The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: EiZ on October 21, 2007, 08:13:09 PM
-
Hello fellow believers.
I recently discovered this wonderful picture of the ice wall.
I did not take this picture my-self. It was given to me by a colleague, who I recently discovered was also a believer in the flat earth literature.
(http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/1561/icewall2kq2.th.jpg) (http://img518.imageshack.us/my.php?image=icewall2kq2.jpg)
Kind Regards,
David F.
-
Obviously fake.
And where are the guards/lizard guards that are supposedly preventing anyone from taking pictures like this?
-
What makes you think that it's a fake?
Kind Regards,
David F.
-
What makes you think that it's a fake?
Kind Regards,
David F.
Just the way it looks. Looks alot like CGI.
And the lack of lizard guards on the wall. Everyone said there are guards keeping anyone from taking pictures like this or getting near the wall.
-
I suppose it's because the ice wall is very very large, and it would be impossible to guard the entire wall against people who have their own ships.
My colleague's previous profession involved sailing the seas, you see.
What's wrong with the way it looks? I think it's quite stunning.
Kind Regards,
David F.
-
Just look at it. It's fake.
And this thing is supposed to surround the entire earth. Not with the way that thing is curving.
Come to think of it...that ice looks suspiciously like some photos from the moon I've seen.
-
Just look at it. It's fake.
And this thing is supposed to surround the entire earth. Not with the way that thing is curving.
Come to think of it...that ice looks suspiciously like some photos from the moon I've seen.
Not that I'm agreeing with the picture being legit, but local curvature need not be suggestive of the overall curvature
-
I suppose the earth isn't perfectly spherical, as the previous poster suggests.
It may simply be a point at which the wall dips in, if you follow?
Who knows.
For me, it's that little bit more evidence for FE theory, but I can understand your scepticism. Not that photos are proof, but the source was a person I trust quite well.
Kind Regards,
David F.
-
Errr, in a picture that dark how could you get the ice wall and the sea that bright? It's CGI, or a picture of RE's Antarctica.
-
What makes you think that it's a fake?
Kind Regards,
David F.
What makes you think that pictures from space are faked?
-
What makes you think they're not?
-
What makes you think they're not?
Because they couldn't have made realistic enough photos in the 60's.
And i doubt that they would spend so much time just for making people think the world is round.
-
Errr, in a picture that dark how could you get the ice wall and the sea that bright? It's CGI, or a picture of RE's Antarctica.
I believe the sun is shining (looks like the spotlight is facing outwards somewhat, towards the wall).
However it looks like night-time, simply because the atmosphere is so thin at the edge of the earth (hence very little blue light in the sky).
Regards,
David F.
-
What makes you think that it's a fake?
Kind Regards,
David F.
The water, the ice, the stars.
-
Any nitwit can see that you coocked that up in photoshop.
-
Any nitwit can see that you coocked that up in photoshop.
Incorrect.
-
Look at the sky in that picture and you can tell its a fake. It's way too black :P
-
And being pictures aren't admissible evidence on these forums this thread was crap from the start.
-
I'm not saying they're proof, I'm just sharing them.
Here is another, this one is interesting as it shows a view from on top of the ice wall.
It must have been very dangerous to take the photo :o
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6255/icewall3fg2.th.jpg) (http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=icewall3fg2.jpg)
-
Photoshop. ::)
-
Well it probably wasn't photoshop but some 3d app...
-
I clicked to enlarge them for the first time and holy shit are they ever fake looking. You lose.
-
You can neither prove or disprove that those are not real photos.
They are definitely real though.
-
yeah, well, my close friend from university has left for a 2 year study on marine life in Antarctica today. He's going to be talking to me via video uplink, so I think we should organise something that can disprove the icewall theory altogether.
-
I look forward to seeing some more photos of the ice wall. Please post them when you get them.
-
yeah, well, my close friend from university has left for a 2 year study on marine life in Antarctica today. He's going to be talking to me via video uplink, so I think we should organise something that can disprove the icewall theory altogether.
Be sure he covers all of the antarctic.
-
yeah, well, my close friend from university has left for a 2 year study on marine life in Antarctica today. He's going to be talking to me via video uplink, so I think we should organise something that can disprove the icewall theory altogether.
