The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: alfred1 on July 16, 2018, 09:49:47 AM
-
According to FEers the curvature of the earth as seen from Concord is due the shape of the window. My job at one time was polishing aircraft windows, including concord. concord's windows are small and almost flat. They can in no way distort the horizon. Another reason given was that you only have 60 degrees of vision and therefore your viewpoint is distorted. The cockpit crew have a 180 degree view. The horizon looks exactly the same through their window. How do you explain this?
-
If you are told the horizon is curved, and you expect to see a curved horizon ... you'll see a curved horizon.
https://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/seeing-things-that-arent-there-thats-just-your-brain-functioning-normally
-
If you are told the horizon is curved, and you expect to see a curved horizon ... you'll see a curved horizon.
https://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/seeing-things-that-arent-there-thats-just-your-brain-functioning-normally
I was't TOLD it. I OBSERVED it.
-
One more thing. Are you saying that everything we see is the way we see it is because we are told that is the way it looks?
If had a cube in my hand and someone told me it was a ball. I would still see it as a cube.
-
If you are told the horizon is curved, and you expect to see a curved horizon ... you'll see a curved horizon.
https://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/seeing-things-that-arent-there-thats-just-your-brain-functioning-normally
So Baby T... I guess then you were 'TOLD' that earth is 'FLAT'.. that is why you see earth to be flat, isn't it...
That explains a lot about...
Do you think that the RE conspirators may also have done this to every one on earth, that's why every one believes earth is round, except for few of you FEer who somehow escaped that hypnotism (If I may term it so)??
-
According to FEers the curvature of the earth as seen from Concord is due the shape of the window. My job at one time was polishing aircraft windows, including concord. concord's windows are small and almost flat. They can in no way distort the horizon. Another reason given was that you only have 60 degrees of vision and therefore your viewpoint is distorted. The cockpit crew have a 180 degree view. The horizon looks exactly the same through their window. How do you explain this?
I should also have said that every airline i the world would have to agree to have deliberately distorted windows installed. This is highly unlikely. The Civil Aircraft Authority would never approve either and they are very strict.
-
One more thing. Are you saying that everything we see is the way we see it is because we are told that is the way it looks?
If had a cube in my hand and someone told me it was a ball. I would still see it as a cube.
It's important to realize that we all fall victim to confirmation bias. If you're expecting to see a curve, then you'll be more likely to see the curve. This is true. How many FE videos have you seen with those high altitude shots and they are saying, "see... no curve" ? It's because there's a very slight curve in the image, and confirmation bias is strong.
We fight biases like these with careful measurements.
-
One more thing. Are you saying that everything we see is the way we see it is because we are told that is the way it looks?
If had a cube in my hand and someone told me it was a ball. I would still see it as a cube.
It's important to realize that we all fall victim to confirmation bias. If you're expecting to see a curve, then you'll be more likely to see the curve. This is true. How many FE videos have you seen with those high altitude shots and they are saying, "see... no curve" ? It's because there's a very slight curve in the image, and confirmation bias is strong.
Of course this can't be because that's what you want us to believe. Personally, I see what is there regardless of what someone has told me is there. A ball is a ball no matter what anyone else calls it and that is what you see. (in my case that's true anyway.), As for the pictures offered by FEers. The ones I have seen are from low altitude where the curve the earth isn't visible, and they right. I can't see a curve in them.
We fight biases like these with careful measurements.
-
You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
-
You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
Concorde's windows are not glass, they are perspex. I had to check them for distortion and any distortion was found they where scraped. On the other distortion will be equal in all directions, not just horizontally.
End of topic.
-
You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
That is actually true, BUT you don't see a curved horizon from most commercial planes. You apparently could from Concorde.
The RE explanation for this is that Concorde flew high enough to see a curve, other commercial airlines do not.
Your claim is that Concorde windows had a different kind of distortion which showed a curve in the horizon which other airplanes do not.
So couple of questions about that.
1) Do you have any evidence of that and
2) If that were so then surely the horizon would be curved on Concorde no matter your altitude, do you have any evidence that people saw a curved horizon all the way up, not just at cruising height?
-
You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
Yeah, light will be refracted through any piece of clear material, perspex or glass, if it is going through at an angle. However, that piece of material is perfectly flat it would not result in a distortion of shape, just a translation or displacement - and then only if you are looking at the material from an angle. If the material is dispersive, you may see colour fringing as well, but no curvature. You can pick up your mic.
-
You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
That is actually true, BUT you don't see a curved horizon from most commercial planes. You apparently could from Concorde.
The RE explanation for this is that Concorde flew high enough to see a curve, other commercial airlines do not.
Your claim is that Concorde windows had a different kind of distortion which showed a curve in the horizon which other airplanes do not.
So couple of questions about that.
1) Do you have any evidence of that and
2) If that were so then surely the horizon would be curved on Concorde no matter your altitude, do you have any evidence that people saw a curved horizon all the way up, not just at cruising height?
My claim is the view is distorted.
The OP claim is the Concorde had windows that did not distort.
That claim is patently false.
You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
Yeah, light will be refracted through any piece of clear material, perspex or glass, if it is going through at an angle. However, that piece of material is perfectly flat it would not result in a distortion of shape, just a translation or displacement - and then only if you are looking at the material from an angle. If the material is dispersive, you may see colour fringing as well, but no curvature. You can pick up your mic.
This is so wrong you cannot even find a source to post in support.
Epic fail.
-
My claim is the view is distorted.
So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?
Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?
-
Your are attempting to turn this into some sort of fight? Why? I'll note that you did not provide a source for your claim either.
Have a look at this:
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/reflectionandrefractionathomesurfacescurved-150517032335-lva1-app6891/95/reflection-and-refraction-at-home-curved-surfaces-22-638.jpg?cb=1431833183)
-
My claim is the view is distorted.
So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?
Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?
Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.
WTH is your point?
-
My claim is the view is distorted.
So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?
Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?
Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.
WTH is your point?
I made the point above
Are you claiming that the horizon looks curved at all altitudes on Concorde? What is your evidence for that?
Are you claiming that there is something different about Concorde windows to other airline windows where that effect is not observed. If so then where is your evidence of that?
-
Your are attempting to turn this into some sort of fight? Why? I'll note that you did not provide a source for your claim either.
