Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

  • 125 Replies
  • 38573 Views
*

Junker

  • 3783
Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« on: June 24, 2009, 07:05:47 PM »
I am a proponent of the FES policy that pictures are not acceptable as evidence.  However, there have been so many threads hijacked with the Toronto Skyline from Lake Ontario that I felt it necessary that someone attempt to oppose it, other than just saying the source of the pictures is questionable.

The first step is to provide some pictures that clearly show a curvature when viewing the skyline.  These are not my pictures and all links are provided below.

***EDIT***:  The original Toronto Skyline thread can be found here:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=f3356a640e784a4fb544efca9b0236f7&topic=607.0






1) According to the caption (see links below) this was also taken from across Lake Ontario:



We can clearly see that the skyline view is obstructed.  So either light is bending, or there is a curvature.  We can also see the geese in the foreground that provide a good reference point to see the picture was taken from near sea-level.



2) Also taken from Lake Ontario



Once again, the skyline view is obstructed by water.  Can't really tell the elevation.




3) Here is one coming from Rochester, NY:



I would hope everyone can see that there is a significant obstruction of view.




I hope everyone can agree that taking pictures from the Internet and posting as evidence can be sketchy at best.


Links:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/flipkeat/3176948884/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maclir/2949827474/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehuston/124639197/








« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 08:12:25 PM by JUNKER »

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2009, 07:24:15 PM »
You can't just say "fake".
You have to provide evidence for how photos are fake, otherwise you are just being a sceptic, which is not scientific in the slightest.

?

Proleg

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2009, 07:33:45 PM »
I live in Toronto. The earth is quite flat here.

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2009, 08:29:10 PM »
I live in Toronto. The earth is quite flat here.

And since when is that proof of anything other than what you see, which is anything but flawless?

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2009, 03:04:25 AM »
Faking lake-view photos is just too easy ...

Because the critical interface - the top of the lake - is just a straight line.

So cutting and pasting is so easy a five year-old could do it.

Yesterday I illustrated this by posting a photo of The Pyramids in Egypt which I had pasted on top of Levee's Lake Ontario pictures.

Sadly one of the local moderators has removed it because they were incapable of grasping the imoprtance of my message.

I will try and post the picture again when I am back on my own PC.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2009, 03:20:29 AM »
I will try and post the picture again when I am back on my own PC.



Whilst common sense says that this picture is obvioulsy fake (we all know that The Pyramids aren't by a lake) ...

It illustrates perfectly how you could fake the Toronto pictures because the picture itself does not look fake in any way.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2009, 03:25:49 AM »
Here is the mod's comment about my photo:

As the FAQ clearly says, photos are not considered as evidence because they can be easily faked.  I don't have to "prove it's fake", you have to "prove it's real", which is impossible.  Therefore, unoriginal thread destined for AR.

If that is so, why is Levee allowed to spam thread after thread with his Toronto pictures?

----------------------------------------------------

The Atlas mountiains are in your line of sight. You're an obvious troll.

Well "it takes one to know one", as we say in The UK ...
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 03:27:53 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2009, 06:02:08 AM »
Here is the mod's comment about my photo:

As the FAQ clearly says, photos are not considered as evidence because they can be easily faked.  I don't have to "prove it's fake", you have to "prove it's real", which is impossible.  Therefore, unoriginal thread destined for AR.

If that is so, why is Levee allowed to spam thread after thread with his Toronto pictures?

----------------------------------------------------

The Atlas mountiains are in your line of sight. You're an obvious troll.

Well "it takes one to know one", as we say in The UK ...

Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2009, 06:05:27 AM »
Here is the mod's comment about my photo:

As the FAQ clearly says, photos are not considered as evidence because they can be easily faked.  I don't have to "prove it's fake", you have to "prove it's real", which is impossible.  Therefore, unoriginal thread destined for AR.

If that is so, why is Levee allowed to spam thread after thread with his Toronto pictures?

----------------------------------------------------

The Atlas mountiains are in your line of sight. You're an obvious troll.

Well "it takes one to know one", as we say in The UK ...

Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.


Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2009, 06:15:40 AM »
Here is the mod's comment about my photo:

As the FAQ clearly says, photos are not considered as evidence because they can be easily faked.  I don't have to "prove it's fake", you have to "prove it's real", which is impossible.  Therefore, unoriginal thread destined for AR.

If that is so, why is Levee allowed to spam thread after thread with his Toronto pictures?

----------------------------------------------------

The Atlas mountiains are in your line of sight. You're an obvious troll.

Well "it takes one to know one", as we say in The UK ...

Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.


Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)

Yeah I did....Hence why I said you can see that your picture has been falsified....

