Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 281  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: Today at 06:52:17 PM »
The equator demonstrations are a well known tourist attraction scam. They pour it in on the side of the tub they want it to spin in. The flow also has to do with the shape of the drain, and there is also a phenomenon where the water even changes the direction of spin mid flow.

Mainstream science did conduct professional laboratory experiments of the Coriolis Effect on the spin of water drains at one point, but I have read that the results were inconclusive. I even recall reading some reports of the researchers claiming that the wind hitting the laboratory was affecting the experiments. Reports of those water drain experiments seem tough to find at the moment, however. Once the Round Earth experiments start failing, the papers are left to rot somewhere, are not linked or referenced or shared, and they pretend it never happened.

Here is our current research on the matter of the Coriolis Effect:

From the talk page:

Topics for Further Research

In response to a video embedded in the Snopes link, showing the rotation of water in a 5 foot diameter pool which supposedly shows the Coriolis Effect in action, we are given a lead for further research by Rand Huso:

  “ This has been done before - I saw the experiment done in the '80s. The Coriolis is so small that small perturbations in the construction of the drain could easily be amplified and become much larger than the Coriolis. The proper way to conduct this test is to repeat it many times and take the exact environment "down under" and do the same thing. As I recall, the earlier experiment was repeated 100 times, and the numbers were 49 to 51 - completely inconclusive. ”

  “ the experiment has been done before. I love this presentation, but I'm unconvinced at their conclusion. What I saw before was in the Meteorology department at TAMU. Film. ”

It would be nice to find documentation of the professional experiments. I only wish I had saved what I found about the researchers claiming that the wind hitting the outside of the laboratory was affecting their controlled pool experiments.

You can reverse image search, you can search for  terms such as NASA Earthrise Fake. Easy to figure out. No excuses for bad research and bad conclusions.

No Tom, you presented two different versions of the same photo in a 'meme' that said heres a photo, heres that same photo with exposure upped. But those images weren't the same version. It's fair enough in the end you provided the actual sources of the images which were shown to be photoshopped, at which point, along with the source images, is an explanation of the edit.

I didn't fail at that, you failed to provide the original source image. The meme was in fact faulty... That's why I asked you to cite the source which you did. You can't say "haha you noticed there was a difference with the two images being claimed to be the same image, so you aren't qualified!!!"  ::)

Anyway I'm on you side here Tom, I'm willing to analyse these images with you but as I stated before, you need to provide the original images, not faulty memes.

When I posted the image I heard calls that I didn't look at the original image, and that if I was a better researcher I would see that it was clearly faked.

No. You are the bad researchers. Those NASA analysis' are not faked. The original image shows that it was edited. The embarrassment is on your end, for talking out of your rear without researching the matter for truth, which is what the defense of RET amounts to. You can easily research these claims to find out the matter for yourself. That meme is not the only discussion of this. But you would rather deny and make excuses and accusations without demonstrating those accusations.

Now you claim, with the same level of supposition, that the photo was edited, but that it was honestly edited, despite you not having done the proper amount of legwork to demonstrate that. This is why you guys cannot be trusted at all. You do not properly research your claims and make random statements without demonstrating the knowledge to back up those statements.

First you guys were ranting that the photo was obviously faked, and now you are claiming that it was photoshopped by NASA!

Lets put aside that the versions of the photo do not show what you claim occurred, and lets also put aside that NASA clearly edited it out in the current version.

You failed at your image analysis. It was photoshopped. You are jokes. You clearly unqualified to tell us what is and is not a Photoshop, and what does and does not qualify as Photoshop analysis, and what would and would not qualify as a test of that Photoshop analysis.

There is zero reason to trust you. You are not good researchers, are dishonest and incompetent with your conclusions, and clearly only care about "proving" one thing.

Are you joking?

"That's not a NASA photoshop!! FAKE!"

"Well, it's a NASA photoshop, but done for innocent reasons! I'm now going to ignore that they edited it out in the current version"

From you link, the white rectangular outline does not occur in any of the three versions they give. The leftmost is the original contrast, and then the versions in the middle and right are with the "different" contrast:

Next I opened the current Feb 15 2019 version of the image and performed the same steps:

Looks like fraud to me. Does anyone want to argue that the above images are not photoshopped; either that the rectangle in the image means nothing, or that the rectangle was not photoshopped out in the current version?

NASA relseased the image and then edited it out, as they always do when their fraud is exposed. It doesn't appear in all images.

Whoever put together that image did not indicate which version of the image they used for the left hand version. I find that it is more embarrassing that you did research the matter and find the source of the image.

Their fraud is still on the WayBackMachine, and is easily found. is an official LROC website. NASA's logo is at the bottom of the page.