Have a look at this:
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/reflectionandrefractionathomesurfacescurved-150517032335-lva1-app6891/95/reflection-and-refraction-at-home-curved-surfaces-22-638.jpg?cb=1431833183)
Yes, your source addresses but one part of the distortion taking place.
Plus, we are not writing about a simple sheet of one ply glass in a fixed position, however...this is about glass (with multiple plies) that is subject to a multitude of forces, being shifted around within the frame of a supersonic plane.
And it is certainly no fight taking place as you have NO legitimate argument to present.
-
My claim is the view is distorted.
So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?
Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?
Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.
WTH is your point?
I made the point above
Are you claiming that the horizon looks curved at all altitudes on Concorde? What is your evidence for that?
Are you claiming that there is something different about Concorde windows to other airline windows where that effect is not observed. If so then where is your evidence of that?
I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.
-
Your are attempting to turn this into some sort of fight? Why? I'll note that you did not provide a source for your claim either.
Have a look at this:
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/reflectionandrefractionathomesurfacescurved-150517032335-lva1-app6891/95/reflection-and-refraction-at-home-curved-surfaces-22-638.jpg?cb=1431833183)
Yes, your source addresses but one part of the distortion taking place.
Plus, we are not writing about a simple sheet of one ply glass in a fixed position, however...this is about glass (with multiple plies) that is subject to a multitude of forces, being shifted around within the frame of a supersonic plane.
And it is certainly no fight taking place as you have NO legitimate argument to present.
Where is your source? Or by your onw rules , you are a total fail. No?
-
Your are attempting to turn this into some sort of fight? Why? I'll note that you did not provide a source for your claim either.
Have a look at this:
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/reflectionandrefractionathomesurfacescurved-150517032335-lva1-app6891/95/reflection-and-refraction-at-home-curved-surfaces-22-638.jpg?cb=1431833183)
Yes, your source addresses but one part of the distortion taking place.
Plus, we are not writing about a simple sheet of one ply glass in a fixed position, however...this is about glass (with multiple plies) that is subject to a multitude of forces, being shifted around within the frame of a supersonic plane.
And it is certainly no fight taking place as you have NO legitimate argument to present.
Where is your source? Or by your onw rules , you are a total fail. No?
I need a source to support the Concorde had multiple ply safety glass, the glass being fitted within the framework of the Concorde, and was subject to a variety of forces during flight?!?!?
Please write and inform everyone here you are kidding...
I mean, this has to be some kind of joke...
-
My claim is the view is distorted.
So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?
Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?
Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.
WTH is your point?
I made the point above
Are you claiming that the horizon looks curved at all altitudes on Concorde? What is your evidence for that?
Are you claiming that there is something different about Concorde windows to other airline windows where that effect is not observed. If so then where is your evidence of that?
I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.
Incorrect. The claim by (most) RE supporters is that you cannot visually distinguish a curve when flying in a normal airplane. Supposedly the Concords increased cruising altitude changed this statement, and it was possible to see a curved horizon at cruising altitude. There are many reports of this from those that flew on it. Your claim has been because it is being distorted by the windows, which would be unlike other planes. Thus the inquiry, what is your evidence for your claim it was simply a problem with the windows? Do you have images or reports from people on the ground reporting distorted features around them perhaps? Or are you simply making the claim because it's the most intuitive way to dismiss the Concord claims/images?
-
I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.
OK. I don't know what you're talking about.
The claim is that a curved horizon could be observed on Concorde at its cruising altitude.
The RE claim is that this is because of the globe earth and the reason you don't see a curve on a regular airline is they don't fly high enough, Concorde did.
Your position is that the curve observed on Concorde was caused by distortion by the window. Correct?
If that is so then that raises a few questions.
1) Are you claiming that the distortion in Concorde's windows only occurred at cruising altitude? If so then why did no distortion occur when the plane was lower?
2) If the claim is that the distortion did occur at lower altitudes then do you have any evidence for that?
3) What is the difference between the windows on Concorde and other airlines which don't show horizon curvature?
These are not difficult questions.
-
My claim is the view is distorted.
So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?
Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?
Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.
WTH is your point?
I made the point above
Are you claiming that the horizon looks curved at all altitudes on Concorde? What is your evidence for that?
Are you claiming that there is something different about Concorde windows to other airline windows where that effect is not observed. If so then where is your evidence of that?
I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.
Incorrect. The claim by (most) RE supporters is that you cannot visually distinguish a curve when flying in a normal airplane. Supposedly the Concords increased cruising altitude changed this statement, and it was possible to see a curved horizon at cruising altitude. There are many reports of this from those that flew on it. Your claim has been because it is being distorted by the windows, which would be unlike other planes. Thus the inquiry, what is your evidence for your claim it was simply a problem with the windows? Do you have images or reports from people on the ground reporting distorted features around them perhaps? Or are you simply making the claim because it's the most intuitive way to dismiss the Concord claims/images?
Incorrect.
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level and those are made without any sort of dispute by RE adherents, thus constituting ipso facto support of such lies by those adhering to the RE myth.
I have made the statement that ALL GLASS placed in between any viewer and the object being viewed distort that object in some or fashion and my statement is INDISPUTABLE!
You are summarily dismissed.
-
I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.
OK. I don't know what you're talking about.
The claim is that a curved horizon could be observed on Concorde at its cruising altitude.
The RE claim is that this is because of the globe earth and the reason you don't see a curve on a regular airline is they don't fly high enough, Concorde did.
Your position is that the curve observed on Concorde was caused by distortion by the window. Correct?
My position is there is no curvature detected because the Earth is flat.
If that is so then that raises a few questions.
1) Are you claiming that the distortion in Concorde's windows only occurred at cruising altitude? If so then why did no distortion occur when the plane was lower?
2) If the claim is that the distortion did occur at lower altitudes then do you have any evidence for that?
3) What is the difference between the windows on Concorde and other airlines which don't show horizon curvature?
These are not difficult questions.
No, they are not difficult questions.
They are moot questions.
Please refrain from posting moot questions.
-
My claim is the view is distorted.
So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?
Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?
Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.
WTH is your point?
Did anyone report "seeing the curve" from Concorde before it took off?
