The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Rob_Blob on March 24, 2019, 02:24:36 AM
-
Here's everything I think proves the round earth, I hope I get disproved!
1: tilt of the earth causes seasons (hemisphere is closer during summer, further during winter).
2: Eclipse shadow is round, not an ellipse.
3: Can bring the sun back into view after sunlight by flying a drone above the curve.
4: Iake Pontchartrain power lines.
5: Occam's Razor
6: Trips to the South Pole (before satellite images) should have documented what the map looks like, but they didn't.
7: Water bottle when viewed horizontally in an airplane doesn't line up with the horizon.
8: Human eye can see 5 kilometer when on the ground, but from higher up you can see further over the curve (can see Iran on Burj khalifa, can't on eye level)
9: Conspiracy is too big, and private companies/foreign nations should have no interest in keeping the conspiracy alive (SpaceX, INCOSPAR, CNES, etc.).
10: Ships sink into the horizon, even in clear weather.
11: Different stars in different hemispheres
I know that there's a chance that all of that is wrong, but there's also a chance that you're wrong. ;)
-
I like your #7, that’s fresh.
The rest are what we get here 50 times a day. So don’t get your hopes up about getting in depth replies.
-
I like your #7, that’s fresh.
The rest are what we get here 50 times a day. So don’t get your hopes up about getting in depth replies.
The water in your bottle curves. That's called a meniscus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meniscus_(liquid)). The sea is flat ... which is why it is called sea level. #7 only reasserts the fact earth is flat.
-
I like your #7, that’s fresh.
The rest are what we get here 50 times a day. So don’t get your hopes up about getting in depth replies.
The water in your bottle curves. That's called a meniscus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meniscus_(liquid)). The sea is flat ... which is why it is called sea level. #7 only reasserts the fact earth is flat.
It barely makes a difference, the curving on the edges of water in a bottle is minimal. if the space between the top of the curved edges of the water and the bottom of the surface of the water are (on average) offset from the horizon then it doesn't line up. That said I don't really see this as a decent test for flat/round earth anyway, the horizon could well be your limited visibility because of the atmosphere effectively 'lowering' the edge of the earth in your sight, which would happen on a flat or curved surface. It's not the most controlled of tests even if it favours a round earth.
-
I like your #7, that’s fresh.
The rest are what we get here 50 times a day. So don’t get your hopes up about getting in depth replies.
The water in your bottle curves. That's called a meniscus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meniscus_(liquid)). The sea is flat ... which is why it is called sea level. #7 only reasserts the fact earth is flat.
What about sea level makes the Earth flat? The sea is at different levels all the time! Tides, storm surge, etc etc all greatly affect water level. Sure, if you ignore all facts and all of science and replace it with imagination then the Earth is flat.
Literally, nothing works on the flat Earth that matches the simplest of observation without appealing to magical undefined forces which don’t match observations even if they existed.
While the OP is correct in that the Earth is undeniably a barely measurable bulge from a perfect sphere, the OP doesn’t even use the best evidence of the globular Earth.
I’ll help the OP out here...
1. Phases of the moon as seen across the Earth are impossible with a near sun/moon system without creating a self illuminating migrating light source which coincidentally always points towards the Sun and creates shadows to fool us since the Sun and moon cannot be placed above a flat earth to create them and match day/night.
2. Two celestial axi both above the surface of the Earth with accompanying star trails and straight trails at the Equator. Either the Earth is a sphere and the Universe circles us (which has its own mountain of issues) or the Earth is a sphere and spins approximately once per 24 hours. If the Earth were flat, then star trails would look like they do at the equator and always look that way, but they don’t... you go north the axis of rotation becomes higher and higher, same for southerly direction.
3. The suns speed on its path does not increase while it approaches Tropic of Capricorn, or slow down on its path towards Tropic of Cancer as required by a near moon/sun system to create our seasons.
4. Solar eclipses... the moon does not follow the same path as the sun as required of it to cause solar eclipses at any time of the year.
5. Distances in Southern Hemisphere and southern direct flights between Santiago/Australia/Johannesburg etc. This has been done to death, but these flights exist and are taken by millions.
6. 24 hour sun and darkness in the north and south as predicted by a titled spherical Earth. Millions of people have seen the 24 hour sun in both hemispheres. This is not possible on any FE map without creating even bigger problems (ie bipolar/duel earth etc).
These are the easy ones... there are many more that FE has zero answer for, I use these ones because bendy light, too many FE models (with possible exception of 6) and magic perspective can’t save FET. If FE model can’t explain these incredibly basic undeniably true observations then it is dead in the water. No arguments about gravity or relativity to change the subject have anything to do with them.
-
I like your #7, that’s fresh.
The rest are what we get here 50 times a day. So don’t get your hopes up about getting in depth replies.
The water in your bottle curves. That's called a meniscus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meniscus_(liquid)). The sea is flat ... which is why it is called sea level. #7 only reasserts the fact earth is flat.
