The theory of angular diameter is solid and well tested. What evidence is there that the angular diameter theory is false? Why shouldn't that method be described in the wiki? Can you find an error in my example?
If you wish to create a rebuttal, I would encourage you to do more than state that it is an an "uncontrolled setting" and "camera distortion effects" and "Whenever a positional instrument is operative, then calibration is necessary." There really isn't much to do with that, except to point out that this method does not rely on calibration or leveling, and isn't an experiment at all, but an observation to which an equation is applied to bodies in the scene. As I see, the author is using a normal rectilinear lens on a high quality camera, which would not create the distortion necessary to bring the horizon down to where it needs to be.
In my example with the red ball, the observer doesn't need to be in a "controlled setting" to capture a picture of the ball in the distance.
The lack of effort on your part seems unsatisfactory. Screaming "uncontrolled setting!" seems insufficient on this matter; as this 'experiment" relies on no other variables except a normally taken rectilinear photograph and appropriate mathematical axioms which have been long demonstrated to be true, categorizing the method to be far superior than the uncalibrated surveying experiments which you seem to favor--which actually are experiments that need very careful consideration.
If there is a flaw, or if it is wrong, then you should show how it is wrong. The matter is actually an observation and an interpretation, which puts it into a very different class of integrity. There is not an experiment with many variables. It is mainly the interpretation and underlying axioms which need to be vetted for truth.
I take issue with your reply in its entirety. First, you erect a straw-man by implying that I was challenging the mathematics behind angular measures. I was not. Next, you attempt to mischaracterise my statements as wild red herring waving of the conspiracy flag without cause.
I would like to note the irony of that particular approach.
Indeed, my critique never resolved particulars of the video, precisely because no particulars are provided. It is this lack that raises concerns.
Nevertheless, my salient issue is with YOUR unflappable acceptance of this piece, despite it having no more scientific basis than previously pieces against which you rallied endlessly, waving your red herring flag of contempt.
No, sir, you do not distract me. And I am confident that no one reading this thread will fall for the transparent ruse you attempt to manufacture.
You invite this fellow here. I will be in attendance, and will bring to the discussion proper avenues of scientific address.
The FE community, being intelligent, thoughtful, and honest, will recognize the merit of that address. And when juxtaposed to the flaccid lip service of biased praise, they no doubt will be able to distinguish integrity from dogma.
As will I.
And so, I look forward with great anticipation to see which you elect to bring with you.