-
To those who are saying that Concorde had glass windows.It did not have glass windows they windows mad from a special type of perspex made especially for Concorde. It is more rigid than glass and less flexible. it was also heat resistant. It had to be to survive the heat produced from the friction caused by supersonic flight. Of course it subject to various forces in flight it was designed to withstand it. I know this because I had the job of removing the marks left by this. Also any distortion would have an effect in all directions, not just horizontally. What of the cockpit windows/ if these were distorted to any great extent it could be dangerous.
PS To say 'Concorde' seems to imply that there was only on. In fact there were several.
-
I have made the statement that ALL GLASS placed in between any viewer and the object being viewed distort that object in some or fashion and my statement is INDISPUTABLE!
Well, if you put it in CAPITALS then it must be true...
It depends what you mean by distortion. If you look out the window and then open the window you don't suddenly see a completely different scene.
There may be a refraction effect but you don't look through windows, see curved lines and then on opening the window realise that the lines are in fact straight.
That is the sort of distortion you are claiming occurred when looking through Concorde's windows.
And your evidence of that is:
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
-
My claim is the view is distorted.
So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?
Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?
Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.
WTH is your point?
Did anyone report "seeing the curve" from Concorde before it took off?
Do you have access to a computer to research the answer to your question?
If so, I suggest you use that computer, as I find the question to be totally nonsensical and not worth the time to address.
-
You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
What is causing the curvature in this picture and why does it distort the horizon into a curve and not the Concord itself?
https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg)
I've never heard of glass with such selective properties and would love to see other examples.
-
My claim is the view is distorted.
So it would have been distorted whilst the craft was on the runway, then?
Or will someone suggest the craft was fitted with height-sensitive windows?
Of course it is distorted wherever the plane is.
WTH is your point?
I made the point above
Are you claiming that the horizon looks curved at all altitudes on Concorde? What is your evidence for that?
Are you claiming that there is something different about Concorde windows to other airline windows where that effect is not observed. If so then where is your evidence of that?
I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes and are the most biased presenters of a blatant falsehood in the history of humanity.
Incorrect. The claim by (most) RE supporters is that you cannot visually distinguish a curve when flying in a normal airplane. Supposedly the Concords increased cruising altitude changed this statement, and it was possible to see a curved horizon at cruising altitude. There are many reports of this from those that flew on it. Your claim has been because it is being distorted by the windows, which would be unlike other planes. Thus the inquiry, what is your evidence for your claim it was simply a problem with the windows? Do you have images or reports from people on the ground reporting distorted features around them perhaps? Or are you simply making the claim because it's the most intuitive way to dismiss the Concord claims/images?
Incorrect.
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level and those are made without any sort of dispute by RE adherents, thus constituting ipso facto support of such lies by those adhering to the RE myth.
I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere. So you're just wrong here.
I have made the statement that ALL GLASS placed in between any viewer and the object being viewed distort that object in some or fashion and my statement is INDISPUTABLE!
You are summarily dismissed.
All caps, clearly you're right. /s
-
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level and those are made without any sort of dispute by RE adherents, thus constituting ipso facto support of such lies by those adhering to the RE myth.
I have made the statement that ALL GLASS placed in between any viewer and the object being viewed distort that object in some or fashion and my statement is INDISPUTABLE!
You are summarily dismissed.
Links? I have never seen a RE'er claim you could see curvature from any altitude. But I'm not saying there are not nuts. I could refer to flat-earthers on youtube who think that Obama is a shape-shifting alien lizard but I give you credit for not being of that ilk.
-
You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
What is causing the curvature in this picture and why does it distort the horizon into a curve and not the Concord itself?
https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg)
I've never heard of glass with such selective properties and would love to see other examples.
First, I believe we are writing about the surface of the Earth, not the tops of clouds.
But let us simply state your pretty picture is altogether a 100 percent complete and accurate rendering. If that is case, then you can further state we live on a ball much less than the stated figure...
So take your picture back and come back when you have something not distorted much like this one, also presented in support of the ball earth myth:
(https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/felix-baumgartner-standing-in-his-capsule-about-to-dive-640x480.jpg)
The camera causes your distorted picture.
As for your claim to have never heard of glass causing distortion?
That is just pure bupkus and I am surprised you would resort to such tactics here. /sarcasm
-
I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere. So you're just wrong here.
Since you have written this, then you can provide those posts.
This is also in support of my stance these types of claims do exist.
All caps, clearly you're right. /s
Thanks for finally admitting I am correct.
The idea you want to attribute my being correct to my use of ALL CAPS is in error though and you clearly need to bone up on the issue of correlation =/=causation.
-
First, I believe we are writing about the surface of the Earth, not the tops of clouds.
So... if you're asserting that the curve in the pic is the tops of clouds which are not following the curve (or flat) of the Earth, then ... is it mere coincidence that the photo happened to be taken in front of a 'cloud bump' ?
The camera causes your distorted picture.
Which bit of the Red Bull picture is 'distorted'? I see no distortion in either of the cameras above the horizon line. If the horizon has been distorted by the glass, wouldn't everything else be distorted too?
-
You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
What is causing the curvature in this picture and why does it distort the horizon into a curve and not the Concord itself?
https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/Nmvvw9b.jpg)
I've never heard of glass with such selective properties and would love to see other examples.
First, I believe we are writing about the surface of the Earth, not the tops of clouds.
But let us simply state your pretty picture is altogether a 100 percent complete and accurate rendering. If that is case, then you can further state we live on a ball much less than the stated figure...
So take your picture back and come back when you have something not distorted much like this one, also presented in support of the ball earth myth:
(https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/felix-baumgartner-standing-in-his-capsule-about-to-dive-640x480.jpg)
The camera causes your distorted picture.
As for your claim to have never heard of glass causing distortion?
That is just pure bupkus and I am surprised you would resort to such tactics here. /sarcasm
Your image shows so much distortion on the edges that even the small camera body is curved!
The image I provided has the horizon in the center where ALL lenses have the least distortion and the Concord below center where barrel effects, if any, should show up. Yet the Concord is not distorted.
Are you actually claiming that this image was taken with a camera lens that distorts the center of an image and yet leaves the edges not distorted?
Is this magic lens altitude sensitive like Concord windows and only distorts at altitudes where curvature is apparent to the naked eye or does it also work the same way on ground?