The meniscus is caused by surface tension. #7 talks about something else entirely, and the meniscus is an irrelevant aspect.
-
Clearly, every flat earther is only bothered about point 7. what about the rest? Could you guys explain point 4 and 8?
-
agree
-
I have no idea what #4 is about, do you?
-
I have no idea what #4 is about, do you?
You've never heard of point 4 before?
It's basically this image.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kADO7nkt-rk/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's often presented as a proof against flat earth by showing curvature. I think there a few threads here somewhere discussing and debating it.
-
I have no idea what #4 is about, do you?
You've never heard of point 4 before?
It's basically this image.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kADO7nkt-rk/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's often presented as a proof against flat earth by showing curvature. I think there a few threads here somewhere discussing and debating it.
Oh I see. Thanks!
I imagine that the response to this is to use vanishing perspective theory to explain that the apparent curvature is actually an optical effect of parallel lines converging in interesting ways as they approach the limit of one’s vision.
I don’t really understand how VPT can simultaneously explain the sinking ship effect and this bridge effect. Maybe somone who is more knowledgable can chime in?
-
Apart from perspective doesn't curve anything, it is as straight forward as you'd expect. You have a cone of vision and closer things will take up more space in that cone, while further away things will take up less. There is no bending or curving of light via ones perspective. You can rule out any optical illusions but simply drawing straight lines in the image to represent lines converging into the vanishing point.
The only other explanation is that it's all a mirage... I'd like to see people prove it's the effect of a mirage before making up any other excuse..
-
Apart from perspective doesn't curve anything, it is as straight forward as you'd expect. You have a cone of vision and closer things will take up more space in that cone, while further away things will take up less. There is no bending or curving of light via ones perspective. You can rule out any optical illusions but simply drawing straight lines in the image to represent lines converging into the vanishing point.
The only other explanation is that it's all a mirage... I'd like to see people prove it's the effect of a mirage before making up any other excuse.
But then VPT doesn’t explain the bridge, right? Isn’t it supposed to?
-
Soundly's image was unable to be replicated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtnqO8rCQnU
Soundly is apparently just cherry picking images. Here is a time lapse from that same area:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JygBcqehnNg
-
Yeah, I wasn't going to chime in on this one, but I think that I remember seeing somewhere else that that photo in particular had been photoshopped. This was before I found the flat earth stuff here. But I could be wrong. I never really investigated it much. Looks like I will need to reinvestigate.
Update* https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain#but_the_pictures_are_fake
Take it for what its worth...
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
I know people here don't think much of the two websites I linked, but oh well...
The person Tom references - Soundly - even did a live Youtube of him taking the photos and uploading the files to his Google Drive.
-
Here's everything I think proves the round earth, I hope I get disproved!
You already painted yourself into a corner of failure when you used words "proved" like "disproved". What you have presented is not PROOF. What you have presented is EVIDENCE which, in your OPINION, supports a round earth model. I can not PROVE anything. I can, however, provide either contracting EVIDENCE. I can also provide EVIDENCE which suggest that the EVIDENCE you have presented it more about some other phenomenon and less about the shape of the earth.
In addition there are many flat earth models which present the same evidence as supporting a flat earth model. There are tilted flat earth models in which the tilt of the flat earth can contribute to seasons.
1: tilt of the earth causes seasons (hemisphere is closer during summer, further during winter).
2: Eclipse shadow is round, not an ellipse.
3: Can bring the sun back into view after sunlight by flying a drone above the curve.
4: Iake Pontchartrain power lines.
5: Occam's Razor
6: Trips to the South Pole (before satellite images) should have documented what the map looks like, but they didn't.
7: Water bottle when viewed horizontally in an airplane doesn't line up with the horizon.
8: Human eye can see 5 kilometer when on the ground, but from higher up you can see further over the curve (can see Iran on Burj khalifa, can't on eye level)
9: Conspiracy is too big, and private companies/foreign nations should have no interest in keeping the conspiracy alive (SpaceX, INCOSPAR, CNES, etc.).
10: Ships sink into the horizon, even in clear weather.
11: Different stars in different hemispheres
Here I will not present any PROOF. I will present EVIDENCE and alternate THEORIES to your observations.
1. The length of day is longer in the summer and shorter in the winter which is the cause of seasons not the tilt of the earth.
1. There are some flat earth models in which the earth is tilted so this claim could be made about the flat earth.
2. There are many ideas about a lunar eclipse and no uniform response. Different models have different ideas.
2. There are flat earth models which claim this observation supports a flat earth.
2. The light from the sun is refracted through the atmosphere which causes a round circle when in fact it's not really round.
3. Because the air is thinner at higher altitudes an increase in altitude will logically bring things back into view on a flat earth as well.
4. Contradicting evidence presented in this thread.
4. photoshop
4. Refraction
5. Occam's razor, known as the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that essentially states that "simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones. In many cases a flat earth is simpler than a round one therefore more likely to be correct.