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2009, 06:19:17 AM »
Here is the mod's comment about my photo:

As the FAQ clearly says, photos are not considered as evidence because they can be easily faked.  I don't have to "prove it's fake", you have to "prove it's real", which is impossible.  Therefore, unoriginal thread destined for AR.

If that is so, why is Levee allowed to spam thread after thread with his Toronto pictures?

----------------------------------------------------

The Atlas mountiains are in your line of sight. You're an obvious troll.

Well "it takes one to know one", as we say in The UK ...

Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.


Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)

Yeah I did....Hence why I said you can see that your picture has been falsified....

Would you care to show me some evidence of your analysis?

Given that a Laplacian Filter appears to be nothing more than an edge-detection filter I cannot see how it could be used to say that my image is fake - the top of the lake would be a strong edge in a real picture too.

But perhaps you can show me how I am wrong?

I would need you to run a filter on one of Levee's photos too as a control, of course.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2009, 06:28:39 AM »
Here is the mod's comment about my photo:

As the FAQ clearly says, photos are not considered as evidence because they can be easily faked.  I don't have to "prove it's fake", you have to "prove it's real", which is impossible.  Therefore, unoriginal thread destined for AR.

If that is so, why is Levee allowed to spam thread after thread with his Toronto pictures?

----------------------------------------------------

The Atlas mountiains are in your line of sight. You're an obvious troll.

Well "it takes one to know one", as we say in The UK ...

Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.


Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)

Yeah I did....Hence why I said you can see that your picture has been falsified....

Would you care to show me some evidence of your analysis?

Given that a Laplacian Filter appears to be nothing more than an edge-detection filter I cannot see how it could be used to say that my image is fake - the top of the lake would be a strong edge in a real picture too.

But perhaps you can show me how I am wrong?

I would need you to run a filter on one of Levee's photos too as a control, of course.

Just run it on photoshop yourself, not to mention, the scale of your photo is all fucked up.
Plus, look at the levels. Your photo is clearly of two different lightings merged (scattered levels), whereas all the Toronto photos are smooth changes, which is what you would expect. You can't really expect to merge two photos of different lightings, and not expect that to be noticeable.

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2009, 06:33:21 AM »
Providing original, unaltered digital photos would make it much easier to verify their authenticity.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2009, 06:33:54 AM »
Here is the mod's comment about my photo:

As the FAQ clearly says, photos are not considered as evidence because they can be easily faked.  I don't have to "prove it's fake", you have to "prove it's real", which is impossible.  Therefore, unoriginal thread destined for AR.

If that is so, why is Levee allowed to spam thread after thread with his Toronto pictures?

----------------------------------------------------

The Atlas mountiains are in your line of sight. You're an obvious troll.

Well "it takes one to know one", as we say in The UK ...

Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.


Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)

Yeah I did....Hence why I said you can see that your picture has been falsified....

Would you care to show me some evidence of your analysis?

Given that a Laplacian Filter appears to be nothing more than an edge-detection filter I cannot see how it could be used to say that my image is fake - the top of the lake would be a strong edge in a real picture too.

But perhaps you can show me how I am wrong?

I would need you to run a filter on one of Levee's photos too as a control, of course.

Just run it on photoshop yourself, not to mention, the scale of your photo is all fucked up.
Plus, look at the levels. Your photo is clearly of two different lightings merged (scattered levels), whereas all the Toronto photos are smooth changes, which is what you would expect. You can't really expect to merge two photos of different lightings, and not expect that to be noticeable.

I think you are bluffing ...
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39853
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2009, 06:34:40 AM »
I live in Toronto. The earth is quite flat here.

I've been to Toronto a few times.  I'd say that Toronto is a lot of things, but quite flat wouldn't be one of them (especially near the lake).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6325
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2009, 07:29:24 AM »
Obviously jkr you have not read my messages...all those three pictures indicate that there is a viewing range limit of those cameras...for example the curvature from Mississauga indicates that the camera used there was not good enough to capture more details...

See the explanations (with a photograph showing clearly the rooftop of SkyDome, from a distance of 50 km, taken right on the beach):

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=303b8c341134628e796796d2050bac1d&topic=28952.msg696056#msg696056

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2009, 07:43:11 AM »
Here is the mod's comment about my photo:

As the FAQ clearly says, photos are not considered as evidence because they can be easily faked.  I don't have to "prove it's fake", you have to "prove it's real", which is impossible.  Therefore, unoriginal thread destined for AR.

If that is so, why is Levee allowed to spam thread after thread with his Toronto pictures?

----------------------------------------------------

The Atlas mountiains are in your line of sight. You're an obvious troll.