Please provide an example of this type of camera lens or a diagram of how it works, I really would like to purchase one.
-
Please provide an example of this type of camera lens or a diagram of how it works, I really would like to purchase one.
Deal!
Once you have posted a picture of curvature of the surface of the Earth I will get right back with you!
-
Here's the uncropped version of the Red Bull picture.
Clear distortion at top and bottom, but the horizon is in the centre...
(https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2012/parachutistm.jpg)
-
Deal! Once you have posted a picture of curvature of the surface of the Earth I will get right back with you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC8Yh3UT-Do
(http://static4.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5b22cace42e1cc269010ab10-809/china-saudi-longjiang-2-microsatellite-image-moon-earth-rise.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/First_View_of_Earth_from_Moon_-_reprocessed_wide.jpg/300px-First_View_of_Earth_from_Moon_-_reprocessed_wide.jpg)
-
I need a source to support the Concorde had multiple ply safety glass, the glass being fitted within the framework of the Concorde, and was subject to a variety of forces during flight?!?!?
Please write and inform everyone here you are kidding...
I mean, this has to be some kind of joke...
No, you need a source for this:You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
I think yo know that too, so I sure you are being purposefully obtuse, because the other excuse would not be very flattering.
-
I have made the statement that ALL GLASS placed in between any viewer and the object being viewed distort that object in some or fashion and my statement is INDISPUTABLE!
Well, if you put it in CAPITALS then it must be true...
It depends what you mean by distortion. If you look out the window and then open the window you don't suddenly see a completely different scene.
There may be a refraction effect but you don't look through windows, see curved lines and then on opening the window realise that the lines are in fact straight.
That is the sort of distortion you are claiming occurred when looking through Concorde's windows.
And your evidence of that is:
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level
Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?
Yes, CuriousSquirrel admits he has seen such posts also, here:
"...I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere..."
So... if you're asserting that the curve in the pic is the tops of clouds which are not following the curve (or flat) of the Earth, then ... is it mere coincidence that the photo happened to be taken in front of a 'cloud bump' ?
OMFG!!!
LMAO!!!
Here is a genius stating the tops of clouds form a curve due to the curve of the earth...
Utterly unbelievable!
Which bit of the Red Bull picture is 'distorted'? I see no distortion in either of the cameras above the horizon line. If the horizon has been distorted by the glass, wouldn't everything else be distorted too?
Theo states the whole pic is distorted, even the camera facing directly at Baumgartner is distorted by the picture...
I am sick of the disingenuous approach RE demonstrates relative their own claims and supporting BS.
You guys need a new approach...
The truth might be a good place to start!
If either the Red Bull shot or the Concorde shot was an actual real life depiction of the "curvature" of the earth, the ball would be much smaller than we are told...
But since we do not live on a ball, sphere, or oblate spheroid, it is all quite moot.
-
Deal! Once you have posted a picture of curvature of the surface of the Earth I will get right back with you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC8Yh3UT-Do
(http://static4.uk.businessinsider.com/image/5b22cace42e1cc269010ab10-809/china-saudi-longjiang-2-microsatellite-image-moon-earth-rise.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/First_View_of_Earth_from_Moon_-_reprocessed_wide.jpg/300px-First_View_of_Earth_from_Moon_-_reprocessed_wide.jpg)
Hey, the motion picture Gravity had the same kind of images you just presented!
Nothing new there sparky...
Oh, by the way...
Where is the apology?
-
No, you need a source for this:You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
I think yo know that too, so I sure you are being purposefully obtuse, because the other excuse would not be very flattering.
Hey, see if you can join in the circle of support provided by your fellow RE'ers...
That is actually true...
Anything else?
-
If you are told the horizon is curved, and you expect to see a curved horizon ... you'll see a curved horizon.
https://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/seeing-things-that-arent-there-thats-just-your-brain-functioning-normally
I was't TOLD it. I OBSERVED it.
observation <> reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G303o8pJzls
The REALITY is that both arrows are pointing to the left through the entire course of the video.
The OBSERVATION is that water causes the arrows to point the other direction.
-
OMFG!!! LMAO!!! Here is a genius stating the tops of clouds form a curve due to the curve of the earth...
What did you mean by;
"First, I believe we are writing about the surface of the Earth, not the tops of clouds."?
??
This implies to me that you think the Earth flat, but not the clouds pictured. Is this what you meant? There's a clear curve in the clouds above the Concorde, so this suggests two possibilities;
The Earth is curved, and the clouds follow the general curve of the Earth, according to weather and layers of atmosphere
The Earth is flat, and the curve in the clouds is a 'cloud bump'
-
VID
The REALITY is that both arrows are pointing to the left through the entire course of the video.
The OBSERVATION is that water causes the arrows to point the other direction.
But nothing in this thread relates to observations through water....
-
OMFG!!! LMAO!!! Here is a genius stating the tops of clouds form a curve due to the curve of the earth...
What did you mean by;
"First, I believe we are writing about the surface of the Earth, not the tops of clouds."?
??
This implies to me that you think the Earth flat, but not the clouds pictured. Is this what you meant? There's a clear curve in the clouds above the Concorde, so this suggests two possibilities;
The Earth is curved, and the clouds follow the general curve of the Earth, according to weather and layers of atmosphere
The Earth is flat, and the curve in the clouds is a 'cloud bump'
You are forgetting two other possibilities:
A) The picture is distorted; and,
II) You are peddling totally worthless ideas on the internet.
You are stating the tops of the clouds are curved because of the surface of the earth.
This is so nonsensical it does not even deserve repeating or any sort of response except to state it is worthless.
-
I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere. So you're just wrong here.
Since you have written this, then you can provide those posts.
This is also in support of my stance these types of claims do exist.
First post I found, directly showing your claim it never happens to be false. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9109.msg144873#msg144873
I'd also note, as I stated I have not seen someone suggest it occurs at ground level. That is your own 'spin' on the common misconception that you can see it from an airplane.
-
I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere. So you're just wrong here.
Since you have written this, then you can provide those posts.
This is also in support of my stance these types of claims do exist.
First post I found, directly showing your claim it never happens to be false. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9109.msg144873#msg144873
I'd also note, as I stated I have not seen someone suggest it occurs at ground level. That is your own 'spin' on the common misconception that you can see it from an airplane.
Oh, quit spewing BS.
There are multitudes of RE'ers claiming curvature can be visually detected at altitudes far below that of even commercial aircraft.
So all of this written dialogue found here demonstrates all of you to be lacking in any form of intellectual or philosophical integrity/consistency.
-
I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere. So you're just wrong here.
Since you have written this, then you can provide those posts.
This is also in support of my stance these types of claims do exist.
First post I found, directly showing your claim it never happens to be false. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9109.msg144873#msg144873
I'd also note, as I stated I have not seen someone suggest it occurs at ground level. That is your own 'spin' on the common misconception that you can see it from an airplane.
Oh, quit spewing BS.
There are multitudes of RE'ers claiming curvature can be visually detected at altitudes far below that of even commercial aircraft.
So all of this written dialogue found here demonstrates all of you to be lacking in any form of intellectual or philosophical integrity/consistency.
Then prove it. I just provided you evidence of my claim I correct people claiming they can see curvature from the height of commercial aircraft. All you have to say is you moving the goalposts. I do not recall seeing anyone claim they can see curvature at ground/sea level. I would contest even if they did, they would be corrected (at least in a forum setting). Now, do you have evidence of at least this claim or do I go back to ignoring you for providing zero substance?
-
Please provide an example of this type of camera lens or a diagram of how it works, I really would like to purchase one.
Deal!
Once you have posted a picture of curvature of the surface of the Earth I will get right back with you!
How about one that you go and observe first hand?
https://i.imgur.com/Bir01ql.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/Bir01ql.jpg)
Now, where can I find a lens that causes horizons to curve in the center of an image and yet leaves the edges distortion free? An online summary or description will be fine, I'll do the shopping once I know what to look for. Thanks in advance.
-
I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere. So you're just wrong here.
Since you have written this, then you can provide those posts.
This is also in support of my stance these types of claims do exist.
First post I found, directly showing your claim it never happens to be false. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9109.msg144873#msg144873
I'd also note, as I stated I have not seen someone suggest it occurs at ground level. That is your own 'spin' on the common misconception that you can see it from an airplane.
Oh, quit spewing BS.
There are multitudes of RE'ers claiming curvature can be visually detected at altitudes far below that of even commercial aircraft.
So all of this written dialogue found here demonstrates all of you to be lacking in any form of intellectual or philosophical integrity/consistency.
Then prove it. I just provided you evidence of my claim I correct people claiming they can see curvature from the height of commercial aircraft. All you have to say is you moving the goalposts. I do not recall seeing anyone claim they can see curvature at ground/sea level. I would contest even if they did, they would be corrected (at least in a forum setting). Now, do you have evidence of at least this claim or do I go back to ignoring you for providing zero substance?
I wrote the following:
I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes...
Further revised and refined to be more accurate:
Incorrect.
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level and those are made without any sort of dispute by RE adherents, thus constituting ipso facto support of such lies by those adhering to the RE myth..."
The revision is a patently true statement, with multiple instances of support form every RE adherent posting on this forum.
-
Please provide an example of this type of camera lens or a diagram of how it works, I really would like to purchase one.
Deal!
Once you have posted a picture of curvature of the surface of the Earth I will get right back with you!
How about one that you go and observe first hand?
https://i.imgur.com/Bir01ql.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/Bir01ql.jpg)
Now, where can I find a lens that causes horizons to curve in the center of an image and yet leaves the edges distortion free? An online summary or description will be fine, I'll do the shopping once I know what to look for. Thanks in advance.
Please...
That image presents no curvature...
Hey CuriousSquirrel!!!
You gonna correct this guy or what!?!?!
LMAO!!!
-
This entire thread is a comedy of errors on the part of RE!!!
One swearing to a lie and the other notarizing the lie with their own writing!!!
LMAO!!!
-
I correct this mistake every time I see it made on these forums and elsewhere, namely that one can see curvature from an airplane. I also frequently see it corrected elsewhere. So you're just wrong here.
Since you have written this, then you can provide those posts.
This is also in support of my stance these types of claims do exist.
First post I found, directly showing your claim it never happens to be false. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9109.msg144873#msg144873
I'd also note, as I stated I have not seen someone suggest it occurs at ground level. That is your own 'spin' on the common misconception that you can see it from an airplane.
Oh, quit spewing BS.
There are multitudes of RE'ers claiming curvature can be visually detected at altitudes far below that of even commercial aircraft.
So all of this written dialogue found here demonstrates all of you to be lacking in any form of intellectual or philosophical integrity/consistency.
Then prove it. I just provided you evidence of my claim I correct people claiming they can see curvature from the height of commercial aircraft. All you have to say is you moving the goalposts. I do not recall seeing anyone claim they can see curvature at ground/sea level. I would contest even if they did, they would be corrected (at least in a forum setting). Now, do you have evidence of at least this claim or do I go back to ignoring you for providing zero substance?
I wrote the following:
I am claiming you on the RE side have made the claim a curved horizon can be viewed at all altitudes...
Further revised and refined to be more accurate:
Incorrect.
There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level and those are made without any sort of dispute by RE adherents, thus constituting ipso facto support of such lies by those adhering to the RE myth..."
The revision is a patently true statement, with multiple instances of support form every RE adherent posting on this forum.
I'm asking you for one quoted example of someone stating they can/should see curvature from ground level, without being corrected by an RE adherent. I've already shown you to be patently wrong about at the very least claims you can see the curvature from an airplane never being rebuffed. So do you have any examples of your statement actually be true? Or are you just going to keep repeating that it's true with the only provided evidence showing it's a false claim?
Oh I see. Curvature claims from a plane are looking for curvature from left/right across the horizon. Now you're discussing the image specifically taken in an attempt to show curvature across Lake Pontchartrain. Which cannot be seen with the naked eyes. Christ, it's moving goalposts 'r us with you. Or maybe to be specific 'never setting them in the first place'
-
Please provide an example of this type of camera lens or a diagram of how it works, I really would like to purchase one.
Deal!
Once you have posted a picture of curvature of the surface of the Earth I will get right back with you!
How about one that you go and observe first hand?
https://i.imgur.com/Bir01ql.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/Bir01ql.jpg)
Now, where can I find a lens that causes horizons to curve in the center of an image and yet leaves the edges distortion free? An online summary or description will be fine, I'll do the shopping once I know what to look for. Thanks in advance.