6. There are many flat earth models in which observations made to trips to the south pole match predictions made in those specific flat earth models.
6. There is no south pole therefore observations made at some random snowy place don't have any bearing on anything
7. Refraction again
7. There are flat earth models which predict this will happen and therefore supports those specific flat earth models.
8. Refraction again
8. There are flat earth models which predict this will happen and therefore supports those specific flat earth models.
9. I have not really researched the conspiracy aspect of this.
10. Refraction again
10. There are flat earth models which predict this will happen and therefore supports those specific flat earth models.
11. Refraction again
11. There are flat earth models which predict this will happen and therefore supports those specific flat earth models.
more detail about 10 and 4.
If something in the distance disappearing from the bottom up = round earth then, based on the time lapse video shown below, the earth alternates between being round and flat. Which round earthers and flat earthers alike will both disagree on.
This video STRONGLY suggests that something can disappear in the distance from the bottom up without any curve at all.
https://youtu.be/GyLzdQFU3Og
Just because we observe an arrow facing right does not mean that it is really facing right. Many of your refraction based claims are like saying if there is a right arrow then the earth is round. Look there is a right arrow. When, after removing the refractive material, we can easily see the arrow facing left.
https://youtu.be/G303o8pJzls
-
Update* https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain#but_the_pictures_are_fake
There is no off the shelf software who can output a CR2 file. If someone wants to fake a CR2 file, they need to create their own software. It is going to be a massive undertaking to fake this picture.
What is this drivel? CR2 is just Canon's proprietary flavour of camera RAW images. Most common photo development software, for example Lightroom, will handle it with no issue.
When they get such simple and trivially verifiable issues completely wrong, the desperation really shows. Let's not waste our time with flatearth.ws
-
I am not too familiar with editing RAW images. Are you saying that Photoshop and its ilk can edit a RAW image and save it as a RAW image?
-
@iamcpc That is a neat water trick.
-
Update* https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain#but_the_pictures_are_fake
There is no off the shelf software who can output a CR2 file. If someone wants to fake a CR2 file, they need to create their own software. It is going to be a massive undertaking to fake this picture.
What is this drivel? CR2 is just Canon's proprietary flavour of camera RAW images. Most common photo development software, for example Lightroom, will handle it with no issue.
When they get such simple and trivially verifiable issues completely wrong, the desperation really shows. Let's not waste our time with flatearth.ws
I think you missed the point, you can easily import RAW, but you can't export RAW.
You are correct, CR2 is just Canon's proprietary flavor of camera RAW images. However, what they are saying is that you can't save as/export/output from a photo editor (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) to CR2. The point being, the CR2 RAW files are just that, RAW, exactly as they were imaged by the camera sensor. In other words, unedited - You can't import a RAW file (in this case a CR2), edit it, and export it back out as a RAW file (CR2) as it is no longer RAW. You're the one who got simple and trivially verifiable issues completely wrong.
-
I have no idea what #4 is about, do you?
You've never heard of point 4 before?
It's basically this image.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kADO7nkt-rk/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's often presented as a proof against flat earth by showing curvature. I think there a few threads here somewhere discussing and debating it.
[we don't need that picture to be so huge in every quote ~pete]
Oh I see. Thanks!
I imagine that the response to this is to use vanishing perspective theory to explain that the apparent curvature is actually an optical effect of parallel lines converging in interesting ways as they approach the limit of one’s vision.
I don’t really understand how VPT can simultaneously explain the sinking ship effect and this bridge effect. Maybe somone who is more knowledgable can chime in?
But the problem is that the objects that are proposed to be on a straight line don't converge in ways that would be predicted by the geometry of vanishing points. They already disappear partially under a horizon while not having shrunk to infinitesimal size.
-
I think you missed the point, you can easily import RAW, but you can't export RAW.
You're very uncharitable to me. I didn't miss the point, and I opened up Lightroom to verify just before making my first post. Exporting to CR2 is trivial, and I assert that it's verifiable because I successfully verified it.
I can't believe this is something we even need to discuss. It's a file format like any other - of bloody course you can save files in that format. It's not like the binary data suddenly went "beep boop, I will not be edited". You should be able to pick up on this sort of drivel without me going into detail, really.
Now, sure, my Lightroom-edited file is fairly easy to detect if you know what you're doing. But it's really not that hard to look into what the steganographic community has been doing around the subject to find much less discernible examples. But hey, don't take it from me - take it from the experts: https://jabriffa.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/editing-and-writing-camera-raw-files/
And oh, look, I can download the scripts and use them myself! https://github.com/jbresearch/cr2_scripts
It's almost as if this wasn't any "massive undertaking", but a simple Google job. 🤔🤔🤔
Can we please stop giving flatearth.ws air time now? This is insulting to both sides of the debate. "There is no off the shelf software who can output a CR2 file." Laughable.
-
I have no idea what #4 is about, do you?
You've never heard of point 4 before?
