Bobby Shafto

• 1383
More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« on: August 12, 2018, 04:22:54 PM »
Tom Bishop posted another interesting video of an investigator using IR photography to view and analyze long range viewing:

FE Photographer believes he's captured no-curve imagery. But has he?

Camera elevation: 17 feet (Bayview Park on Padilla Bay)
Distance: 19.5 miles (to Clark Island, San Juan Islands)

Should Clark Island be hidden if the earth is a globe?

Bobby Shafto

• 1383
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2018, 06:49:53 AM »
FE Photographer believes he's captured no-curve imagery. But has he?
I say no, he hasn't.  And here's why.

This is representative of the channel marker FE Photographer makes a point of showing us is along the line of sight, 6.45 miles down range. And it is fully visible in the IR image, along a sight line that intersects Clark Island at a distance of 19.59 miles.

I judge that buoy to sit about 12' above the waterline, based on personal knowledge of the typical size and the gull sitting on the base in the photo. Maybe it's 10'. I can do that math for that too, but for now I'm going with 12'.

A height of 12' at a distance of 6.45 miles results in an vertical angle of 0.02°.
At a distance of 19.5 miles, 0.02° represents 35 feet.

FE Photographer cites the highest elevation of Clark Island as 95' which would be at the knoll in-line with the channel marker sight line.  Tree vegetation on the island would add height to the land, which he figures at a 'generous' +100'.

Why, then, if the earth is truly flat, is the top of the treeline cresting at only 70'. If the earth is flat, and the island is 95' and trees adding, at best, 100' to the island profile, why isn't the IR image seeing the tops of the trees at 195'? Or even 145' if the trees are even half the height he generously allows?

At the 3:06 mark of the video, he claims to point out rocky shore line features:

Yet, the rocky eastward-facing bluffs on that side of the island rise steeply 20-40' as depicted in the topographical chart and seen in these images:

He correctly assumes that the dark sections of the IR image would be rocks, but his image doesn't depict the vertical displacement of rocky bluffs that should be 1x or 2x that of the buoy in the foreground.

And here's a picture of the tree canopy along that hump. 100' is not merely "generous."

95' elevation + 100' vegetation height? There's 100-120' of island missing in this "flat earth" image. Where is it?

FE Photography used this Earth Curve Calculator to figure that 141' would be the hidden height on a globe earth, which would leave but the top of the trees visible "at best:"

Why does he draw the line there? The buoy has given us a vertical gauge to let us deduce that we're seeing 35-50' of almost all vegetation.

Not only that, but that earth curve calculator doesn't take refraction into account. If we do, using a standard index of refraction, we get 110-115' that would be hidden. Not 140'.

It sure seems to me his IR images captured exactly what one would expect on a globe of the claimed radius of earth, and you don't even need all that much refraction to account for what was captured. On the other hand, to call it a picture of a flat earth you have to imagine you're seeing a rocky shoreline and you have to come up with an explanation for why the angular dimension of the buoy is not in proportion to the island's elevation. For what we're seeing of the island, to be 150-195' on a flat earth, that buoy in the foreground would have to be 50-60' tall.

It's not, and that IR imagery doesn't depict a flat earth.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 08:18:49 AM by Bobby Shafto »

timothyleary

• 12
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2018, 09:19:37 AM »
Random question RE IR photography... How far could the IR camera this guy has theoretically "see"?

Could you, for example, see France from Boston?

Or, see Everest from basically anywhere, like on top of the Empire State building or something?

Bobby Shafto

• 1383
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2018, 06:58:07 PM »
I can't provide numbers, but the answer is no. Even if the earth is flat, IR imagery won't penetrate that much atmosphere/atmolayer to be able to "see" thousands of miles.

Bobby Shafto

• 1383
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2018, 07:07:35 PM »
For what we're seeing of the island, to be 150-195' on a flat earth, that buoy in the foreground would have to be 50-60' tall.

I think I have justification to believe the channel marker actually sits 15-16' above the water. Which would change the vertical scale at the distance of Clark Island (in the graphic above) to be about 50' increments vice 35.'

The adjusted height matches better the lateral dimension of the island from the line of sight perspective in the IR image, and it helps 'flatten' the earth a little. Not enough to call the earth flat, but enough to force globe earth calculation to invoke refraction.

timothyleary

• 12
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2018, 05:08:17 AM »
I can't provide numbers, but the answer is no. Even if the earth is flat, IR imagery won't penetrate that much atmosphere/atmolayer to be able to "see" thousands of miles.

That's a shame. If it could that could have put an end to all this and, as a RETer, my beliefs would finally be proven right or wrong without a doubt to anyone.

