*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 178
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #40 on: October 31, 2020, 05:25:28 PM »
I posit the following which is in relation to this, and am questioning why you are doing your best to show that the horizon from space would be/is flat? 
I'm not. Assuming FET, the horizon would not appear flat from space. The argument here is not whether the horizon appears curved - I'm simply criticising Longitube's crusade against proper analysis of evidence. Perhaps instead of projecting your insecurities onto me, you should familiarise yourself with the ideas you're trying to dispute, ideally prior to disputing them?

You've got a habit of being defensive and belittling people don't you?  No need for the insecurity talk.

You're not stupid, you know that the crux of the entire debate is all around the fact that the video shows a curved horizon, and you know that people are using that argument to demonstrate that the Earth is a globe.  The video has plenty of evidence in it to show that any curvature seen is not due to the camera, so quite why you bothered to waste all that time is beyond me - anybody can pause the video early on to see that the horizon is straight in the centre of the picture, and that at its peak the horizon is curved in the same part of the picture (and indeed above, or below it).

If you agree with me that under FET the horizon would also appear curved, why not just make people aware that would be the case?  Clearly some people are not taking the time out to imagine what would happen if you were to rise high enough above a flat disc.  Surely, if you want to spark debate, you would be educating people into saying that under FET, the visible horizon that you see also isn't the outer edge of the Earth, it's the visible limit of the region illuminated by the sun, which in turn explains the transition from blue to black.  Under FET, there would be a huge region of the earth with a shallower curved horizon beyond that, but EA means that the light curves away so you never see it.  If you want everyone to take FET seriously, take you seriously, and debate rationally, you might want give people food for thought rather than just shoot them down.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #41 on: October 31, 2020, 07:30:41 PM »
You've got a habit of being defensive and belittling people don't you?  No need for the insecurity talk.
You continue to get this wrong. I'm describing your behaviours and why they are not acceptable here (i.e.: take them somewhere else if you'd like, but they're stopping here one way or another), you're describing me as an individual. All while ignoring the point of the conversation, of course.

Unfortunately, this is common among some of the more zealous RE'ers here. They don't really understand the subject they're lashing out against, and when it's pointed out to them that they might want to sit down and figure out what it is they're opposing, they default to silly insults. I'm afraid that this kind of playground stuff is not allowed here.

You're not stupid, you know that the crux of the entire debate is all around the fact that the video shows a curved horizon
I disagree profoundly. The crux of the entire debate is that the video shows an extremely irregular curvature, which, as a trend, decreases with altitude. The reason for this is plain and simple, and I provided multiple methods to verify this fact. I can't force you to choose verification over blind statement of belief, but I can point out that such statements don't belong in this forum.

and you know that people are using that argument to demonstrate that the Earth is a globe.
Two people are doing that. That's hardly an overwhelming consensus.

The video has plenty of evidence in it to show that any curvature seen is not due to the camera
We conclusively demonstrated that the opposite is the case. Instead of stating again and again that you consider yourself to be correct, engage with the actual argument.

If you agree with me that under FET the horizon would also appear curved, why not just make people aware that would be the case?
I just did - directly to you; and we routinely do, throughout or documentation. I can't help the fact that you didn't bother to read it before telling us that we're wrong.

Surely, if you want to spark debate, you [should follow my recommendations]
Thank you for your suggestion. We will be choosing not to follow it.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2020, 07:55:29 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 178
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #42 on: October 31, 2020, 08:50:56 PM »
You continue to get this wrong. I'm describing your behaviours and why they are not acceptable here (i.e.: take them somewhere else if you'd like), you're describing me as an individual. All while ignoring the point of the conversation, of course.

Unfortunately, this is common among some of the more zealous RE'ers here. They don't really understand the subject they're lashing out against, and when it's pointed out to them that they might want to sit down and figure out what it is they're opposing, they default to silly insults. I'm afraid that this kind of playground stuff is not allowed here.
Quite obviously I'm describing the tone of your responses.  But, your comment was directed at me and my apparent insecurities, just like you called Longitube out for being incompetent and disrespectful.  When somebody doesn't understand, or they provide some evidence to challenge things, responses become aggressive and condescending.

I disagree profoundly. The crux of the entire debate is that the video shows an extremely irregular curvature, which, as a trend, decreases with altitude. The reason for this is plain and simple, and I provided multiple methods to verify this fact. I can't force you to choose verification over blind statement of belief, but I can point out that such statements don't belong in this forum.
We can agree to disagree on this one, because the crux of the debate is clearly all to do with the curvature of the earth.  Why else would somebody come onto a flat Earth forum and claim victory that you can clearly see a curved horizon?  You're the one who immediately brought barrel distortion into the mix to dispute the validity of the video.

Two people are doing that. That's hardly an overwhelming consensus.
Last time I checked, two individuals count as people, and did I state it was an overwhelming consensus?

We conclusively demonstrated that the opposite is the case. Instead of stating again and again that you consider yourself to be correct, engage with the actual argument.
I am engaged - the centre of the camera clearly does not present much distortion, as can be seen at lower altitudes where the horizon is known to look flat and can be used as an accurate reference.

I just did - directly to you; and we routinely do, throughout or documentation. I can't help the fact that you didn't bother to read it before telling us that we're wrong.
You did what, educate me?  I was the one stated that both models would predict a curved horizon based on pure logic.  What is that I'm supposed to have read, and what did I tell you that you were wrong about in that particular statement?