It's basically this image.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kADO7nkt-rk/maxresdefault.jpg)
It's often presented as a proof against flat earth by showing curvature. I think there a few threads here somewhere discussing and debating it.
[we don't need that picture to be so huge in every quote ~pete]
Oh I see. Thanks!
I imagine that the response to this is to use vanishing perspective theory to explain that the apparent curvature is actually an optical effect of parallel lines converging in interesting ways as they approach the limit of one’s vision.
I don’t really understand how VPT can simultaneously explain the sinking ship effect and this bridge effect. Maybe somone who is more knowledgable can chime in?
But the problem is that the objects that are proposed to be on a straight line don't converge in ways that would be predicted by the geometry of vanishing points. They already disappear partially under a horizon while not having shrunk to infinitesimal size.
Yes, I know. I’ve never really understood this about vanishing point theory.
-
I think you missed the point, you can easily import RAW, but you can't export RAW.
You're very uncharitable to me. I didn't miss the point, and I opened up Lightroom to verify just before making my first post. Exporting to CR2 is trivial, and I assert that it's verifiable because I successfully verified it.
I can't believe this is something we even need to discuss. It's a file format like any other - of bloody course you can save files in that format. It's not like the binary data suddenly went "beep boop, I will not be edited". You should be able to pick up on this sort of drivel without me going into detail, really.
Now, sure, my Lightroom-edited file is fairly easy to detect if you know what you're doing. But it's really not that hard to look into what the steganographic community has been doing around the subject to find much less discernible examples. But hey, don't take it from me - take it from the experts: https://jabriffa.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/editing-and-writing-camera-raw-files/
And oh, look, I can download the scripts and use them myself! https://github.com/jbresearch/cr2_scripts
It's almost as if this wasn't any "massive undertaking", but a simple Google job. 🤔🤔🤔
Can we please stop giving flatearth.ws air time now? This is insulting to both sides of the debate. "There is no off the shelf software who can output a CR2 file." Laughable.
You'd write off a whole website over something like that? I mean by that same logic applied to TFES website simply because there is most certainly wrong or misinformed information here.
-
You'd write off a whole website over something like that?
Of course not - and that's not what I said. Shame on you for putting words in my mouth.
I'm writing off flatearth.ws because it's riddled with ludicrous claims like these. The fact that it's still being brought up by RE zealots, and that we still have to keep explaining drivel of this level is just a show of desperation, and I maintain that it's insulting the intelligence of RE and FE supporters alike.
I mean by that same logic applied to TFES website simply because there is most certainly wrong or misinformed information here.
Comparing a single person's personal blog (where all claims are attributed to the same individual) to a collaborative effort is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. You can certainly write off one unreliable poster without acting like it affects the credibility of everyone else on the forum.
-
You'd write off a whole website over something like that?
Of course not - and that's not what I said. Shame on you for putting words in my mouth.
I'm writing off flatearth.ws because it's riddled with ludicrous claims like these. The fact that it's still being brought up by RE zealots, and that we still have to keep explaining drivel of this level is just a show of desperation, and I maintain that it's insulting the intelligence of RE and FE supporters alike.
I mean by that same logic applied to TFES website simply because there is most certainly wrong or misinformed information here.
Comparing a single person's personal blog (where all claims are attributed to the same individual) to a collaborative effort is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. You can certainly write off one unreliable poster without acting like it affects the credibility of everyone else on the forum.
Apologies I suppose I misunderstood, as you didn't mention anything other than that one thing being wrong (I obviously agree, RAW files can be edited or created, I do so all the time). With regards to one poster on here being wrong, was actually referring mostly to the agreed upon wiki where there is a lot of information that is ill informed or supposed facts that have come out of nowhere, like the sun being projected because it has a visually brighter/hotter middle... I'd call that drivel too. A lot of the wiki sounds like it was written as an opinion piece from someones imaginative mind, drawing potentially false conclusions from their interpretation.
Regards to the blog, I can't find any info (I mean I looked for maybe a minute) on who runs it, is there anywhere to say it's one person writing it all?
-
The only other explanation is that it's all a mirage... I'd like to see people prove it's the effect of a mirage before making up any other excuse..
Things like this, perhaps?
(https://i.ibb.co/YRXMwqH/news-island-mirage.jpg)
Mystery Island Appears Out Of Nowhere (https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/325902/finnish-ghost-island-appears-out-of-nowhere)
-
[I was] referring mostly to the agreed upon wiki where there is a lot of information that is ill informed or supposed facts that have come out of nowhere
We also provide you with a public forum, under the same domain name, where you can dispute the Wiki. We may often disagree, but when there is an actual agreement that something was wrong, it gets corrected. It's a work in progress, and I wouldn't pretend otherwise.
Regards to the blog, I can't find any info (I mean I looked for maybe a minute) on who runs it, is there anywhere to say it's one person writing it all?
He used to be active on Twitter - at least at the time it was one person from Indonesia, but other than revealing his nationality, he was rather private. I suppose it's possible that this has changed, or that it was a group of people posing as one.