Image Link:

Warning: Very Large Image

I downloaded the image and adjusted the levels in and...

How would this random test in the OP prove whether this earth was really photoshopped behind the moon's horizon or not?

The point of the test isn't to prove whether the Earth was photoshopped in that image. The point of the test is for those of you in the FE community to show you have actual knowledge of how faking a photo is done. Essentially a sort of litmus test. Do you actually have the knowledge to show a photo that is known for a fact to have been tampered with is fake? If you can't manage that, why would your claims on the fakery of NASA photos have a leg to stand upon?

We're back to this dichotomy of you claiming NASA (and others) are perpetuating a hoax of a magnitude unheard of in the history of the world, with billions even trillions of dollars flowing through it. But they can't manage to make a photo that a photoshop amateur can pick apart? So, the challenge is to essentially attempt to provide some legitimacy to the claims.

So, from what I understand, you are arguing that the earth might not be photoshopped behind the moon in the above image, and that NASA's fraudulence all hinges on the ability to detect some random person's random photo manipulation.

That sounds like a farce to me.

How would passing the random test in the OP prove whether this earth was really photoshopped behind the moon's horizon or not?

Does passing the test in the OP mean that all of these analysis' are true and that NASA is fraudulent?

Totallackey is correct. NASA already admits that many of their images are manipulated. And they won't even tells us which ones were and in what manner. It is already admitted that Photoshop is liberally used.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: February 13, 2019, 03:32:11 AM »
I posted it as an example of distortion. Learn to read.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« on: February 11, 2019, 11:36:35 PM »
We have a Wiki page on the Eötvös effect now. The matter is related to Gravimetry.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: February 11, 2019, 09:15:02 PM »
So about barrel distortion, it curves straight lines around the center of the picture.

In reality, you would probably see a combination of curve plus barrel disortion, so the photo with the horizon above center would show more curve and the other would show less curve or straight, or a negative curve, but not as much of a curve as the above-center horizon photo.

One thing you can do is take a photo of a grid and analyse that. On my iPhone SE the lines about 109 pixels above and below the centre of the frame were straight, and the ones after that began to curve. That gives me a 218 pixel 'sweet spot', and the horizon occupies only about 10% of that.

Here's a compressed image of the grid:

And here's a picture of the horizon I took, with the mathematical prediction overlayed:

Next time I'm going to photograph the horizon with some straight metal bars placed just above and just below it, which I figure is the best demonstration that barrel distortion isn't causing the curve.

Cheers. :)

All cameras are affected by some amount of barrel distortion. An absurd test.

Compressed with your methods, compressing the width to 500 and stretching the height to 3000:

I guess the earth must be concave?  ::)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 11, 2019, 06:02:42 PM »
The title of the OP is "An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!"

And we are encouraged to pick out a photoshopped element in a series of photos. If we did so, how would it prove that NASA's images are fake?

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe for the proper experiments.

Everything needs to be level. Any slight error makes a large error in the background.

Phucket World had shown you that the elements in the experiment are often not level.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 09, 2019, 11:25:03 PM »
How does picking out an item what was photshopped from one of a series of photos prove whether NASA's content is fake?

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to ask some questions.
« on: February 09, 2019, 11:08:59 PM »
Rowbotham has a diagram of the sun projecting on the atmolayer on Chapter 10 here:

Line AB is where the sun projects onto the atmolayer. It seems like it might also be interpreted as a "dome" of atmosphere rather than an line of atmolayer, since the opacity of the atmolayer is all around us in three dimensions.

We should probably make an article about question number 2, "Why can't we see the sun at all times," specifically.

My interpretation of the larger scene would be a large circle representing the circle of the earth, with a smaller circle or oval of the sun's area of light pivoting around its center. The observer's vision is pretty limited, we can only see maybe 25 miles away depending on conditions? Basically a dot. When the border of the sun's area of light intersects the observer's circle of vision sunrise occurs.

Visualization ideas are appreciated.

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to ask some questions.
« on: February 09, 2019, 10:03:06 PM »
1. I assume that you mean the Antarctic border. The answer is that if you went East from America you would travel in a circle around the North Pole, since the compass points North, and East and West are always at right angles to North.

2. The matter is summarized by the following:

     a. The atmosphere is opaque with distance and limits our vision. We cannot see forever across the earth.
     b. The sun close to the earth and manifests as a projection upon the atmolayer.

When the border of the sun's area of light intersects your circle of vision, sunrise occurs.


These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

Another issue is that the operators are not ensuring that the containers are perfectly parallel. The height of the surface tension changes when viewed at a slight angle.

What are you talking about? These are your experiments. You have calculators available to you online. Show that the water level tools give consistent results, and that those results match your theory.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 281  Next >