Well "it takes one to know one", as we say in The UK ...

Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.


Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)

Yeah I did....Hence why I said you can see that your picture has been falsified....

Would you care to show me some evidence of your analysis?

Given that a Laplacian Filter appears to be nothing more than an edge-detection filter I cannot see how it could be used to say that my image is fake - the top of the lake would be a strong edge in a real picture too.

But perhaps you can show me how I am wrong?

I would need you to run a filter on one of Levee's photos too as a control, of course.

Just run it on photoshop yourself, not to mention, the scale of your photo is all fucked up.
Plus, look at the levels. Your photo is clearly of two different lightings merged (scattered levels), whereas all the Toronto photos are smooth changes, which is what you would expect. You can't really expect to merge two photos of different lightings, and not expect that to be noticeable.

I think you are bluffing ...

Learn photogrammetry, then come back to me  :D

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6325
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2009, 07:44:30 AM »
You have already seen the photographs from Port Credit http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=831.msg33777#msg33777, with absolutely zero curvature between this small city and Toronto.

Now, here are the photographs taken from Etobicoke, showing the Toronto skyline, 6 miles distance (chosen especially to match the famous Old Bedford experiments), 1.8 meters curvature, that is, on a round earth we should see a rising slope, a visual obstacle equal to the photographer's height (1.8 meters), but, as you can see, THERE IS NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER, THE EARTH IS FLAT MY FRIENDS:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eskimo_jo/508992681/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/meanman94/2220531312/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhembach/2955330790/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/smaku/112746770/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/smaku/114828557/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/smaku/112244818/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/jany/2402347338/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/etobicokesouth/27432050/



*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2009, 09:02:38 AM »
Here is the mod's comment about my photo:

As the FAQ clearly says, photos are not considered as evidence because they can be easily faked.  I don't have to "prove it's fake", you have to "prove it's real", which is impossible.  Therefore, unoriginal thread destined for AR.

If that is so, why is Levee allowed to spam thread after thread with his Toronto pictures?

----------------------------------------------------

The Atlas mountiains are in your line of sight. You're an obvious troll.

Well "it takes one to know one", as we say in The UK ...

Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.


Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)

Yeah I did....Hence why I said you can see that your picture has been falsified....

Would you care to show me some evidence of your analysis?

Given that a Laplacian Filter appears to be nothing more than an edge-detection filter I cannot see how it could be used to say that my image is fake - the top of the lake would be a strong edge in a real picture too.

But perhaps you can show me how I am wrong?

I would need you to run a filter on one of Levee's photos too as a control, of course.

Just run it on photoshop yourself, not to mention, the scale of your photo is all fucked up.
Plus, look at the levels. Your photo is clearly of two different lightings merged (scattered levels), whereas all the Toronto photos are smooth changes, which is what you would expect. You can't really expect to merge two photos of different lightings, and not expect that to be noticeable.

I think you are bluffing ...

Learn photogrammetry, then come back to me  :D

I don't think am not convinced that you even know what 'photogrammetry' means ...


Edit: I am not tying to be rude, it's just that you are being evasive in not wanting to post any evidence to support your statements.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 09:12:27 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2009, 09:15:30 AM »
Obviously jkr you have not read my messages...all those three pictures indicate that there is a viewing range limit of those cameras...for example the curvature from Mississauga indicates that the camera used there was not good enough to capture more details...

Are you suggesting that only some "superior" cameras will be able to "resolve" the shoreline at Tornonto?

Is this similar to how Victorian Flat Earthers said that only "suitably powerful" telescopes were able to "restore" sinking ships (ships appearing to go over The Horizon)?

Is there some kind of weird, Rowbotham-like "perspective effect" coming in to play?

Edit: add clarification.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 09:17:38 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2009, 09:37:39 AM »
Plus, look at the levels. Your photo is clearly of two different lightings merged (scattered levels), whereas all the Toronto photos are smooth changes, which is what you would expect. You can't really expect to merge two photos of different lightings, and not expect that to be noticeable.

Fair point ...

But ...

If one were to take two photos of Toronto - one at beach level to get the right perspective of the lake, and one at height to capture the full height of the buildings - they would have the same light levels and you would be able to stitch them together quite convincingly to produce a fake lake-level photo with full-height buildings.

(Which is the point I have been trying to make all along.)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2009, 10:13:45 AM »
Plus, look at the levels. Your photo is clearly of two different lightings merged (scattered levels), whereas all the Toronto photos are smooth changes, which is what you would expect. You can't really expect to merge two photos of different lightings, and not expect that to be noticeable.

Fair point ...

But ...