-
You'd write off a whole website over something like that?
Of course not - and that's not what I said. Shame on you for putting words in my mouth.
I'm writing off flatearth.ws because it's riddled with ludicrous claims like these. The fact that it's still being brought up by RE zealots, and that we still have to keep explaining drivel of this level is just a show of desperation, and I maintain that it's insulting the intelligence of RE and FE supporters alike.
I mean by that same logic applied to TFES website simply because there is most certainly wrong or misinformed information here.
Comparing a single person's personal blog (where all claims are attributed to the same individual) to a collaborative effort is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. You can certainly write off one unreliable poster without acting like it affects the credibility of everyone else on the forum.
For some reason I kept getting an error, 'message body left empty' in trying to respond to your response back to me, but it seems to be working here.
We're both half right about exporting RAWs.
Correct, exporting a raw file from Lightroom is trivial, but it doesn’t achieve what you claim or contend. In LR, take a CR2 raw file and edit it in manner of your choosing. Export it to a folder using the file type as “Original”. LR exports two files, a CR2 and an XMP file. The CR2 file is the same you imported in its original form the camera sensor, no edits. The XMP file contains your edits.
Now, go to Photoshop and open the CR2 file you exported from LR that is in the folder with the XMP file. PS recognizes both files, opens the CR2 file and applies the XMP file edits. It shows in PS with your edits from LR. Close that.
Now remove the XMP file from the folder and leave just the CR2 file. Open the CR2 file in PS, it will show the original from the camera sensor, no edits you made in LR b/c those are in the XMP file that is no longer associated with the CR2.
Result: If you exported the image post edit from LR and gave only the CR2 file to someone without the XMP file, it will be the original RAW from the camera with none of your edits.
Now as for that blogger's technique of manually editing/creating the 4 files embedded in a RAW file and recombining them to look like an original RAW, I couldn’t figure out exactly how s/he did that. But it appears it could be done. Seemed kind of laborious. And as for the scripts to do so, a little above my pay grade to run python scripts.
But to you point, it can be done, but not necessarily easily and not necessarily 'off the shelf'. To my point, it doesn’t work as suggested straight out of a program like LR.
-
Is it just me or has this thread developed a dual personality?
-
For some reason I kept getting an error, 'message body left empty' in trying to respond to your response back to me, but it seems to be working here.
Ah, so you're getting that too. It looks like the presence of emoji in my post is breaking parts of the forum. I shall investigate and fix Soon™.
We're both half right about exporting RAWs.
Nope. I'm not budging on this. You are entirely wrong.
Correct, exporting a raw file from Lightroom is trivial, but it doesn’t achieve what you claim or contend. In LR, take a CR2 raw file and edit it in manner of your choosing. Export it to a folder using the file type as “Original”. LR exports two files, a CR2 and an XMP file. The CR2 file is the same you imported in its original form the camera sensor, no edits. The XMP file contains your edits.
That's only one way to do it. You can also export it using Camera Raw. Though, as I said, it would be fairly easy to detect, since the XML data would have to be embedded into it. We can agree that the CR2 file *wasn't* edited in Lightroom, if that really matters to you. To the actual point, it doesn't matter in the slightest.
Now as for that blogger's technique of manually editing/creating the 4 files embedded in a RAW file and recombining them to look like an original RAW, I couldn’t figure out exactly how s/he did that. But it appears it could be done. Seemed kind of laborious. And as for the scripts to do so, a little above my pay grade to run python scripts.
Let's start by ensuring that "the blogger (https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/johannbriffa)" is granted due respect. Secondly, I can only assure you that this process is extremely easy. Academics have already done the hard work for you, and any competent user of a modern computer will be able to produce a falsified CR2 in a matter of minutes. Lazy comments to the effect of "I can't be bothered to figure out how to run a script" make your argument extremely weak.
The process, at its core, is simple. You unpack the container, extract the image data, alter it as you please, produce appropriate thumbnails, and pack it all back. As the author rightly points out, there is nothing special about CR2 files. Nothing stopping you from editing it. This whole "CR2 files prove that the image is not altered" claim has been a meme in the crypto and stegano communities for years now, because despite its utterly asinine basis, people somehow fall for it.
But to you point, it can be done, but not necessarily easily and not necessarily 'off the shelf'. To my point, it doesn’t work as suggested straight out of a program like LR.
I reject both of these claims. It can be done with Lightroom (though easily detectable without appropriate plugins), and it can be done easily in a matter that's difficult to detect.
This argument continues to be an insult to everyone's intelligence. We're not here to deliver basic IT education.
-
We also provide you with a public forum, under the same domain name, where you can dispute the Wiki. We may often disagree, but when there is an actual agreement that something was wrong, it gets corrected. It's a work in progress, and I wouldn't pretend otherwise.
Pete I don't see the wiki getting corrected very often.
"You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level."
