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.


Messages - stack

Pages: < Back  1 ... 139 140 [141] 142 143 ... 145  Next >
2801
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 11, 2018, 04:12:52 AM »
If you want to die on the "White Line" hill, fine by me.

No white line:


2802
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 11, 2018, 12:12:27 AM »
Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

In my estimation the light line should not actually be there in the "sunken" version of the Skunkbay images. The light line seems to be there on the horizon when the sinking effect occurs, except when it gets late and dark in the day.

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many Round Earth sinking ship photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

What if there are many that don't? What does that suggest?

A light line as an indication that the refractive sinking ship effect is occurring seems like a grasp, at best.

2803
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 11, 2018, 12:02:33 AM »
The light line is interesting. I notice that it appears in many of the "sunken" Round Earth images.

https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/6nrf5h/ship_well_below_the_horizon_zooming_in_didnt/



Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

2804
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 10, 2018, 11:51:49 PM »
Are we supposed to believe that the earth went from round to flat to round to flat?

No.

Are we to say that the curvature of the earth was blocking the bottom 35-50 feet of the houses but only sometimes?

No, at that distance curve height hidden would be about 5 feet.

I am of the opinion that what is blocking the view of 35-50 feet of buildings in the distance here is 100% optics 0% curve of earth.
If 35 feet can be obscured by optics traveling through what maybe 5 miles of atmosphere then couldn't 120 feet be obstructed traveling through 20 miles of atmosphere?

Agreed, in this case, 100% optics.

As to your second point, I suppose. But in the TT timelapse, the water line doesn't budge, there is no miraging, yet there is a persistent hidden amount of the tower of about 90+ feet. Which does fit RE curve calculations at that distance.

2805
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 10, 2018, 11:33:06 PM »

at 53 seconds entire houses are visible. These houses are a good 15-30 feet tall (depending on the house) by my estimation when looking at google street view. These houses are not at sea level. When I look at the altitude of Hansville it says 20 feet. So for 15-30 foot building to be completely obscured at 20 feet above sea level we are talking about obstructing 35-50 feet.

at 1:24 and again at 2:24 only the tips of the tallest houses are visible. 

I'm not questioning house height and such, but it appears the camera POV is located in Hansville, not looking at Hansville. This from the SkunkBayWaether.com site, orientation of cameras:


2806
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 10, 2018, 11:03:40 PM »


That light line on the horizon should not actually be there if you look at the revealed version.

Then, from the original Turning Torso video look at the border between water and the building(s):

At 0:50, for example:





Like the skunkbay effect, there is a distinct light line.

You just wrote this a minute ago:

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018, whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description.

Are you now saying the 2 year time difference between shots doesn't matter and some line line should be in both?

2807
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 10, 2018, 10:50:29 PM »
My notes from the above videos:

- That timelapse is only two hours long, whereas the skunkbay timelapse was taken over an entire day. 

Yes, but it's not the overall duration of the footage being captured. It's points within the footage. There are many points within the skunk bay videos where the visual changes occur within the time span of minutes, not hours.

- To test refraction the author did a 2 hour time-lapse from 13 miles away from "around sunset" when there would "often be changes" when, in fact it, was the higher temperatures of the midday affected refraction of the skunkbay timelapse.

Ok, I guess. Kind of a stretch.

- It was taken at 13 miles, whereas his other images of the "sunken tower" were taken further away.

I'm not necessarily directly comparing these videos to the original one we were examining, but these would be roughly reflective of example A in the original, distance wise.

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018, whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description.

Again, I'm not necessarily directly comparing these videos to the original one we were examining. Just another examination of the same subject.

- Author admits there there is "often" refraction:



Author's conclusion:


This conclusion is perplexing, considering that he is also simultaneously claiming "refraction" to get the sunken towers to the height he needs them to be at for this sunken tower images to work with the RET.

Actually, your assertion is incorrect. He states that often there is visible refraction/miraging. But at 3:20 he states that there is none in this timelapse.