Please...
That image presents no curvature...
Hey CuriousSquirrel!!!
You gonna correct this guy or what!?!?!
LMAO!!!
Then why do the concrete structures supporting the towers disappear at the horizon while the thinner towers can still be resolved much farther in the distance? Why the apparent curve in the powerline towers? More lens distortion?
Nobody has claimed here that you can see the curve perpendicular to your line of sight from the ground. Your field of view is too small and the curve too slight. You are only looking at a few miles.
However in the image I posted you are looking at 15 miles in your field of view along your line of site so the curve is obvious unless you're in denial. Would you like me to demonstrate the curve of the towers by superimposing some straight lines on the image?
I'll be happy to oblige when you tell me the type of camera lens you claim causes the distortion in the Concord image.
Back to the OP, I'd be interested to know how the Concord windows can cause a curvature in the horizon when they curve only along the vertical axis to match the fuselage. Wouldn't the curve have to be along horizontal axis?
Have any diagrams on how the windows act as a lens and cause the apparent curvature in the horizon?
-
Been debunked before.
A guy was hoaxing those curved earth shots ...
Here are some of the layers used to make these hoaxes.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/a4fa1f9c4a4746d90e7e23020700768f.png)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCunxYOUIAEAiEU.jpg)
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170722-105552-feohd-jpg.27878/)
This guy 'Soundly' hoaxes shots and adds them to the internet.
Here he is asking for help from his friends.
https://twitter.com/skeptropolis/status/868277163937718277
And below is another of his terrible hoaxes ... I think he imagines we live on Kerbal.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRWv8rvUMAEzFnV.jpg)
Any of the images from 'Soundly' have to be instantly dismissed. It is fakery.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/06/soundly-shows-flat-earthers-curve.html
-
Been debunked before.
A guy was hoaxing those curved earth shots ...
Here are some of the layers used to make these hoaxes.
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/a4fa1f9c4a4746d90e7e23020700768f.png)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCunxYOUIAEAiEU.jpg)
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170722-105552-feohd-jpg.27878/)
This guy 'Soundly' hoaxes shots and adds them to the internet.
Here he is asking for help from his friends.
https://twitter.com/skeptropolis/status/868277163937718277
And below is another of his terrible hoaxes ... I think he imagines we live on Kerbal.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRWv8rvUMAEzFnV.jpg)
Any of the images from 'Soundly' have to be instantly dismissed. It is fakery.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/06/soundly-shows-flat-earthers-curve.html
Are you the guy who claimed that the power line didn't exist then fled the thread when proven wrong?
So now you claim fake?
Well sir the making of video was lived streamed to prevent flat earthers claiming fake and the "layers" you posted were made AFTER the video to model the power lines.
I challenge you to find that image posted somewhere BEFORE Soundly's video.
Funny that you missed this image:
https://i.imgur.com/rTTvBW9.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/rTTvBW9.jpg)
That is a model of the power line if the earth were flat. Definitely not what is observed.
A comparison :
https://i.imgur.com/XTseJVU.png
(https://i.imgur.com/XTseJVU.png)
For those interested you can view a model of the power line on a flat earth or reality here...
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Comparison+of+Globe+and+Flat-Earth+Model+Predictions+with+Reality#H_Lake_Ponchartrain_Transmission_Line
-
I'm asking you for one quoted example of someone stating they can/should see curvature from ground level, without being corrected by an RE adherent. I've already shown you to be patently wrong about at the very least claims you can see the curvature from an airplane never being rebuffed. So do you have any examples of your statement actually be true? Or are you just going to keep repeating that it's true with the only provided evidence showing it's a false claim?
Oh I see. Curvature claims from a plane are looking for curvature from left/right across the horizon. Now you're discussing the image specifically taken in an attempt to show curvature across Lake Pontchartrain. Which cannot be seen with the naked eyes. Christ, it's moving goalposts 'r us with you. Or maybe to be specific 'never setting them in the first place'
You have an RE adherent in this very thread posting a picture (taken at an altitude below that of a commercial airliner...INDEED at an altitude common to that of a PAPER AIRPLANE!) claiming it is quite evidently supporting the curvature of the earth.
A picture is visual evidence according to you.
And now you are writing I am the one changing goalposts?
Your moniker is definitely right...quite curious...and squirrely!
-
VID
The REALITY is that both arrows are pointing to the left through the entire course of the video.
The OBSERVATION is that water causes the arrows to point the other direction.
But nothing in this thread relates to observations through water....
Horse hockey...
The atmoplane is FULL OF WATER!!!
-
Then why do the concrete structures supporting the towers disappear at the horizon while the thinner towers can still be resolved much farther in the distance? Why the apparent curve in the powerline towers? More lens distortion?
Your question should be: "Why is there MORE CURVATURE BEING REPRESENTED IN THIS IMAGE DEPICTING TEN MILES STRAIGHT AWAY FROM THE POV THAN THERE IS DEPICTED IN AN IMAGE SUPPOSEDLY TAKEN AT THE ALTITUDE OF A CONCORD!?!?"
When you can answer that question AND provide an actual photograph of the curvature you got something...
Until then, nothing but chirps so far from you and all of the other expurttz...
LOL!
Nobody has claimed here that you can see the curve perpendicular to your line of sight from the ground. Your field of view is too small and the curve too slight. You are only looking at a few miles.
However in the image I posted you are looking at 15 miles in your field of view along your line of site so the curve is obvious unless you're in denial. Would you like me to demonstrate the curve of the towers by superimposing some straight lines on the image?
Fifteen miles?
Do not bother with superimposed images of lines on the image...
You would probably only be hacking those images from NAZA (who you probably are) or making up some other fictional story to go along with the rest of the BS...
-
Been debunked before.
Yes, I remember that thread. You were adamant that those power lines didn't exist at all. You were very gracious in your wording:
*Spoiler alert *
Lake Pontchartrain doesn't even have any power cables. It has a road running through its middle and outside of links to this 'flat earth busted' youtube video, there is no photo or mention of transmission lines anywhere. They aren't on google earth, google maps, there's no images of them, nothing ...
Edit: reported that to google with the maps and they took them down agreeing it was a falsehood. (I happen to be a long time member of google guides and I'm a level 5 guide).
They absolutely don't exist.
Turns out those power lines do exist. Did you ever get them removed from Google maps?
http://louisianadigitallibrary.org/islandora/search/mods_subject_topic_ms:%22Overhead%5C%20electric%5C%20lines%22
-
Been debunked before.
A guy was hoaxing those curved earth shots ...
Here are some of the layers used to make these hoaxes.
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/a4fa1f9c4a4746d90e7e23020700768f.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCunxYOUIAEAiEU.jpg
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170722-105552-feohd-jpg.27878/
The first images is a rendering modeling what you would see on a curved earth.
The second image includes 2 renderings: what you would see on a curved earth and what you would see on a flat earth.
The 3rd image is a photograph taken with a camera.
How are these supposed to be the layers he used to make the hoax? Did you see them discussing how to construct the fake image?
This guy 'Soundly' hoaxes shots and adds them to the internet.
Here he is asking for help from his friends.
https://twitter.com/skeptropolis/status/868277163937718277
I don't understand you claim here. What exactly do you think he's asking for? Here is the actual text from his tweet:
"#hdr lake #pontchartrain transmission lines. This is as good as it gets with my current hardware."
He's not asking for help. He's showing the photograph. Were you assuming nobody would actually click the link and find out he wasn't asking for help?
And below is another of his terrible hoaxes ... I think he imagines we live on Kerbal.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRWv8rvUMAEzFnV.jpg
How is this a hoax? So far all you have is an Argument from Incredulity.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity
It's a photograph, what is the hoax?
Any of the images from 'Soundly' have to be instantly dismissed. It is fakery.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2017/06/soundly-shows-flat-earthers-curve.html
This is known as the Genetic Fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/99/Genetic-Fallacy
-
Then why do the concrete structures supporting the towers disappear at the horizon while the thinner towers can still be resolved much farther in the distance? Why the apparent curve in the powerline towers? More lens distortion?
Your question should be: "Why is there MORE CURVATURE BEING REPRESENTED IN THIS IMAGE DEPICTING TEN MILES STRAIGHT AWAY FROM THE POV THAN THERE IS DEPICTED IN AN IMAGE SUPPOSEDLY TAKEN AT THE ALTITUDE OF A CONCORD!?!?"
When you can answer that question AND provide an actual photograph of the curvature you got something...
Until then, nothing but chirps so far from you and all of the other expurttz...
LOL!
Nobody has claimed here that you can see the curve perpendicular to your line of sight from the ground. Your field of view is too small and the curve too slight. You are only looking at a few miles.
However in the image I posted you are looking at 15 miles in your field of view along your line of site so the curve is obvious unless you're in denial. Would you like me to demonstrate the curve of the towers by superimposing some straight lines on the image?
Fifteen miles?
Do not bother with superimposed images of lines on the image...
You would probably only be hacking those images from NAZA (who you probably are) or making up some other fictional story to go along with the rest of the BS...
What in the world does Nasa have to do with Lake Pontchartrain other than to serve as a diversion to avoid backing up your claim that "lens distortion" is responsible for the curve in the Concord picture?
I do understand why you don't want to see any straight lines on the power line picture, I wouldn't either had I claimed that they don't curve, but here is a "hacked" image for you none the less...
https://i.imgur.com/ycIXUUD.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/ycIXUUD.jpg)
Now would you kindly support your claim about lens distortion with evidence instead of avoidance and obfuscation?
What type of camera lens is responsible for causing a curve in the horizon in the center of the image while leaving the Concord with no distortions?
How does a very slight curve in the vertical axis of a window cause the horizon to curve and how is it that it only happens when at altitudes where the curvature of earth becomes visible?
-
Yes, I remember that thread.
Then why are you repeating it all over again? This thread is about Concorde. Not Lake Pontchartrain.
-
No, you need a source for this:You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
I think yo know that too, so I sure you are being purposefully obtuse, because the other excuse would not be very flattering.
Hey, see if you can join in the circle of support provided by your fellow RE'ers...
That you can't give any support to you assertions is just pathetic dude. Can't step up - just pathetic. ::) Your are on my list to ignore going forward, perhaps you'd kindly do me the same favor.
-
No, you need a source for this:You can claim "no distortion" as much as you like...
The facts have been, are, and will forevermore be, this:
If you are looking at something with a piece of glass placed in between you and the something being observed your vision is being distorted by the piece of glass.
Plain, pure, and simple.
Drops mic...
End of topic.
I think yo know that too, so I sure you are being purposefully obtuse, because the other excuse would not be very flattering.
Hey, see if you can join in the circle of support provided by your fellow RE'ers...
That you can't give any support to you assertions is just pathetic dude. Can't step up - just pathetic. ::) Your are on my list to ignore going forward, perhaps you'd kindly do me the same favor.
I provided an RE adherent quote in this thread and you dismiss that too...
Maybe you ought to ignore everyone the same way they are you...
-
What in the world does Nasa have to do with Lake Pontchartrain other than to serve as a diversion to avoid backing up your claim that "lens distortion" is responsible for the curve in the Concord picture?
Maybe you should learn to read.
I wrote NAZA.
Not Nasa.
How you been?
I do understand why you don't want to see any straight lines on the power line picture, I wouldn't either had I claimed that they don't curve, but here is a "hacked" image for you none the less...
https://i.imgur.com/ycIXUUD.jpg
(https://i.imgur.com/ycIXUUD.jpg)
Yep.
Right on cue.
Now would you kindly support your claim about lens distortion with evidence instead of avoidance and obfuscation?
What type of camera lens is responsible for causing a curve in the horizon in the center of the image while leaving the Concord with no distortions?
How does a very slight curve in the vertical axis of a window cause the horizon to curve and how is it that it only happens when at altitudes where the curvature of earth becomes visible?
Like I wrote earlier, provide a photo of the curvature of the earth surface, not a photo of the tops of clouds.
-
Like I wrote earlier, provide a photo of the curvature of the earth surface, not a photo of the tops of clouds.
Multiples of this provided at reply #38.
Your reply (paraphrased) was that movies have something similar. Quite how this qualifies as a disproof escapes me.