Bobby did a lot of of investigation into this claim and showed a lot of strong evidence suggesting that there is some factor which affects if the horizon rises to eye level. Even Tom agreed that there is a factor which prevents the horizon from rising to eye level. Bobby though it was the curve of the earth and Tom thought it was refraction. Both round earthers and flat earthers agreeing that there are factors which can, an do, affect the horizon eye level claim.
This video clearly shows that, as the drone goes up, the perceived horizon does not. If it's caused by altitude (bobby's claim), refraction (tom's claim), both refraction and altitude (my claim), or the curvature of the earth (round earth claim) is a moot point. Everyone is in agreement that the perceived horizon does not ALWAYS rise to eye level.
https://youtu.be/NzY5du8LMgk
This video clearly shows that the perceived horizon is rising and lowering with the eye remaining stationary. Notice how "eye level" is the same yet the perceived horizon is going up and down Yet more evidence that are factors which can, an do, affect the horizon eye level claim. This has been known for a while now and the wiki still has not been updated.
https://youtu.be/GyLzdQFU3Og
-
Pete I don't see the wiki getting corrected very often. [...]
As I said, the Wiki gets edited when there is an agreement on a matter. RE'ers asserting something, even if they strongly feel they brought evidence to the table, does not constitute that consensus.
You should also keep in mind that the Wiki is currently being developed by a tiny handful of people, and our priorities are likely not yours. You will notice that, as far as our recent changes go, I've mostly been making technical/copyediting corrections, while Tom was busy producing new content. I will not promise to you that we'll update everything at the snap of a finger. If there are changes you'd personally like to see, you're entirely at liberty to propose them, and provide a proposed text to be incorporated. You're as much a part of this community as everyone else.
-
Pete I don't see the wiki getting corrected very often. [...]
As I said, the Wiki gets edited when there is an agreement on a matter. RE'ers asserting something, even if they strongly feel they brought evidence to the table, does not constitute that consensus.
You should also keep in mind that the Wiki is currently being developed by a tiny handful of people, and our priorities are likely not yours. You will notice that, as far as our recent changes go, I've mostly been making technical/copyediting corrections, while Tom was busy producing new content. I will not promise to you that we'll update everything at the snap of a finger. If there are changes you'd personally like to see, you're entirely at liberty to propose them, and provide a proposed text to be incorporated. You're as much a part of this community as everyone else.
I think part of the problem is it's unlikely for the only two people who edit the wiki to agree with a majority of people like myself, despite mine and others want for factual information rather than opinionated assertions that Tom seems to add. That's not exactly a democracy and the wiki is not so much a wiki as it is a collection of thoughts that people may mistake as factual. The average person* reads a wiki and expects factual information.
Average person being the morons who can't tell when a site is not trustworthy. I really don't hold much hope for the general public capability to comprehend this. ::) For example, my grandma finds thw FE wiki and thinks it must be true because why would anyone lie? which is ironically what FE'ers are trying to advocate, not to trust information without already having enough information to accept it.
My example before being here; https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Under "Sun Brightness Inconsistent" - jumping to the unfounded conclusion that the sun must be a projection because projectors also have hot spots... If I had said "we don't know much about the sun so it must be a chinese lantern, because it has a hotspot" I can't imagine anyone would take that seriously either, it's along the same lines.
-
I think part of the problem is it's unlikely for the only two people who edit the wiki to agree with a majority of people like myself, despite mine and others want for factual information rather than opinionated assertions that Tom seems to add. That's not exactly a democracy and the wiki is not so much a wiki as it is a collection of thoughts that people may mistake as factual. The average person* reads a wiki and expects factual information.
Once again, you're being extremely discourteous in your interpretation of my words. I wasn't referring to Tom or myself agreeing. If you create a thread with a proposed article (or edit thereof) and a wide range of support from both sides of the debate (and, well, it should be no secret that the FE side will be more crucial if you want to make edits to the FE Wiki), I see no reason why that wouldn't be implemented. This happened before multiple times.
One example that comes to mind is the Bishop Experiment. RE whinging about how they doubt whether the experiment was ever performed is duly dismissed. An RE'er bringing up a significant clerical error which significantly affected the calculations that followed was taken on board and corrected, together with some suggestions on phrasing.
My example before being here; https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Under "Sun Brightness Inconsistent" - jumping to the unfounded conclusion that the sun must be a projection because projectors also have hot spots... If I had said "we don't know much about the sun so it must be a chinese lantern, because it has a hotspot" I can't imagine anyone would take that seriously either, it's along the same lines.
So start a thread about it. If you find a phrasing that both sides find more palatable, it'll be incorporated. And if it isn't, you now have a written record of your objection, under the same domain as the content you disagree with. I don't see how we could offer you anything more.
-
For some reason I kept getting an error, 'message body left empty' in trying to respond to your response back to me, but it seems to be working here.
Ah, so you're getting that too. It looks like the presence of emoji in my post is breaking parts of the forum. I shall investigate and fix Soon™.
Cool, weird, I've never run into that error before.
We're both half right about exporting RAWs.