2808
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 10, 2018, 08:29:26 PM »
If there was fog along the surface? Sure. Is there? I don't see any. No fog. No mist. What little haze that begins to show with increasing distance isn't opaque. It's still transparent and not obscuring increasing lower heights with each increase of viewing distance.

The time lapse was so eye opening because it really shows how, over a matter of minutes, the conditions for optics can change dramatically. I think if this was recreated using a tripod and time lapse over the course of an hour or two (or more) we could obtain some sort of optical variance range. It would be interesting to see how this specific tower would be affected in time lapse images. Also, for the sake of flat earth delta, we could use whatever part of the time lapse showed the most of the tower.

iamcpc, if you mean a time-lapse of the Turning Torso, Mathias kp, the creator of the first TT videos which started this baseline examination, has two. First is just the 2 hour time-lapse and the other is the in-depth examination of such:






2809
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race
« on: September 10, 2018, 04:56:24 PM »
it's difficult to see how interpretation can factor into it any more
Really? You don't think humans need to interpret images in order to understand them? This is revolutionary stuff - do elaborate!

Back in 2015, NASA posted 1000’s of Apollo mission photos on Flickr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/

And yes, humans certainly need to interpret images. Here are a few I picked out from the Apollo Flickr archive that are open to human interpretation and for those who believe that Apollo was real yet feel that all involved were mistaken in what they saw:


2810
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race
« on: September 09, 2018, 08:09:42 AM »
Don’t all FET roads lead directly back to the moon landing, i.e., human observed direct evidence that earth is a globe?
Absolutely not. There are plenty of FE'ers who fully accept the mainstream view on space travel. Others, like myself, remain cautiously undecided on the subject.

Cool, I have not come across any yet, I guess until now. How do they reconcile observational/visual evidence of a globe earth if they accept the moon landing as true? Or are these FE moon landing believers more of the number 3 types you describe below; the "All involved were mistaken" types?

You have one of two options to consider at that crossroad
I can think of a third, very popular option: What this handful of individuals has seen was the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the Earth. They were simply mistaken in their interpretation. A fourth option also exists - as a consequence of EAT, you'd *expect* to see a significantly curved Earth from sufficiently high up. I'm sure there are more possibilities that didn't immediately jump to mind.

3) Hadn't heard this one either. Especially considering that the contents within the illuminated, roughly circular, portion of the earth would seemingly have been observed as different by different mission observers given a rotating globe.
4) Hadn't heard this one either. Interesting.

Forcing people to accept a dichotomy that you've made up yourself does not advance the discussion. Indeed, it boxes you in, forcing you to think about what must be the case in your head, rather than what actually occurs.

No one is forcing anything. And actually you are wrong, as evidenced by your response - My made up dichotomy utterly advanced the discussion in that you provided 3 more options not widely known to some becuase if it. I would consider that an advancement.

2811
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race
« on: September 09, 2018, 06:45:19 AM »
I am a round earther, and have always believed in a spherical (not totally smooth, obviously) earth, due to the overwhelming solid evidence given that can be replicated time and time again. After looking at each of  the topics, I felt this would be the best place for my question. In the over 70 years since the first picture of earth taken from space in 1946, how is it possible that multiple space programs and agencies (including the U.S. and Russian programs that would love to prove each other wrong) have all maintained the truth for this long, not to mention the dozens of non-government space programs, including the (in total) hundreds of thousands of people involved in the calculation, construction, launching, and even the people inside those spacecraft? I am open to questions.

Don’t all FET roads lead directly back to the moon landing, i.e., human observed direct evidence that earth is a globe? I mean, one could firmly believe all of the tenants of 'Earth Not a Globe' all the way up until 1969 where it all collapses. You have one of two options to consider at that crossroad:

1) Damnit! The earth is a globe
2) I’m not buying it, I know the earth is flat, this all must be fake

You choose #2. Everything is downstream from that one selection. Even if your belief system works backward from today, you suddenly find yourself slamming into the existential crisis that is created for FET by the Apollo missions.

In essence a moon landing denier can be an REr or an FEr.
But an FEr can never be a moon landing believer

So, one is an FE, the moon landing absolutely has to be fake, all supposed space endeavors prior to and henceforth from the moon landings has to be fake otherwise credence would be lent to the 1969 spherical earth “proof” relayed by NASA.

