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: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 282  Next >
21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 01:48:34 PM »
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.

22
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 01:35:09 PM »
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?

23
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!
« on: February 15, 2019, 01:24:09 PM »
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.

24
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.

25
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.

26
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?  ::)

27
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?

28
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.


29
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?

30
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.

31
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.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

32
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.


33
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.

34
If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

In ENAG Rowbotham shows at least two methods where the horizon registers at eye level or very close to it.

Also, find a calculator showing what the drop would be under RET. It is nowhere close to the 1 degree+ that these horizon drop experiments show. Show that your theory matches the results. It is deceptive to show us a random drop that may or may not match your theory. Be honest.

35
Rowbotham studied the matter and the surveying tools: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za16.htm

Devices with lenses are inaccurate and there is nothing about water level experiment methods.

Read Earth Not a Globe. The matter is studied there.

If you are going to do an experiment then you really need to prove the methods. These water level experiments are amateur rubbish.

36
Quite incorrect and undemonstrated. The Britannica article says that the surface tension is not level and there are several examples of the water level experiment giving inconsistent results or being inaccurate. These experiments are jokes, and they give large and differing results.

Show us that water tension is level and always gives the same results.

The closer we get things to our face in the foreground, the more accurate all elements of leveling needs to be. You are assuming that we can just wing it on the imprecise nature water tension and the fact that the water levels are arguably off very slightly in the images.

None can doubt that a slight error in altitude and leveling in the foreground can create a large impact on the background. You are just winging without knowing how precise you need to be.

The errors shown and inconsistency of these experiments invalidates the matter until demonstrated otherwise. Are we to believe that it doesn't matter that the water line kept changing in relation to the bodies in the background? Are we to believe it doesn't matter that the water doesn't line up in some of the devices?

If you want to conduct an experiment you need to really prove the matter and the validity of the tools used.

37
The liquid is higher in the smaller tubes mainly because of capillary action. The article is accurate. If the dye plays a part, it would depend on the weight and buoyancy of the dye.

https://courses.umass.edu/plecprep/fluids/2a2010.html



"Description: This is a set of capillary tubes of various diameters used to show capillary rise with water."

Your argument that "dye is used therefore debunked" is pretty weak since most of the water level experiments use dye, and you are therefore arguing that those water level experiments are debunked.

38
The following page will give you everything that you need to know: https://wiki.tfes.org/Water_Level_Devices
that article shows water not being level in test tubes where green dye is used more to the right, then states later that dye can cause inconsistencies. It debunked itself...

Dye is often used in the water level experiments...

39
The following page will give you everything that you need to know: https://wiki.tfes.org/Water_Level_Devices


40
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 07, 2019, 07:47:04 PM »
The fact that this old footage is cutting it so close to the limit is evidence enough. It's not like 1970's video cameras could only record video for less than a minute.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 282  Next >