak" of the curvature, though from what I understand that "bulge peak" is relative to the view height, so it is not necessarily the "bulge peak" at the dead center of the entire lake Pontchartrain itself.
If the horizon line of water in Jose's video is, indeed, the bulge peak, then it makes sense that any portion of the bridge BEYOND that bulge peak will begin to bend/curve DOWNWARD, which is kinda what Jose's video shows (ignoring the massive amounts of distortion/refraction).
However, save for point A) above, this doesn't really explain why the portion of the causeway CLOSEST to the cameraman yet BEFORE the horizon line of water is NOT curved, and instead only shows the converging straight perspective lines.
c) the apparent curvature is caused by the massive amounts of distortion/refection seen near the end of the visible causeway in the video. Maybe between the natural effects of perspective + the extreme distortion, you can get an apparent visual curvature that's not actually there.
Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the shots Jose.
We saw from Soundly's own timelapses (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8220.msg155850#msg155850) that the refraction can seem to curve up and down.
Furthermore, when another observer went to test one of his scenes, it was not curved (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8220.msg155373#msg155373).