Nope. I'm not budging on this. You are entirely wrong.
I'm not budging either. You are mostly wrong.
Correct, exporting a raw file from Lightroom is trivial, but it doesn’t achieve what you claim or contend. In LR, take a CR2 raw file and edit it in manner of your choosing. Export it to a folder using the file type as “Original”. LR exports two files, a CR2 and an XMP file. The CR2 file is the same you imported in its original form the camera sensor, no edits. The XMP file contains your edits.
That's only one way to do it. You can also export it using Camera Raw. Though, as I said, it would be fairly easy to detect, since the XML data would have to be embedded into it. We can agree that the CR2 file *wasn't* edited in Lightroom, if that really matters to you. To the actual point, it doesn't matter in the slightest.
When you export via Camera Raw, same thing, it creates a sidecar .XMP file with the edits made, the CR2 remains unaffected and original. And the only close to 'raw-ish' export that I could find that embeds the changes in a single file is the .DNG option - Which is not a CR2 file.
The point is that you initially stated that 'faking' a CR2 file post edit could be done easily via LR. It can't. Not without also including the accompanying .XMP file. The CR2 file remains unchanged from when it hit the camera sensor. So if I give you just the CR2 file post edit from LR without the .XMP file, you will get the original from the camera. Which is not what you implied. Same thing from Camera RAW.
Now as for that blogger's technique of manually editing/creating the 4 files embedded in a RAW file and recombining them to look like an original RAW, I couldn’t figure out exactly how s/he did that. But it appears it could be done. Seemed kind of laborious. And as for the scripts to do so, a little above my pay grade to run python scripts.
Let's start by ensuring that "the blogger (https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/johannbriffa)" is granted due respect. Secondly, I can only assure you that this process is extremely easy. Academics have already done the hard work for you, and any competent user of a modern computer will be able to produce a falsified CR2 in a matter of minutes. Lazy comments to the effect of "I can't be bothered to figure out how to run a script" make your argument extremely weak.
The process, at its core, is simple. You unpack the container, extract the image data, alter it as you please, produce appropriate thumbnails, and pack it all back. As the author rightly points out, there is nothing special about CR2 files. Nothing stopping you from editing it. This whole "CR2 files prove that the image is not altered" claim has been a meme in the crypto and stegano communities for years now, because despite its utterly asinine basis, people somehow fall for it.
I didn't mean to diss the 'blogger' by any means, he's a professor on the topic. But to say, "a competent user of a modern computer" can pull this off is not accurate and dismissive of the competence that is actually required. It's complicated and his 16 step script is not for the faint of heart, even for a competent user of a modern computer. And as to asserting that I can’t be bothered to figure it out, I never claimed that. I am bothered and have bothered, but python instances/scripts and command line stuff is currently above my knowledge base - My point was that this takes some computer savvy that I don’t possess and the majority of users don’t possess either. Though you make it sound like any old computer owner could just dive right in and have at it. I beg to differ.
As for the manual way he described to do it, I found some 'unpacking' CR2 scripts and tried them. The ones I found extracted the JPEG thumbnail and JPEG preview and some index files, but not the raw TIFF that seems to be the CR2 core raw image, the latter you want to alter to fake and then just repack it with the updated JPEGs. I couldn’t figure out how to manually unpack the files, let alone repacking them. I don't doubt it can be done, but it doesn't seem super simple either.
But to you point, it can be done, but not necessarily easily and not necessarily 'off the shelf'. To my point, it doesn’t work as suggested straight out of a program like LR.
I reject both of these claims. It can be done with Lightroom (though easily detectable without appropriate plugins), and it can be done easily in a matter that's difficult to detect.
This argument continues to be an insult to everyone's intelligence. We're not here to deliver basic IT education.
I reject your rejection of my claims that were rejecting your initial claims. ;)
Again I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m just saying it can’t be done the way you initially described by using ‘off the shelf’ programs. As well, I agree, saying that CR2 (or any other camera RAW format) can’t be edited and faked as the original is not an end all/be all argument for authenticity. But a lot more is involved to fake one than just poking on some buttons in a program. So, for example, if Soundly wanted to fake all of his RAW causeway images, he could. But a fair amount of work and knowhow would be involved. That's a hefty charge and assumption that someone would go through all that effort to create fakes. And perhaps assuming that just b/c one doesn’t like their results?
It’s a sad day if and when we find out REr’s and FEr’s are faking their photos. Kinda takes the fun out of everything.
-
You can embed the XMP into a CR2 in Adobe software. It is mind-boggling that you keep flatly denying this simple fact.
Running a Python script is trivial. You type in commands which were already provided to you. It can be accomplished in a matter of minutes, with no effort or knowledge required from the user - it's a copy/paste job. Indeed, for a proficient user of a modern computer, this will be easier than looking around a GUI for the right buttons (and, as evidence shows, you seem to keep failing to find the right buttons. Such are the downsides of graphical interfaces).
