3081

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Thread Post Timestamps

« on: August 17, 2018, 11:14:27 PM »

Brilliant, thx

3082

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A question for flat earthers: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: August 14, 2018, 03:34:27 AM »

2. When pictures are posted of distant skylines obscured by water, such as this one:

I really appreciate the perspective of this picture; it really looks like the earth is curved.

But there's a problem with this picture. Based on RE theory, the super-imposed tower that you see there would have to have been taken at a much closer distance than the overall picture since you would have to get closer to get over the curve (unless of course the earth is flat). The relative size of the tower taken at a close distance should be a different size than the very distant tower in the overall picture. How is it that they are aligned so perfectly in this picture? I'm not buying it. The super-imposed picture appears to have been modified to fit the size of the overall picture.

You would need to use a camera with a higher zoom and aspect ratio to see closer to the base of the tower in order to determine if you can, or cannot actually see its base.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, and could be way off, but here's my interpretation:
The super-imposed image of the CN Tower was taken at a much closer distance, yes. It was then scaled down to the exact dimensions of the master shot of the Toronto skyline from the perspective of the photographer 39 miles away. Ostensibly creating a 1-1 image, in this case, an overlay. In 'scaling' an image you are shrinking or enlarging it, but preserving the contents original proportions.

3083

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 12, 2018, 05:58:56 AM »

That quote actually says "these are the factors that will affect the bullet," rather than "these are the factors that the sniper accounted for." One is a commentary by the author and the other is a depiction of process. Surely you can see that there is a difference.

I knew you were going to go there. And yeah, I get your point. But the real point is, this is the process used by snipers which includes accounting for the Coriolis Effect. Meaning, the effect is something that trained snipers do take into account.

Now, whether this sniper used these factors as a part of their shot calculation, or whether he did any calculations at all, I don't know. But you don't know either.

3084

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 12, 2018, 04:43:37 AM »

"The World’s Longest Sniper Kill: The Enemy Shot Dead at 3,871 Yards (Over 2 Miles Away)"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-worlds-longest-sniper-kill-the-enemy-shot-dead-3871-24141

"To understand the complexity of the shot, it’s best to start with a sniper maxim: sniping is weaponized math. Although a .50 caliber sniper rifle bullet can fly as far as five miles, a host of factors including gravity, wind speed and direction, altitude, barometric pressure, humidity and even the Coriolis Effect act upon the bullet as it travels. Even worse, these effects increase the farther the bullet travels. A successful sniper team operating at extreme distances must do its best to predict exactly how these factors will affect the bullet and calculate how to get the bullet back onto target."

3085

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is anyone planning on sending up a probe to photograph the Earth?

« on: August 11, 2018, 12:07:07 AM »

Photographs of the Ice Wall are extremely plentiful and common. It does nothing to help convince the RET brigade.

I also firmly disagree that photographs are empirical evidence. Empiricism relies on your own senses and ability to reproduce an experiment. And, as both sides of the debate have shown time and time again, it's only good evidence until it doesn't support their stance.

Quite a strange, non-linear statement I'm not really following. Granted, it could just be me.

Let's break it down:

"Photographs of the Ice Wall are extremely plentiful and common."

Do you mean there are many images of the seemingly un-climbable, insurmountable Antarctic 'Ice Wall' that is proposed by FE lore? Or do you mean, "Yes there are many images of walls made of ice kind of everywhere around the earth at certain times of he year"?

If you mean the former, then it appears you would be putting stock into said images, of which, they don't "help convince the RET brigade", as you call it. Thereby rendering "I also firmly disagree that photographs are empirical evidence." moot. I'm not sure how you could have it both ways.

If you mean the latter, then yes, I agree, there are many walls of ice around the planet. Cool.

Lastly, "Empiricism relies on your own senses and ability to reproduce an experiment." Back to Markjo's point, essentially, the output of my own senses and an experiment may be photo evidence. If photos are out as empirical evidence, what is in?

3086

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 10, 2018, 10:43:40 PM »

I think the logic here is that the INS/IRS instrument clearly takes into account the earth's rotation along with longitude and latitude to form its calculations. Meaning it's calculation depends, in part, on the fact that the earth rotates. Coriolis is a byproduct, an artifact of earth's rotation. As a subset of the presence of rotation, it is included in its calculations.