So once you’re there with that belief system, no amount of evidence of space travel, no matter how convincing or credible, can be allowed into your psyche, it’s just plain too damaging to all you hold dear.

TL;DR - “The (NASA) Conspiracy” is not for NASA/Space Agencies to make make money, oppress humans, masonic order/lumanati or whatever one's standard conspiracy motivation may be, "The Conspiracy” is that an FE’r can never accept space travel of any kind b/c it immediately and devastatingly blows up FET in it’s entirety.

2812
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 08, 2018, 06:15:56 PM »
Considering the data/evidence gathered I would say the Salton Sea Tower portion of J Tolan’s video is decidedly debunked. There is no tower that meets his 130’ description nor one that remotely corroborates his claims at 7 miles distance. The only tower referenced by him (visually) is 199’ tall and 335’ above the Salton Sea level, not 130’ as claimed. Zero evidence of a flat earth and actually it fits perfectly into the RE model, no refraction required. Case closed.

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.

As for the Turning Torso baseline discussion, is there any ability to move forward?

2813
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites
« on: September 08, 2018, 04:36:54 AM »
And that's where I thought SHARP was a plausible explanation.  It could theoretically fly at very high altitudes.  I'd have to ask one of the engineers what altitude he expected it to be capable of flying.  Looked it up.  ~70,000ft.  It has no need to land because the craft would be able to indefinitely convert microwaves to dc power.  It wouldn't depend on sunlight, and I would imagine depending on the frequency used the power transmission wouldn't be affected by clouds or bad weather.

From what I was just reading, the tests in the 80's required an 80m diameter array to beam up the power. Seemingly, you would need a globe littered with arrays to manage the number of satellites today. Subsequent to the early SHARP tests, solar tech go a lot better thereby dispensing with the need for the microwave power.  Fast forward to Google's recent attempts to build solar drones for internet relays, an effort they abandoned in 2016.

All in all, kind of seems easier to just launch a satellite.

2814
Flat Earth Theory / Re: IR Video from FL300 -> 500 mile visibility?
« on: September 06, 2018, 09:31:57 PM »
Just poking around on the google terrain map:



Probably means nothing, just scratching my head with this one.

Also, it would be great to know which flight and on what day he shot this enroute from LAX to MCO. I looked up about a dozen historical LAX to MCO flights, Delta, American, JetBlue and United and all the flight paths great circle north of PHX about 50 miles south of Mt Humphreys, not south of PHX as shown in the video. (Flightradar24.com) But again, not evidence of anything, just curiosity.

2815
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 06, 2018, 05:38:01 PM »
Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?
Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.

Wait, I’m confused. The JPL DE200 and LE200 solar and lunar ephemerides used as part of NASA’s eclipse prediction methodology are derived from FET?

2816
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« on: September 06, 2018, 07:24:56 AM »
At one point, as a test of credibility, a few skeptics in the LIGO administration put in some fake signal data into the LIGO data and, rather than determining that it was an anomaly or that there was no observable event, the LIGO scientists observed the area of the sky it was coming from went to work making up an elaborate story, doing "science" with it, like in the paper Markjo presented.

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure

Quote
...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015."

How do you "do science" and write a paper with data that was faked, on a section of the sky it did not come from, with stars and stellar events that did not produce it?

If you can do that, rather than identifying the issue, that sends your credibility down the drain.

This tells us that the underlying science and theories are really just a load of baloney. It is not real science.

I can’t make up my mind whether you are willfully being deceitful in your ‘interpretations’, just mistaken, or perhaps just sloppy. But you basically neutered the thrust of the paper you cited and bent it to your will by leaving some key phrases, sentences and paragraphs out.

You start with the quote, “…a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data…” In order to bolster your claim that, "How do you "do science" and write a paper with data that was faked…”

When in actuality, if you had included the beginning of the sentence and the previous paragraph, it all makes clear sense. You left out all of this:

"How do we know our data analyses are not missing them? And, when we do detect one, how do we know that the science we have extracted from the signal is reliable?