If one were to take two photos of Toronto - one at beach level to get the right perspective of the lake, and one at height to capture the full height of the buildings - they would have the same light levels and you would be able to stitch them together quite convincingly to produce a fake lake-level photo with full-height buildings.

(Which is the point I have been trying to make all along.)

It's all nice & fine to say that but with the right software you could see through a fake image, so if you want o claim an image is fake, you have to prove it.

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2009, 10:15:03 AM »
For what it's worth, working with images is what I do all day.  I own a small business where I work with digital images in various programs.  I could easily stitch together multiple images taken from differing vantage points and no one would be able to tell.  

I do not offer this as any kind of proof of altered or real images, simply that it is possible, with relatively inexpensive equipment and a decent amount of training and  ability.

After having done this for many years, I have learned not to trust images put before me, unless I can, to my own satisfaction, verify how they came to be.

I find it rather silly that this whole Toronto skyline photograph issue keeps rearing it's head as though it has any real meaning or proof.

For me to give any of these photos any credibility, I'd have to be reasonably convinced of their authenticity.

*

Junker

  • 3783
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2009, 10:29:25 AM »
Obviously jkr you have not read my messages...all those three pictures indicate that there is a viewing range limit of those cameras...for example the curvature from Mississauga indicates that the camera used there was not good enough to capture more details...

See the explanations (with a photograph showing clearly the rooftop of SkyDome, from a distance of 50 km, taken right on the beach):

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=303b8c341134628e796796d2050bac1d&topic=28952.msg696056#msg696056

Quite the contrary.  I have read everything you have posted in the True Believers section of the .NET site.  I actually enjoyed most of it and found a lot of information that I did not know.  I am actually a fan of yours.  What I am pointing out is that there is a reason why pictures aren't accepted as evidence.  Otherwise, we would just take satellite images that show Earth from space and be done with all debating.  I am not saying your images are fake or real, I am saying that we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion based on those images.

Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2009, 10:32:26 AM »
I'll add one more thing here, and this is only my opinion.  I do not think these photos were 'faked' or photoshopped.  But I do not trust that they were taken from the vantage point claimed.  Finding images on the web and giving any credibility to them as proof of a flat earth seems rather silly to me.

For me to believe any of this as scientific proof, you'd have to do a lot better than posting images taken by someone else, that you found on the web.

This is not any kind of good science or proof, it's silliness, and frankly, speaks volumes of anyone who would believe otherwise.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2009, 10:34:34 AM by equinox »

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2009, 11:16:24 AM »
Here's a thought:

Has anyone ever "fired" a laser beam horizontally across Lake Ontario, from a small height above lake level just above the waves, and measured how high above lake level the beam is when it reaches the other side?

That would be an experiment without the need for an "adequate" camera.

Would anyone in North America care to undertake such an experiment?

It would be dependent upon both Flat and Round Earthers agreeing that light didn't bend appreciably over the distance ...

But the same goes for photography anyway.

Sounds like fun to me - and a good publicity stunt to boot!

(Rowbotham didn't have lasers, after all!)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2009, 11:40:48 AM »
OK: let's be charitable, conciliatory and equitable for a moment, and say that ...

Sometimes you can see the Toronto shoreline from across lake Ontario and sometimes you can't.

We have photos purportedly showing both cases for sure.

Could this be due to some kind of mirage at work?

Either bending light upwards or downwards to give the false impression that The Earth is round or flat respectively?


I got the idea from reading this web-site:

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/7002/mirage.htm

The same would be true for any long-distance optical experiment such as The Bedford Level Experiments down the years.

(And I have definitely read the phrase "superior mirage" used to discount lady Blount's photos.)

Just goes to show that using optics and surveying to determine the nature of The earth's surface is somewhat fraught at best.

I suppose we have to examine which is more likely: mirages bending light upwards or downwards ...

Edit: add conciliatory.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 01:52:29 PM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2009, 11:46:51 AM »
I suppose we have to examine which is more likely: mirages bending light upwards or downwards ...

Looks like they are both possible and fairly common:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Which probably means that I should retract my vehement dismissal as to the authenticity of Levee's pictures ...

But only if Flat Earthers agree that photo's that don't show the shoreline are equally possible and equally inconclusive as the flat/roundness of The earth.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2009, 02:33:21 PM »
Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?

(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)
I don't think an inferior mirage can cause a stable image of a sinking ship or marker.

And perhaps an image of a mirage would have obvious geometric distortions too?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics
« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2009, 01:44:29 AM »
Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.


Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)

Still no Laplacian filter (edge detection) pictures, Mazty88?

I am genuinely keen for you to educate me on this one!
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)