3087

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 10, 2018, 09:14:00 PM »

That's what an INS computer does. It makes the adjustment calculations.

Seemingly correct, it does make calculations:

"Earth Rotation
in the same way that a stationary INS detects the Earth’s Rotation to determine its Latitude and Orientation, it also detects this rotation when moving. The final movement detected will be a combination of both the aircraft’s movement and the Earth’s rotation. These errors are small and can be compensated for.

Coriolis
as an aircraft travels from A to B around the globe it actually will follow a curved path (or a series of shorter curved paths). An INS will detect this as turning (a bit like a pendulum swinging out in a turn) and an error can be introduced."

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Inertial_Navigation_System_(INS)

3088

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Navigating By Stars - How Is It Possible?

« on: August 09, 2018, 10:38:35 PM »

One possible flat earth answer is atmospheric refraction. The atmosphere density changes base on where you are on earth which thus changes your perceived star location.

As for a possible FE explanation, being that atmosphere density varies which could cause changing perceived star location wouldn't that make star location variable thereby rendering navigation by which inaccurate?

3089

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Incredible CGI / Parabolic Flight / Space Travel

« on: August 09, 2018, 06:25:09 PM »

The weightless scenes in The Martian was achieved with a combination of wire support and CGI. CGI, as in cutting the actor out from the green-screen and making him or her float in the scene...

NASA was a consultant on the effects for that movie too.

So is this how you think the conversation went between the movie people and the NASA technical consultants:

Movie: We'd like to get your expertise on on how to simulate weightlessness in space for our movie.
NASA: (wryly chuckling) Just do what we do, wires, CGI, you know, the standard stuff.
Movie: Wow, I had no idea you did that too. But cool, so much easier. But, we also want to do that water globule effect you do.
NASA: Simple, just green screen inside of a mag lev tube. You want to borrow ours?
Movie: Awesome, that would be great! Thanks

3090

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Incredible CGI / Parabolic Flight / Space Travel

« on: August 09, 2018, 05:09:37 PM »

You were very specific in stating YOU NEED THE THING to mimic in the first place....

Your backtracking and loose lipping the issue is very telling.

This all seems so desperate. First it’s “there are no videos with 5 minutes of weightlessness.” Oh, there are. Then there’s this whole business about the definition of the word “sailing”. Now this nonsense. Such a desperate diversion.

Further desperation can be found in this whole magnetic levitation business. The CGI argument is the tried and true go to argument for FE. It gets them out of every jam, it’s their ace of spades. Why sully it with a brand new notion around mag lev. CGI is far more digestible to the layman.

Plus, if you want to hang your hat on mag lev, then it negates CGI entirely as the most common explanation for weightlessness across the YouTube-osphere, sorry, ‘plane’. In essence you would now be saying, “Oh, they are weightless and they are really floating around, but it’s not wires and CGI, they’re inside a magnetic tube at Area 51."

My guess is FE is scared about something; coming up with yet some other explanation for weightlessness, anything other than humans in space.

3091

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Incredible CGI / Parabolic Flight / Space Travel

« on: August 08, 2018, 09:33:58 PM »

Given the timestamp you offered, the man is not at free movement at all from the point.

Try 1:09 to 4:09. He's floating about, the ipad is floating about. It goes on beyond that, but that's 3 solid minutes of observable weightlessness. The vomcom is a max of around 30 seconds or so.

I don't think you have a point.

3092

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why would the government lie about the earths shape

« on: August 08, 2018, 05:54:15 AM »

I more or less agree, with the exception of the guy with the gap in his tooth.

From the FET wiki FAQ:

In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence…"

https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

I would have to say, this is a new low.

3093

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Incredible CGI / Parabolic Flight / Space Travel

« on: August 07, 2018, 11:38:31 PM »

NASA only really needs a small zero-g room or container and they can just superimpose the water effects, floating pen effects, or human effects onto footage of the bigger sets.

Considering the many videos pointing out the harnesses, green screen effects, AR, and bubbles-in-space, they are likely using multiple methods.

Hardly an argument with any veracity. I could just as easily say, "Considering the many videos pointing out weightlessness, effects of such on many objects animate and inanimate, and bubbles-in-space, they are likely using space."