Here's some more;
(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ESC/large/ISS056/ISS056-E-85362.JPG)
(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ISD/highres/AS04/AS04-1-501.JPG)
-
I provided an RE adherent quote in this thread and you dismiss that too...
I must have missed that - can you direct me to it?
-
I provided an RE adherent quote in this thread and you dismiss that too...
I must have missed that - can you direct me to it?
He's talking about the thing to do with Lake Pontchartrain. Most assume anyone talking about curvature is discussing it on the horizon line. He's using a scenario explicitly setup outside of human norms to declare about people seeing curvature. Essentially he's talking about curvature in one direction, where all of us are refuting it in another direction because that's the common call about curvature from people in an airplane (regardless of the fact you can't actually see it at normal commercial heights)
-
I wish someone would send up a balloon with a clear perspex sheet in front of the camera (a suitable distance), with a grid on it. Every photo, even if it did have curve due to the lens, could be referenced against the curve in the grid lines from the sheet.
-
Your question should be: "Why is there MORE CURVATURE BEING REPRESENTED IN THIS IMAGE DEPICTING TEN MILES STRAIGHT AWAY FROM THE POV THAN THERE IS DEPICTED IN AN IMAGE SUPPOSEDLY TAKEN AT THE ALTITUDE OF A CONCORD!?!?"
Well, one is front-to-back 'curvature', the other is left-to-right, so ... how can you tell that there is 'more' ?
-
Like I wrote earlier, provide a photo of the curvature of the earth surface, not a photo of the tops of clouds.
Multiples of this provided at reply #38.
Your reply (paraphrased) was that movies have something similar. Quite how this qualifies as a disproof escapes me.
Here's some more;
(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ESC/large/ISS056/ISS056-E-85362.JPG)
(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ISD/highres/AS04/AS04-1-501.JPG)
It is disproof because it quite easily performed right here in the comfort of one's basement.
There is ZERO difference between what on witnesses on the big screen at your local AMC and what is claimed to be true schpayzze footage.
-
Saying that you COULD do something to replicate these photos is not an actual disproof of the photos.
But, since you say it could be done so easily... have at it. Let's see your product. There's thousands of these photos at the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth, so why don't you come back to us once you've completed ..... half a dozen?
Shouldn't take you more than an hour or so, should it?
-
I provided an RE adherent quote in this thread and you dismiss that too...
I must have missed that - can you direct me to it?
He's talking about the thing to do with Lake Pontchartrain. Most assume anyone talking about curvature is discussing it on the horizon line. He's using a scenario explicitly setup outside of human norms to declare about people seeing curvature. Essentially he's talking about curvature in one direction, where all of us are refuting it in another direction because that's the common call about curvature from people in an airplane (regardless of the fact you can't actually see it at normal commercial heights)
Gotcha, thanks.
I have difficulty buying the horizon effect observations no matter which side of the debate the observer is on. None I have seen so far adequately account for the air density conditions that must certainly exist along the line of sight. You can go to the same place one day and record that the surface appears to curve down, on another day that it appears flat, or even find a day where it appears to curve up. This is in addition to any distortion introduced by clear material, like glass or plastic, also in the line of sight. For any of these types of observations to be of use, the observer must first account for all possible sources of error.
-
Saying that you COULD do something to replicate these photos is not an actual disproof of the photos.
But, since you say it could be done so easily... have at it. Let's see your product. There's thousands of these photos at the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth, so why don't you come back to us once you've completed ..... half a dozen?
Shouldn't take you more than an hour or so, should it?
Why should I already recreate what experts in the field are capable of.
Seriously...
It comes down to you believing something is real because someone writes or states it is real.
That is the full extent of it.
-
It comes down to you believing something is real because someone writes or states it is real.
...and you do this multiple times every day, in a variety of different ways. You're just cherry-picking something (RE) to disagree with and pick at.
Examples;
I looked at the news, and there were a bunch of dumb quotes from Trump. Did he really say them? Should I check, or do I take the news outlets at their word? Do I need to look for video and audio recordings of them all to make sure?
I was in the supermarket, and there's a big skull-and-crossbones graphic on the cleaning products, advising that they are hazardous to my health if I ingest them. Should I take the scientists who established this at their word, or should I check it for myself?
I don't like lemon biscuits. If the packet of Lemon Puffs is in front of me, do I take this at face value, or open the packet and check?
You take the word of others in written form, too, in a myriad of different ways. Don't you?
-
It comes down to you believing something is real because someone writes or states it is real.
...and you do this multiple times every day, in a variety of different ways. You're just cherry-picking something (RE) to disagree with and pick at.
Examples;
I looked at the news, and there were a bunch of dumb quotes from Trump. Did he really say them? Should I check, or do I take the news outlets at their word? Do I need to look for video and audio recordings of them all to make sure?
I was in the supermarket, and there's a big skull-and-crossbones graphic on the cleaning products, advising that they are hazardous to my health if I ingest them. Should I take the scientists who established this at their word, or should I check it for myself?
I don't like lemon biscuits. If the packet of Lemon Puffs is in front of me, do I take this at face value, or open the packet and check?
You take the word of others in written form, too, in a myriad of different ways. Don't you?
If everyone performs something I fail to see how it is "cherry-picking."
Your analogy concerning lemon biscuits fails miserably.
-
If everyone performs something I fail to see how it is "cherry-picking."
No, YOU are cherry-picking one topic on which to say "The RE crowd are just taking someone else's word for it".
You take someone else's word every day, numerous times, whether I chose the best examples of it or not.
-
How much curvature you can see depends on how much of the horizon you can see. Warning, crude calculations ahead!
If you can see all 24,901 miles of Earth's horizon, you will see 360° of curvature. If you can see 6,225 miles of the horizon, you will see about 90° of curvature. At the cruising altitude of a typical airliner, the horizon will be about 230 miles away. That gives 460 miles if you have a 180° or greater field of view. 460 / 24901 * 360 = 6.65°. So at cruising altitude, you will see a maximum of about 6°.
But looking out a passenger's window on an airliner, you will see only about 45° (with your nose pressed up to the glass), not 180°. This will limit the viewable curvature to about 1.66°. That is why I doubt people when they claim to see curvature from an airliner. The pilots, maybe. If they have a "good eye" for subtle changes in angles. Passengers, not likely.