Be sure he covers all of the antarctic.
Well, that won't be possible, according to Tom Bishop, it's an infinite plane.
I'll just wait until december though, and we'll show him 24 hours of daylight recorded on camera via livestream - an impossibility in current FE models.
-
yeah, well, my close friend from university has left for a 2 year study on marine life in Antarctica today. He's going to be talking to me via video uplink, so I think we should organise something that can disprove the icewall theory altogether.
Be sure he covers all of the antarctic.
Well, that won't be possible, according to Tom Bishop, it's an infinite plane.
I'll just wait until december though, and we'll show him 24 hours of daylight recorded on camera via livestream - an impossibility in current FE models.
I'm sure the BS will cover it, not like it hasn't been done before.
-
That's a remarkably placid sea given that it's miles from anywhere. Whenever I've stood facing a sea that stretches off for thousands of miles, the waves have always crashed into the cliffs with massive force, even on a calm day. Makes no difference if it's northern California, western England, the islands of the Indian Ocean -- I've been to all of them, and never seen the waves calmly lapping the land edge.
If it's so cold as to maintain a great wall of ice, howcome there aren't ice flows on the water's surface, as you get at the poles?
And where are all the icebergs? Whatever the temperature, the power of the water's movement would erode the edge and rip away chunks of ice. Nor do I see any system for the ice wall to regenerate itself, so in time, the water would wear a gap through the ice wall and ... well, I guess pour off the edge of the earth.
No more water, no more life. We aren't here, and you are not reading this post. You don't exist.
Or maybe there's a little boy on the other side of the ice wall sticking his finger in the hole. The poor lad must be cold!
-
You can neither prove or disprove that those are not real photos.
They are definitely real though.
I have been forging pictures and documents for a while now so I will be happy to debunk this. NOTE: I only bothered looking at the second pic.
You can prove its fake because the spectral highlights seen in the water are rendered with a light source (or a reflection of the light source), positioned according to the density of reflections. (The further away the more reflections). Also water contrast in a mostly transparent liquid is too severe to obey these properties. This carries into the effect of not seeing the wall continue down through the water where it is most shallow. This doesn't even mention the shadows in the wall being countering that of the ripples. The next problem issue the light intensity of the 'ice' touching the water. How the ice gets brighter right next to the surface is a clear sign of superposition of the water onto the wall. This also lead me to believe that the picture must have been inverted, ("ctrl-I" in paint ::) ) After restoring the picture to the opposite spectrum, I see it looks just like stone like marble or granite pulled toward the mid gray spectrum. The illumination of the gray blob also matches the condensed and inverted image. I should also tell you that universally brightness of the wall on the back side is clear evidence that this was forged. The light is too ambient for the direction is faces. The resolution of the camera is too specific to the texture of the wall when applied to the stars. This leads me to compression of images that are positioned over each other. Colors are simplified varying amounts from picture to picture. For instance, right hand click the fill bucket tool with white on a couple areas in space between stars. Soon the whole thing fills in the same color. The ice wall has minimal compression loss whereas the water is in between. (Only 1 or 2 pixels fill in on the ice wall)
This also has a variety of contradictions with FE theory either which I did not list. I give your fake a 3 out of 10. Nice try. ;)
-
If I had to guess at the process: First you collected 3 images of some type of stone basin, stars or night sky (didn't bother checking the stars against constellations), and a rendering of water in an 3-D application like Maya. (It looks like the wall might have been rendered also but I'm on a public computer with only access to paint so I can't check it) Next you probably reversed polarity of the image to make the stone look like ice and positioned it over the stars. I'll give credit that you anti-aliased the edge when you deleted the other portions of the picture, (or you got lucky with a blended edge eraser). Moving the water over the wall, you did take into consideration the texture and indentations in the wall but not the darkness. In other words, the water moves in towards the wall depending on its shape. Saving the image as a .jpg only uploading it and glorifying it are left. :D
-
Everything you've said is hilariously incorrect.
I'll debunk your debunking when I have more time.
