Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The sun isn't ever anywhere near the horizon.No, but the horizon is. Sunlight travels from the sun, illuminates the horizon and travels to your eye. So, are you suggesting that sunlight bends as it travels from the sun to the horizon, but travels straight from the horizon to your eye?
No, actually, light from the horizon drops first, and then bends upward. See the second graphic with the trees. This accounts for the "sinking ship" effect, and has a pesky tendency to make the earth look round.
Why would the light from the horizon drop at all? Isn't the EA only supposed to cause an upward bending?
The sun isn't ever anywhere near the horizon.No, but the horizon is. Sunlight travels from the sun, illuminates the horizon and travels to your eye. So, are you suggesting that sunlight bends as it travels from the sun to the horizon, but travels straight from the horizon to your eye?
Then how do you know how close to the shore the house really is? For all you know, that house could be 10-12 feet above the shoreline.lol, Hoppy, how do they keep the breakers off of their porch?I don't know, I don't live there or even know those people.
What about the light rays coming from the horizon itself? If the earth is flat, then those light rays rays must travel very nearly parallel to the surface of the earth all the way from the horizon to your eye. What keeps those light horizontal light rays from being bent upwards?What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Well, sunsets for one. The eye extrapolates the image of the sun back according to the angle at which the light enters the eye. As the sun moves farther away, the angle of its light approaches horizontal, so it appears to sink into the horizon.
Here is some proof. I will document this better later on.This photograph has obviously been altered.
By definition, zeteticism relies upon empiral evidence, meaning evidence which is directly observed.Who's definition of zeteticism are you referring to?
Why don't you stay on topic, Thork?Why don't you go back to .org Markjo? They miss you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transglobe_ExpeditionOf course they don't do it on a regular basis, because it is cold over the Poles and is therefore dangerous to fly over. It is possible, though, and people have done it.
Again... who are these people?
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-12-31/tag-global-claims-record-polar-circumnavigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transglobe_ExpeditionOf course they don't do it on a regular basis, because it is cold over the Poles and is therefore dangerous to fly over. It is possible, though, and people have done it.
Again... who are these people?
The point stands that photographs are not empirical evidence.Then why are they used as evidence in criminal trials all the time? Also, are you suggesting that only empirical evidence is valid evidence?
That isn't a photograph of Tatooine, it's a computer generated rendering of Tatooine. No one is claiming that any planets outside of our solar system have been imaged in that level of detail, so please refrain from straw man arguments.You people could look at pictures of the earth on the internet. We have seen it. Don't be so dumb.
This is a picture of Tatooine from the internet. It is not a real place, and yet photos of it are plentiful. Don't be naive.
Amazing how life imitates art sometimes, isn't it?I don't know what the music is. The video is 1929 science fiction movie from the silent movie era. This movie almost looks like a NASA launch.The Germans already had the NASA prototype in 1929. Go figure.What is that some sort of music video?
JPEG compression ringing isn't in question here. What is questionable are the rectangular "auroras" around the earths, which are typically a sign of image editing.Correct, no one mentioned anything about "ringing". However, pixel block artifacts are a different story and are quite evident in your examples. Again, you must start with an uncompressed original to prove any type of valid point about editing since the JPEG compression process itself is a lossey and is well known to lose image information, especially at high compression ratios.
Let's start from scratch.Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative. The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.
Please take the original picture AS11_44_6642 (LEM, moon and earth) and give us the step by step procedure used to reveal the fraud.
Photoshop should be a good tool for that.
How long does it take to generate a bitcoin?Armored cars transport stuff. What do bitcoin algorithms do?
Transport stuff. Just a lot more efficiently than a truck covered in plates of heavy armor.
So you don't know? Got it.A $100 bill cost about 13 cents to print and smaller bills are less than 10 cents. How much does it cost to generate a bitcoin? How many bitcoins will ever be produced? How many other forms of crypto-currency are being developed and will they be compatible? What is the exchange rate between bitcoins and coinyes? What about financial transactions that require anonymity? How do you stuff a bitcoin in a stripper's g-string?
http://bitcoin.org/en/faq
With Bitcoin a bank isn't really necessary, done right no one can steal your Bitcoins.Apparently, it isn't being done right:
