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 - Bobby Shafto

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 58  Next >
Flat Earth Media / JTolens New IR Video
« on: January 07, 2019, 07:59:54 PM »
JTolens has a new video up with some more stunning near IR imagery:

(click to expand)

I disagree with his analysis of the photo, his use of an out-of calibration theodolite to draw conclusions, and his explanation of "upwards" refraction to explain dip of the horizon and the appearance of curvature. But I'll leave that discussion on another forum topic.

In the meantime, worth a look.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar spotlight
« on: January 06, 2019, 10:48:05 PM »
Did I fall for Tom diverging off topic again? 

I just saw the image of posts and shadows and the errant interpretation that those shadows could be caused by a "band of light" and not from a single light source.

I don't want to be accused of trying to "suppress" Tom by joining in the call to get back on topic, but I'll not contribute more to the issue of that image if it is, in fact, off topic.

For the record, those skewers in my image are parallel, just as the shadows in the picture of those posts are. 

Edit to add: parallel shadows from an actual 93 million mile distant sun:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar spotlight
« on: January 06, 2019, 10:41:17 PM »

Kitchen lights around the kitchen aren't a 93 million mile distant sun with parallel light.
Of course they aren't. The lights are not part of the physical model analogy in my image. The sticks (skewers) are. Are they parallel?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar spotlight
« on: January 06, 2019, 08:52:17 PM »
Wise's photos are valid. Some of those shadows are pointing in different relation to the street or sidewalk. It doesn't matter if the picture is a wide-angle lense or not. A wide-angle lense isn't going to make a shadow that's pointing towards the street to run along the sidewalk or vice versa.

This is caused by a fisheye lens?

Unfortunately that looks nothing like the image.

How 'bout this? Candles and skewers:

No fisheye. No panorama. Are those skewers parallel?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another sunrise question
« on: January 06, 2019, 04:59:14 PM »
I know you believe that, but it hasn't.  It's been asserted but not explained.

It's explained. You are just asking for further evidence.

No. I'm asking you to explain it; not just assert it. (I would like to know how you know--aka evidence--but that's not what I'm asking for.)

If it's already been explained in this topic, link to the post(s) where it has because I'm not finding it.

One could say the same thing for the Round Earth model...
One could, but then that would be a diversion. How does it work on a flat earth?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another sunrise question
« on: January 06, 2019, 04:39:04 PM »
I believe that the matter in the OP was explained.
I know you believe that, but it hasn't.  It's been asserted but not explained.

I challenge you to explain how, in a flat earth model, the sun can appear on one bearing (east) but actually be laterally displaced "probably further north."

I'm asking you since you're the one asserting it. If there's a Youtube video that explains what you're claiming, link it. I'll watch it.

But to date I can find no explanation or flat model explaining how a projecting sun casts light on the air so that it appears off azimuth to an observer. Explain how that works.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Project: 180 Degree Horizon Through Pipe
« on: January 05, 2019, 06:33:24 PM »
I gave Antonio's "horizon pipe" a try, albeit due to geographic constraints, I had to substitute a horizon in one direction with an equal-height land target sighting:

I could try again with a longer pipe and spirit level and better camera/video, but if that northeastern sighting target is not convincing enough, I'll have to find an alignment with a summit or peak of some kind.

But I'm not going to pursue this any further unless someone else does some work and shows me something to the contrary. We'll see if the YouTuber who issued this challenge to "globies" responds with his own demonstration of how the pipe does center on a horizon in both directions without adjustment. I've got too many other "experiments" that I want to finish up. My wife is already starting to get annoyed by this...what is this? A hobby?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another sunrise question
« on: January 05, 2019, 03:31:05 PM »
I hereby challenge this claim of yours and sincerely look forward to seeing a model explain or illustrate how this is possible and how an actual sun could "probably further north."

I know you're busy on other topics and wouldn't be refusing to respond to a critic, but when you find a lull, Tom?

Substantiating this assertion of yours (and the Wiki) about how the sun projects itself onto an atmoplane could explain a lot. But so far you're just asserting it. What's the evidence? How does it work? How does it alter the apparent azimuth of the sun such that its projection could be easterly but the actual projecting sun probably to the north?

The globe horizon should be barely under the Flat Earth horizon. There is clearly something wrong if you are getting that result.
"Barely" as in about half a degree?


Is your argument...

...that not only does the horizon not always rise to eye level, but distant points that are at the same height don't rise to eye level.

Visibility is as clear as it gets here. I'm seeing snow-capped San Antonio, San Gorgonio and San Jacinto mountain summits to the N and NE. I don't think that horizon is ever going to appear any higher; it's certainly never going to appear above the summit of South Coronado island, which is below eye level from this vantage point on Mt Soledad.

Absent any contrary argument or objection, I'll consider this zetetic project closed.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: January 03, 2019, 03:33:38 PM »
I misread what you wrote. Sorry. I retract.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: January 03, 2019, 02:39:13 PM »

That's aligned but not level.

Never mind. My reading mistake.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?
« on: January 02, 2019, 11:12:39 PM »
Here's a picture of some mountains in Washington and Oregon taken from the summit of South Sister at ~10,360 feet:


Forgetting about the complete and total incompatibility of the apparent heights of the mountains with the flat earth model for a moment, please answer this simple question:

If the earth is flat, where is eye level?

This is quite the conundrum.

If the shot was really taken around 10,360 feet, then (if flat) the level line would have to be somewhere above the North Sister 10,090' summit but below 14,411' Mt Rainier.  Perspective won't allow something at an elevation of 14,411' to fall below eye level or something at 10,090' to go above eye level. They will both converge to eye level, but how could they flip-flop, with the higher, more distant peak going below eye level and the lower, near peak going above eye level?


More than 1x the height of the island?

  • Either the island summit is higher than even the highest figure, or
  • the curve of the earth was less flattened than standard atmospheric condition, or
  • Something was off with the water level alignment, or
  • ?

Camera-to-Water Level distance: ~65 feet

Camera location: 32.839105, -117.245358

Level location: about 32.838927, -117.245342

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another sunrise question
« on: January 02, 2019, 06:53:41 PM »
This is the only page on the TFES wiki where I could find what you seem to be describing about the sun projecting its light upon an atmoplane.

This is attempting to explain how light emanating from a distance, but in-line with the eye/receptor, can be magnified by the intervening atmo- (air).

I cannot locate any dome-less model that explains the location of the sun as a projection upon the atmo-whatever but with the actual projecting sun on an azimuth/line of bearing different from that from which the projected light is coming.

I hereby challenge this claim of yours and sincerely look forward to seeing a model explain or illustrate how this is possible and how an actual sun could "probably further north."   

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another sunrise question
« on: January 02, 2019, 06:25:18 PM »
The only things I have assumed were things that were already part of the model.

- Viewing distance is finite, whether we want to describe it as due to perspective or atmospheric density. We cannot see forever across the earth. We can only see a very limited distance.

- The sun is a projection upon the atmoplane

Combine those two, and the sun can come from the East as a logical consequence.

You say "the model." What model? Yours? A TFES-endorsed model?

You say "the sun is a projection upon the atmoplane" is a part of "the model."

Explain this to me, either here or in a new Flat Earth Theory topic. Don't sent me to find someone else who may or may not be describing what you are saying. Explain it to me yourself. What plane? It's not a dome upon which an image of the sun is being projected, right? It's a flat plane? Parallel to the plane of the flat earth? And the actual sun that's projecting its light onto this atmoplane is where? Somewhere to the north? Where? Above projected atmoplane? Splotting its light down through the translucent "screen" of the atmoplane? Or below, projecting it's light up onto an opaque atmoplane? Does the actual sun move? Is it just the projection that spirals around above the earth between the Tropics?

I've not seen this modeled anywhere. Maybe someone's come up with some version of what you're describing, but you are asserting that it is part of "the model." So I'd love to understand more before I judge or try to devise a zetetic method for distinguishing between an actual sun over a globe vs. a projected sun over a flat earth.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another sunrise question
« on: January 02, 2019, 03:58:24 PM »
You are looking at the apparent sun at sunrise, not the actual sun.
Where is the actual sun?
Probably further North.

Just somewhere "further North?"

That's some answer. Sounds more like one trying to form an explanation to match a predetermined conclusion than one trying to draw a conclusion from an observation, which is pretty much what this "projection on the atmoplane" is. If you can model that and show how it corresponds to what we observe, then you might have something. Until then, it's just "magic wand" stuff that can't even get more specific than "probably further North."

Here is a photo of South Coronado Island taken from the south looking north.

I'm having trouble verifying the highest elevation on the island. Wikipedia lists 722' (220m),
But on the same page is a topo map with contour lines only going up to 180-200m.
Google Earth depicts the north peak at 488' (149m) and the south peak at 580' (177m).
Another topographical resource has the north peak at 515' (157m) and the south peak at 654' (199m)
Nautical chart only lists the height of the beacon on the north peak at 672' (205m)

Clearly, the southern peak is higher than the northern peak, as is evident in my picture, which was taken from an elevation of 770'. So flat or curved, even at highest figure, South Coronado island would be below eye level. The only question is "how much below?"

But the horizon is well below that in both the uncertain hazy image and in the clear image. In fact, the horizon appears at the same angular location in both images. I intend on continuing to collect images of this view from this same location, so we'll be able to see how much variation there is in the horizon.

However, moving on from that, where IS "eye level" in this image? Google Earth seems to me to be flawed. I know Google has errant data for elevations of some military installations. Could it be that South Coronado Island (Mexican territory) simply hasn't been fully surveyed due to its inaccessibility? The height of the island summits are necessary for navigation, so I'd like to think you can trust the nautical chart. So if that beacon on the north summit is 672', the south peak is about 15% taller based on pixel comparisons of some lateral views of the island from Tijuana, which puts it right around 770'. 

Is that wishful thinking? Did I just manipulate that estimate so that it could coincidentally be at eye level from my viewspot on Mount Soledad, 30+ miles away?

Suppose Google Earth is correct, and that peak is 488' in elevation? Assuming that, can +282' above that at that distance to 770' eye level be estimated? 

The distance is 30.5 miles. On a globe with standard atmosphere, there would be a drop of 532' away from eye level. Roughly (very roughly), the island should appear below level eye sight by an amount about equal to its full height if we're assuming Google Earth is more correct than nautical charts.

Sound okay?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Project: 180 Degree Horizon Through Pipe
« on: January 01, 2019, 11:22:07 PM »
I don't think it really matters which "side" has the burden of proof".
It shouldn't be, but it's tedious to have a "side" making an affirmative claim do nothing to demonstrate it, acting like it's true by "default" and shifting the burden to the counter demonstration to disprove it (and rejecting or resisting such counter demonstrations based on standards he/they never adhered to in establishing the claim.)

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 58  Next >