Thank you for your suggestion. We will be choosing not to follow it.
So you're choosing to not help educate people into understanding FET and your beliefs in it?  Fair enough, but don't go losing it every time somebody challenges something that they don't, won't or can't understand or rationalise.  At the end of the day, there is an abundance of scientific evidence there to support a globe Earth model, including the curved horizon being discussed here and what that horizon represents.  FET disregards that evidence, claims things are faked, so the burden of proof is on the flat Earth community to put forward their evidence to support their conclusions and claims with tested hypotheses, not the other way around.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #43 on: October 31, 2020, 10:32:07 PM »
Quite obviously I'm describing the tone of your responses.
Yes, you are; and this is the third time I'm asking you to stop. There will be no more polite requests on that matter after this post. Follow the rules of engagement. If you cannot do that, go back to Reddit.

We can agree to disagree on this one
Certainly - but if you're not interested in discussing the subject, you shouldn't have wasted our time.

Last time I checked, two individuals count as people
Entirely irrelevant. You will stop trying to derail this thread. I will assist you if needed.

I am engaged
You have not addressed a single iota of my argument, and you keep trying to warp it into something it is not. You will not succeed in that.

You did what, educate me?
No.

So you're choosing to not help educate people into understanding FET and your beliefs in it?
Oh, we'll continue doing the excellent job that elevated FET as far as it did. It's just that we won't follow the suggestions of someone who has no understanding of the subject, and who yet claims an aura of superiority through his ignorance.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #44 on: November 21, 2020, 05:27:00 AM »
Hi, i've all but spent 30 minutes on the site and this is the first thread i've actually read.  After skimming through the video i found that the camera goes upside down right after shoot deployment.

If this really is just "distortion" shouldn't the curve remain above the line?





edit: trying to get image to embed. If that doesnt work: https://i.imgur.com/ggQnjFw.png
« Last Edit: November 21, 2020, 05:29:25 AM by squareMoon »

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3095
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2020, 12:41:38 PM »
If this really is just "distortion" shouldn't the curve remain above the line?
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2020, 04:47:16 PM »
If this really is just "distortion" shouldn't the curve remain above the line?
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

We do? Please explain, since I missed that first time around. (I know, I know)
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2020, 05:35:23 PM »
If this really is just "distortion" shouldn't the curve remain above the line?
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

So you're saying the center of the video changes throughout the 2 hour video and it does so just perfectly to support your distortion theory?... wouldn't the lens also have to change throughout the video?

This is just a screen shot, one single frame in a two hour video.  The camera is NOT stable, the horizon is all over the screen, can you find a frame that shows the distortion in the opposite direction or even flat?

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2020, 10:44:28 AM »
We do? Please explain, since I missed that first time around. (I know, I know)
The video is shown to us in a 16:9 aspect ratio, without apparent squashing. The frame of the camera is not 16:9. Therefore, cropping likely occurred, either in a way transparent to the user, or by the user's choice.

This, combined with the countless observations we've made above, brings the obvious conclusion. The exact nature of the cropping, and how it was performed, will probably remain unknown.

So you're saying the center of the video changes throughout the 2 hour video and it does so just perfectly to support your distortion theory?
No. If you're going to argue in such poor faith, expect no further responses.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 10:47:46 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2020, 07:59:42 PM »
We do? Please explain, since I missed that first time around. (I know, I know)
The video is shown to us in a 16:9 aspect ratio, without apparent squashing. The frame of the camera is not 16:9. Therefore, cropping likely occurred, either in a way transparent to the user, or by the user's choice.

This, combined with the countless observations we've made above, brings the obvious conclusion. The exact nature of the cropping, and how it was performed, will probably remain unknown.

I don't think I've heard a lamer excuse, at least this week. If the original video footage was shot in 4:3 (4K) instead of 16:9 (1080p), it would lose a little at the top of frame and an equal amount at the bottom of frame in conversion, but the centre of the 4:3 footage would still be the centre of the 16:9 conversion shown on the YouTube footage. If the person setting up the camera to make the video selected a resolution less than the highest the camera is capable of, there is currently no camera around which does that by cropping off, say, much of the top left, bottom left and top right to record in 1080p instead of 4K and therefore needs the camera repositioned to frame the footage correctly at the lower resolution and thus not properly use the centre of the lens. "Hey, we got a really cool feature on this camera: change resolution and ya gotta reframe! Much cooler than these squares who don't have to!!" That would sell like cold offal.

Here's a video of the different resolutions available on a GoPro Hero4 Black, shot from a tripod. Notice how the camera does not change its direction of view for each different resolution.

Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2020, 08:22:48 PM »
I don't think I've heard a lamer excuse, at least this week.
Very well. I guess we're done here, then? Of course, you do realise that this scenario makes your claims entirely impossible, but that's probably by design. You gave up on serious discussion long ago.

If the original video footage was shot in 4:3 (4K) instead of 16:9 (1080p), it would lose a little at the top of frame and an equal amount at the bottom of frame in conversion, but the centre of the 4:3 footage would still be the centre of the 16:9 conversion shown on the YouTube footage.
You are making a very generous assumption, which is almost certainly false given what we know about the video. Or, well, you think you are; once you thought about it for half a minute you'll realise how unhelpful it was to your case. However, given how convinced you are of your geometry-defying assumption, I guess we'll leave it at that. The Earth just happens to change shape over time in ways which are inconsistent with optics. Thus spoke Longitube.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 08:27:20 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice