As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
Therein lies the problem. You lack the ability to distinguish your hypothesis from the proof. You think the horizon is caused by obstruction, so you take ANY obstruction (in this case, one caused by a tall wave), present it, and go "ta-da!" It does nothing to distinguish between the two hypotheses, but here you are, strutting around like a pigeon and showing the same non-sequitur over and over again.
I'm not sure what you mean by limitations of camera sensors.
This:
Again, same problem. You lack an understanding of what's being said, so you produce evidence that matches some keywords ("wow, zoom = restoration!") without getting even remotely close to addressing the claims actually being made. It's OK that you don't understand things yet - that's what self-study and conversation are
for. But, for fuck's sake, could you spend a little more time learning the arguments you're trying to dispute, and a little less time just shouting "FAAAAAAKE" and replying with lengthy non-seqs?
That isn't true and it's what the images were intended to demonstrate. Those pictures are zoomed in and the bottom of the boats aren't restored, because they're occluded by something. It doesn't matter what they're obstructed by, I was providing counter-examples of the claim that you can always restore them. You can't.
You have not accomplished that. This discussion concerns the
horizon. You have yet to post one picture of the
horizon. You posted plenty of pictures of
things that are not the horizon and asserted that they prove your point.
When you combine that with grandiose statements about how you're "challenging bullshit", it really looks pretty weak. You don't even understand the basic vocabulary of science, but here you are, acting like you're superior to those scientifically literate.
Let's say you're right about the image, the boat's behind a wave. In a previous thread in this area when I asked you what prevents you seeing further than the horizon you said
"Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon)"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277324#msg277324
But now you're complaining that I'm showing photos where it's waves stopping you seeing the rest of the boat?
What I said now and what I said then is exactly the same thing. You are showing us something that you describe as a "sharp horizon", despite it not being the horizon at all. You're showing us a body obstructing your view long before the horizon would be seen. Functionally, it is identical to claiming that this picture shows the "horizon":
Wow, look at how sharp and defined this "horizon" is! And no matter how much I zoom in with my camera, nothing behind the
stop s"horizon" is revealed!!!!! Wowie! This must mean you're right!
Realistically, you have never seen the true horizon, but you may have seen something that's close enough for demonstration purposes. Your examples, however, are not close enough.
I would note that during that thread I came to realise that a FE horizon wouldn't be as different to an RE one as I had initially supposed, so the assertion that I don't adapt to new information is not correct...if I accept the new information as valid.
Nah, sorry. You saying "ok maybe you're right about X" and then coming back to make THE EXACT SAME BUNK ARGUMENT after a few months is not proof of you adapting to new information. If anything, it shows that you lack object permanence.
It doesn't matter whether the reason it's not true is because things disappear over the horizon/curve of the earth, or whether it's because they're occluded by waves or other physical obstruction
Well, yes, if you restrict your options to 2 incorrect ones, it really doesn't matter which one you choose. It starts to matter once you consider the FE option.
You said elsewhere I claim to "approach things in the way I do"
You claim to value logic and evidence. However, you routinely demonstrate utter contempt for these things. That's why I dislike you.
Show Posts