-
because the spectral highlights seen in the water are rendered with a light source (or a reflection of the light source), positioned according to the density of reflections. (The further away the more reflections).
So all you're really saying is that the light source was far away. Which it was.
Also water contrast in a mostly transparent liquid is too severe to obey these properties. This carries into the effect of not seeing the wall continue down through the water where it is most shallow.
1) The wall is apparently almost vertical
2) Water does not stand up to the usual visual properties when it's on the edge of the earth, with very little atmosphere, therefore inconclusive.
This doesn't even mention the shadows in the wall being countering that of the ripples.
Nonsense - the shadows in the wall show the rays of light are hitting the wall from an angle roughly parallel to the rightmost segment of the wall (hence the obvious shadow). The ripples agree with this direction of light (taller wave segments are highlighted in this direction).
The next problem issue the light intensity of the 'ice' touching the water. How the ice gets brighter right next to the surface is a clear sign of superposition of the water onto the wall.
It becomes more of a sheer surface, so there are less imperfections and shadows. It's also facing the sunlight more directly. What you said is nonsense.
This also lead me to believe that the picture must have been inverted, ("ctrl-I" in paint ::) ) After restoring the picture to the opposite spectrum, I see it looks just like stone like marble or granite pulled toward the mid gray spectrum. The illumination of the gray blob also matches the condensed and inverted image.
Total rubbish! You watch too much CSI. If the image had been inverted, the shadows would also show up as lighter areas, rather than darker ones, which is why the big shadow looks stupid if you invert the colours. You fail.
I should also tell you that universally brightness of the wall on the back side is clear evidence that this was forged. The light is too ambient for the direction is faces.
No, the light hits the bit of back wall that you can see, because of the angle of the sun. This is plainly obvious. Again, look at the most obvious shadow.
For instance, right hand click the fill bucket tool with white on a couple areas in space between stars. Soon the whole thing fills in the same color. The ice wall has minimal compression loss whereas the water is in between. (Only 1 or 2 pixels fill in on the ice wall)
An inconclusive by-product of the compression algorithm.
If I had to guess at the process: First you collected 3 images of some type of stone basin, stars or night sky (didn't bother checking the stars against constellations), and a rendering of water in an 3-D application like Maya.
Total rubbish.
Next you probably reversed polarity of the image to make the stone look like ice and positioned it over the stars.
Hilariously false (and obviously incorrect if you had any sense, unless the alleged forger spent hours redrawing shadows)
I'll give credit that you anti-aliased the edge when you deleted the other portions of the picture, (or you got lucky with a blended edge eraser).
Nope
Moving the water over the wall, you did take into consideration the texture and indentations in the wall but not the darkness. In other words, the water moves in towards the wall depending on its shape.
Simply incorrect.
Valiant effort, but I'm afraid you completely fail. 1 out of 10 I think.
Kind Regards,
David F.
-
Is that actually an attempt to persuade me I'm wrong? ...Or an attempt to defend your pictures to maintain the chance to delude others?
-
If I had to guess at the process: First you collected 3 images of some type of stone basin, stars or night sky (didn't bother checking the stars against constellations), and a rendering of water in an 3-D application like Maya. (It looks like the wall might have been rendered also but I'm on a public computer with only access to paint so I can't check it) Next you probably reversed polarity of the image to make the stone look like ice and positioned it over the stars. I'll give credit that you anti-aliased the edge when you deleted the other portions of the picture, (or you got lucky with a blended edge eraser). Moving the water over the wall, you did take into consideration the texture and indentations in the wall but not the darkness. In other words, the water moves in towards the wall depending on its shape. Saving the image as a .jpg only uploading it and glorifying it are left. :D
Now do this one:
(http://i23.tinypic.com/2hqqg7r.jpg)
-
If I had to guess at the process: First you collected 3 images of some type of stone basin, stars or night sky (didn't bother checking the stars against constellations), and a rendering of water in an 3-D application like Maya. (It looks like the wall might have been rendered also but I'm on a public computer with only access to paint so I can't check it) Next you probably reversed polarity of the image to make the stone look like ice and positioned it over the stars. I'll give credit that you anti-aliased the edge when you deleted the other portions of the picture, (or you got lucky with a blended edge eraser). Moving the water over the wall, you did take into consideration the texture and indentations in the wall but not the darkness. In other words, the water moves in towards the wall depending on its shape. Saving the image as a .jpg only uploading it and glorifying it are left. :D
Now do this one:
(http://i23.tinypic.com/2hqqg7r.jpg)
That looks like a peninsula to me. Anyway, shouldn't the Antarctic peninsula be covered in darkness?