Finally, you will note that I made no accusation of Soundly faking his pictures. I expressed exasperation at a technically illiterate statement, which you chose to stalwartly defend by explaining that you're not very good with computers. Frankly, I don't see how that helps your case. It only shows your vulnerability to be tricked.
On a point of clarification: most computer users are criminally incompetent. When I refer to proficient or competent users, I am indeed referring to a small minority. Of course, the same could be said about people with fancy-schmancy Canon cameras, people who have access to Lightroom, or people who spend their time on the Internet arguing about the shape of the Earth. Diversity is our strength.
-
You can embed the XMP into a CR2 in Adobe software. It is mind-boggling that you keep flatly denying this simple fact.
No you can't, you are still wrong.
You started first with claiming you could from LightRoom. You can't. Then you claimed that you can via Camera Raw. You can't. What's next, Acrobat Pro?
The offending paragraph you pointed out from the linked blog regarding the Soundly curve pictures is this:
"There is no off the shelf software who can output a CR2 file. If someone wants to fake a CR2 file, they need to create their own software. It is going to be a massive undertaking to fake this picture."
- There is no off the shelf software who can output a CR2 file. A true statement. You claim there is a way. I've shown that there isn't, at least not an edited one which is what this is all about.
- If someone wants to fake a CR2 file, they need to create their own software. Essentially true. The Professor you cited created his own software, in this case a script, to do so. He did reference a way to do it manually which I have not been able to duplicate.
- It is going to be a massive undertaking to fake this picture. I wouldn't say "massive" by any means. But I would say not easy and certainly not with off the shelf software.
-
No you can't, you are still wrong.
Okay, I guess the files on my computer don't exist because you said so. I'm not going to waste any more time on this idiocy. Your core points are loudly saying "NUH UH" and explaining that you don't know how to use Python. Unless you have anything useful to add, I'll be disregarding further restatement of these non-arguments.
You started first with claiming you could from LightRoom. You can't.
Perhaps you can't. I can, and have, repeatedly.
Then you claimed that you can via Camera Raw. You can't.
Camera Raw, which is part of Lightroom... and again, maybe *you* can't. After all, you allegedly don't even know how to run a script when you're given step-by-step instructions. I really can't help you with your "DURRR DON'T KNOW HOW COMPUTER" problems, but they do not add anything to the demonstrable idiocy of the "CR2 files are proof of unedited footage" claim.
- There is no off the shelf software who can output a CR2 file. A true statement.
If you ignore the pieces of software I've successfully used for this, sure. But if your idea of the truth is so far removed from the blatantly observable, then it's not really of any use to the empirically-minded.
I've shown that there isn't, at least not an edited one which is what this is all about.
You've shown absolutely nothing. You made some loud assertions without even a shred of an attempt at substantiation. I started off by saying that this argument was an insult to our intelligence, and so far I can see I was correct.
- If someone wants to fake a CR2 file, they need to create their own software. Essentially true.
It's not even remotely close to true. You don't need to create your own software, you simply need to use Google to find someone else's software. This is no different from finding a good piece of software for *any* job. Is that, too, outside of your comfort zone?
The Professor you cited created his own software, in this case a script, to do so. He did reference a way to do it manually which I have not been able to duplicate.
Again, I do not know what you want me to do about your inability to use computers. I'm sorry you're baffled by this, but the process is simple. If it makes you feel any better, I don't have a driver's licence and I find the prospect of driving a car rather scary. However, I will not claim that driving cars is a "massive undertaking", or that it would be difficult for someone to transport persons or goods in a motorised vehicle. Personal incompetence does not come into this, unless you want to claim that Soundly, specifically, is bad with computers, and that he has no access to anyone who could help.
- It is going to be a massive undertaking to fake this picture. I wouldn't say "massive" by any means. But I would say not easy and certainly not with off the shelf software.
Again, only if you ignore most major players on the shelves. Why you'd do so is unclear.
-
how thick is earth?
Last warning. Next one is a timeout to read the rules.
-
Pete and Stack, you already agreed it's possible and agreed the images most likely aren't edited but now you're mostly disagreeing with semantics. It's a pointless and antiproductive debate to be honest.
Were the images edited? Probably not. Can they be edited without a trace? Yes. With ease and via off the shelf tools? A grey area are best. When it starts getting to the point of writing your own scripts or using random scripts from the internet I'd say that's not for the average amateur photographer and not exactly "off the shelf".
The fact that it was even debatable between you two makes it a grey area that can be claimed both ways. I think the website claiming it cannot have been done with off the shelf tools probably referring to exactly this. If it were edited with "off the shelf tools" it would be Tracable and effort to do any other way.
Who knows though maybe the guy who wrote it tried for 5 minutes and concluded it couldn't be done that way without a trace and assumed that people knew what he meant by it.
Either way does it matter? I don't think it shows as desperate.
-
It matters immensely. When your "source" is known to be peppered with (if we're generous) extremely sloppy mistakes, and the specific article is shown to be no different, then we should stop insulting each other with said source.