The answer is to do a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality.”

From the abstract:
"The cases reported in this study provide a snap-shot of the status of parameter estimation in preparation for the operation of advanced detectors.” i.e., the intent of the study.

i.e., real science

2817
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 05, 2018, 10:41:36 PM »
The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.

As they say, “Location, location, location.”

Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?

2818
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 05, 2018, 06:21:07 AM »
He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.

Apparently your statement is false.

From the link you posted, I looked up Espenak’s earliest NASA eclipse bulletin: Annular Solar Eclipse of 1994 May 10 (NASA RP 1301)

In it, it states the methodology used, specifically "The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200"
 
ALGORITHMS, EPHEMERIDES AND PARAMETERS

Algorithms for the eclipse predictions were developed Espenak primarily from the Explanatory Supplement [1974] with additional algorithms from Meeus, Grosjean and Vanderleen [1966]. The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200, respectively. All eclipse calculations were made using a value for the Moon's radius of k=0.2722810 for umbral contacts, and k=0.2725076 [adopted IAU value] for penumbral contacts. Center of mass coordinates were used except where noted. An extrapolated value for Delta_T of 59.5 seconds was used to convert the predictions from Terrestrial Dynamical Time to Universal Time.

The primary source for geographic coordinates used in the local circumstances tables is The New International Atlas (Rand McNally, 1991). Elevations for major cites were taken from Climates of the World (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972).


https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/19940510/text/ephemerides.html

2819
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the space mission failed?
« on: September 04, 2018, 09:13:49 AM »
To be fair, going vertically is quite a lot trickier than going horizontally - otherwise space tourism would be much more of a thing right now.
But we do have the technology to go into space and I haven’t seen a coherent argument why we wouldn’t have.

Agreed. I think the point is what in FET makes, for example, the existence of the ISS, 250 miles up, an impossibility?

2820
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 04, 2018, 09:07:32 AM »
The author freely uses statistical terms in his work. Terms such as "mean deflections," etc. It is very easy to lie with statistics. These guys don't get paid by saying that modern science is wrong. That causes you to not be funded.

Who are you to assume what the author's motivations are? And just about everything can be manipulated, doesn't mean that it is. What kind of an argument is that?

Just listen to the logic you are proposing. You are asserting that Einstein can predict the starlight deflection, but cannot literally predict anything else in the universe, the universe needing to be filled with dark matter and dark energy to fill in any and all gaps.

I never made that assertion. I'm asserting that Einstein made the starlight deflection prediction and 100 years later, it still holds, period. You brought up dark matter and such, I never mentioned that.

What a weak argument. Throw it away and start over. The physics of the universe isn't about the deflection of starlight around the sun.

Ummm, you brought up the whole "deflection of starlight" issue to begin with. And no one was talking about the entirety of the physical universe.

That's a humor website. What are the credentials of those people who call his work "comical attempts"?

Yeah, you cited this guy, definitely a gentleman and a scholar. Good job.

Just a smattering of his excellent investigative work (Check out the rest here: http://mileswmathis.com/bestfake.html):

NEW PAPER, added 8/20/16, The Lizzie Borden Axe Murders Never Happened. Another major hoax from Massachusetts.

NEW PAPER, added 7/19/16, The Society of Friends looks like another Jewish Front. We look at George Fox, founder of the Quakers.

NEW PAPER, added 5/5/16, The French Revolution. A backwards continuation of my Napoleon paper, with more appearances of the House of Vasa. Also some news about Louis XVI.

NEW PAPER, added 4/18/16, Was Napoleon Jewish? Plus many other things that will shock and confound you, including more on Laplace.

NEW PAPER, added 1/8/16, Steve Jobs: Bold, Brilliant, Brutal. . . Fake. We find that everyone involved in the Apple project is not who you were told.

NEW PAPER, added 11/19/17, Bill Gates: Jewish Aristocrat. Where we link Gates to everyone else you have ever heard of, and show Microsoft is one more front of the MATRIX.


Pages: < Back  1 ... 139 140 [141] 142 143 ... 145  Next >