Treep Ravisaras

• 135
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2018, 11:25:28 AM »
95' elevation + 100' vegetation height? There's 100-120' of island missing in this "flat earth" image. Where is it?
Plugging in the distance 19.5mi and observer height 17ft into a RE plain circle accounting for standard refraction as agreed in other topic, it gives following:

Black dotted is line of sight just visible over top of circle at 8.8km, observer right, target left, 34m hidden (111 ft)

Zoommed in target:

Even further zoomed in observer:

What do you think?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 11:38:20 AM by Treep Ravisaras »
As the saying goes "The internet belongs to the lunatics in their walled gardens" - Xiang Yu

I see a Flat Earth. And I can't imagine anything else.

I got work to do. 0.00018% of Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Pls help

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6236
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2018, 01:18:13 PM »
Quote from: bobby
http://oi68.tinypic.com/fwoe1e.jpg

FE Photographer cites the highest elevation of Clark Island as 95' which would be at the knoll in-line with the channel marker sight line.  Tree vegetation on the island would add height to the land, which he figures at a 'generous' +100'.

Why, then, if the earth is truly flat, is the top of the treeline cresting at only 70'. If the earth is flat, and the island is 95' and trees adding, at best, 100' to the island profile, why isn't the IR image seeing the tops of the trees at 195'?

I believe that your premise is flawed. He said that the highest elevation of the island was 95 feet, not the entire island. The peak doesn't even necessarily have tall trees, or even any trees at all, on it.

Furthermore, we do not seem to be seeing the entire island in those shots.

Quote from: bobby
95' elevation + 100' vegetation height? There's 100-120' of island missing in this "flat earth" image. Where is it?

Again, the highest elevation is 95 feet, and that peak doesn't necessarily have trees on the top.

If the highest elevation on earth is Mount Everest, does it follow that all of earth is at the altitude of Mount Everest? That is what you are assuming here.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 02:23:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6236
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2018, 01:40:06 PM »
And here's a picture of the tree canopy along that hump. 100' is not merely "generous."

http://oi67.tinypic.com/jsokt3.jpg

Where is that from on the island? What makes you think it is on the peak? Not all of the trees are huge there.

« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 02:23:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

Bobby Shafto

• 1383
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2018, 02:29:06 PM »
I believe that your premise is flawed. He said that the highest elevation of the island was 95 feet, not the entire island. The peak doesn't even necessarily have trees on it.

Since I don't claim the entire island has an elevation of 95', and I don't claim the video claims the entire island rises to 95', and nowhere do I base any assessment on the premise that the entire island is 95' in elevation, you must be misunderstanding the case I made.

The highest point of the island, though, does have trees on it, and that's the area of the island on which I've provided focus, mainly on the sight line that coincides with the green channel marker and where it intersects the island, which happens to be an oblique angle from the rocky bluff north of the eastern sandy beach/mooring cove and up across the knoll that is the highest point on the island.

This is where that sight line makes landfall (either on the far right or just out of frame on the right):

And here's a different angle of that point looking north from the eastern beach/cove

This is the eastern view of the island with landfall and "peak" marked, and there are trees. I marked where buoy sight line intercepts the island with a yellow arrow and the red arrow is the high elevation area:

The white in the  IR image is vegetation: trees

"Rocky shoreline" shows up as black.

Where's the line of black that shows the 20-40' bluffs we can see in that color photo from the kayak running from the east side cove up to the north end of the island? It's gone.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 02:37:08 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6236
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2018, 02:38:11 PM »
Here is a picture of Clark Island from closer up, with the boat positioned on the opposite side of the island from where the author was looking at it from. The trees near the water line look pretty similar to that the video author in the OP saw:

Here it is flipped because the boat was on the opposite side of the island.

with the IR telescopic version:

Comparing the same side to the island in the video in the op, only very little of the island seems to be missing to me.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 04:38:34 PM by Tom Bishop »

Bobby Shafto

• 1383
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2018, 02:42:52 PM »
Here is a picture of Clark Island from closer up, with the boat positioned on the opposite side of the island from where the author was looking at it from. The trees near the water line look pretty similar to that the video author in the OP saw:
You're showing me an image of the western side of the island which you acknowledge is the opposite side from that the video image presented, and you're saying that it looks pretty similar?

Why would you do that? What point does that serve?

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6236
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2018, 02:47:17 PM »
Here is a picture of Clark Island from closer up, with the boat positioned on the opposite side of the island from where the author was looking at it from. The trees near the water line look pretty similar to that the video author in the OP saw:
You're showing me an image of the western side of the island which you acknowledge is the opposite side from that the video image presented, and you're saying that it looks pretty similar?

Why would you do that? What point does that serve?

It's the same island, just taken closer up and on the opposite side of the photographer. I flipped it horizontally in my second image. Images two and three have the same side on the right hand side of the island. The trees are close to the shoreline, just like the telescopic versions. Very little of the island is missing. If we compare to the gauge you made here:

Presuming that the gauge above is correct... we can see that only about 30 feet was missing from the close up view.

Telescopic IR View:

Close Up View, Flipped Horizontally:

Compare the dip in the tree line on the right hand side of the island. Can you see that only very little of the island is missing, only about 30 feet or so, according to your gauge?

However, according to the earth curve calculator, at 19.5 miles and 17 feet in elevation, under the Round Earth model, 139.2627 feet should be missing.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 03:05:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Bobby Shafto

• 1383
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2018, 03:16:13 PM »
You flip the island, which hides the need to address why the rocky bluffs are not visible in the IR image.

You use my gauge scaled to the other side of the island, from a different angle aspect and distance to guesstimate how much of the island is missing from an image taken nearer and from the opposite side and think that's analytical somehow or reasonable?

And when you assess the convex earth calculation, you don't allow for refraction, taking the atmosphere-less geometric worst-case figure.

Doing all that to make the best case for a flat earth, and you still can't account for 30' of island. Waves?

Doing it correctly, there is 70-100' of elevation missing, which (as with the San Jacinto imagery) aligns more closely with a refracted earth curve calculation than flat earth.

iamcpc

• 497
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2018, 04:05:44 PM »
I can't provide numbers, but the answer is no. Even if the earth is flat, IR imagery won't penetrate that much atmosphere/atmolayer to be able to "see" thousands of miles.

I think you provide strong evidence to support this. What was the humidity when these pictures were taken? We have previously observed that things like humidity had created a curve effect or taken an existing curve effect and amplified it.

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6236
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2018, 04:56:36 PM »
Regarding refraction, take a look at Experiment 34 in this video for a few minutes at the 1:44:58 mark and listen to the narrator. There is a timelapse of what happens over the water's surface. I've embedded it with the time spot:

Bobby Shafto

• 1383
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2018, 05:13:56 PM »
Regarding refraction, take a look at Experiment 34...

I've seen that. I've got the original video bookmarked and follow SkunkBayWeather on Twitter.  It's not an experiment. It's time lapse video that SkunkBayWeather captured.

Is that somehow supporting a case that a globe earth calculation should NOT take into account refraction as you did when they provided a prediction of what should or shouldn't be visible if the earth is convex?

What's the point? Are you claiming that refraction and atmospheric effects on optics are what could be responsible for hiding part of Clark Island's vertical elevation in that IR image?

Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6236
• Flat Earth Believer
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2018, 07:38:12 PM »
Narration from the segment:

Quote
The atmosphere can cause distant objects to stretch, to compress, to mirror, and to be obscured by a false horizon line. You can see it all. Unfortunately, what you don't see is see objects arcing over curvature due to refraction. Unfortunately, dishonest globe propagandists use distortion as proof of curvature when clearly it is not.

I have repeated this demand on many occasions to the globe faithful: Produce one video of an object geometrically hidden behind a hill, which then arcs over a hill only to refraction. To date, not one globe supporter has produced the arcing over the hill proof and the flat earth proofs keep rolling in.

He is right. "Refraction" is used as a magic wand to explain whatever you want to explain. In the particular case of this thread it is being asserted that an image of the island is projected by a mirage over one hundred feet into the air to peek above the horizon without any noticeable distortion of its features in order to explain a Round Earth.

Let us look at what happens in these timelapse videos:

The general Round Earther Explanation: "The peninsula was below the horizon, and then it was projected up into the air above it!" "Refraction effect!"

This would be the usual remark. However, this does not hold. Look at where the horizon/water line is located the revealed version:

In the revealed version the horizon is behind the island... If the peninsula were below the curve of the earth in the first image, and then refraction projected the peninsula into the air, to peek over the real horizon in the second image (and all without distortion of landmass features, as odd as that sounds), we would just be seeing the peninsula peeking above the horizon line. It is clear, at least to me from the full motion video and the images above, that the phenomenon of refraction is nothing more than distortion in front of the peninsula.

We can watch more time-lapse videos, if you wish, to see whether these concepts hold as bodies are revealed and hidden.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 09:02:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

Bobby Shafto

• 1383
Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2018, 08:05:52 PM »
"Produce one video of an object geometrically hidden behind a hill..."

HorstFue

Re: More IR Photography: FE Photographer Looks at Distant Island
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2018, 08:06:25 PM »

In the revealed version the horizon behind the island... If the peninsula were below the curve of the earth in the first image, and then refraction projected the peninsula into the air, to peek over the real horizon in the second image (and all without distortion of landmass features, as odd as that sounds), we would just be seeing the peninsula peeking above the horizon line. It is clear, at least to me from the full motion video and the images above, that the phenomenon of refraction is nothing more than distortion in front of the peninsula.
• In the revealed version the horizon behind the island...
What makes you claim that this is a horizon, I see another shoreline, and even if this is the horizon, see 2
• ...and then refraction projected the peninsula into the air...
What make you claim, that refraction is so selective to only affect the peninsula? I see also that the background is affected, especially the lower mountain ridge behind the peninsula definitely appears higher than before
• and all without distortion of landmass features, as odd as that sounds
Another baseless claim.
• phenomenon of refraction is nothing more than distortion in front of the peninsula
So actually the lower image in no way is only a distortion of the first image. There are clearly more details/features on the shore of the peninsula in the second image, which are not visible in the first image