And yet...
-
Is that actually an attempt to persuade me I'm wrong? ...Or an attempt to defend your pictures to maintain the chance to delude others?
Yes you're wrong. Genuinely, completely wrong.
Read my post again, bear in mind that I'm not actually lying.
-
TOM! WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOW ME THIS BEFORE???!!! If you had photographic proof of the ice wall all this time, why did you keep it from me?? Why did you let me make a fool of myself, regurgitating all those government lies time and time again? You kept the proof that would ultimately convince me away from my eyes, shielding me from the TRUTH. Tom, it was you who pulled the covers over my head, trapping me in a fart tent of ignorance.
-
If I had to guess at the process: First you collected 3 images of some type of stone basin, stars or night sky (didn't bother checking the stars against constellations), and a rendering of water in an 3-D application like Maya. (It looks like the wall might have been rendered also but I'm on a public computer with only access to paint so I can't check it) Next you probably reversed polarity of the image to make the stone look like ice and positioned it over the stars. I'll give credit that you anti-aliased the edge when you deleted the other portions of the picture, (or you got lucky with a blended edge eraser). Moving the water over the wall, you did take into consideration the texture and indentations in the wall but not the darkness. In other words, the water moves in towards the wall depending on its shape. Saving the image as a .jpg only uploading it and glorifying it are left. :D
Now do this one:
(http://i23.tinypic.com/2hqqg7r.jpg)
Err, Tom old chap, can't use that as evidence for your theory. Even though it is an image of antartica, taken at such a vantage point to make it look like a wall. Doesn't matter though, since you cannot use it
-
It's a very nice picture of Antarctica. Very nice iceshelf. Nice try, too.
Those earlier images... one sort of looks like a picture of Antarctica, the other like a badly created falsity. Try making a realistic sky, at least. Edit: Sorry, I looked at the full-size versions of those pics, they both look horrendously fake. And when inverted they look like stone. The first one has far more realistic water when inverted as well.
Wait... so the properties of water and light reflexion don't apply in less dense atmospheres? The laws of physics fall apart at high altitudes too, I assume then.
-
You ever looked at a lake at night?
The water appears very solid, and you can't see through it.
Same applies here - even though it's not night-time, the lack of atmosphere means there is much less light present, and the water will look more like that of a lake at night.
-
I suppose the earth isn't perfectly spherical, as the previous poster suggests.
It may simply be a point at which the wall dips in, if you follow?
Who knows.
For me, it's that little bit more evidence for FE theory, but I can understand your scepticism. Not that photos are proof, but the source was a person I trust quite well.
Kind Regards,
David F.
If pictures are inadmissable as proof for RE theory, then they are inadmissable as proof for FE theory as well.
Your pic = fail.
-
You ever looked at a lake at night?
The water appears very solid, and you can't see through it.
Same applies here - even though it's not night-time, the lack of atmosphere means there is much less light present, and the water will look more like that of a lake at night.
Surely there would be more light present, as it has less atmosphere to pass through, and so it would be scattered less.
And I have looked at a lake at night. You can see through some water at night. But as you said, this isn't night. This is erm... light reducing lack-of-atmosphere...
-
The picture is fake.
-
Yeah. Very fake.
At least do some decent forgeries, guys.
-
Yeah. Faking pictures just weakens your already owned theory.
-
Yeah.
If you can't get some decent evidence (which you never will, as the earth ISN'T flat), at least give us some credit and don't post those ridiculously faked pics. Or the ones of Antarctica. They're of Antarctica, not of the Ice Wall. Learn the difference! Antarctica = large continent which covers the South Pole. Ice Wall = Ridiculous and bunk.
-
Not to mention the fact that
YOU CANNOT USE PICTURES AS EVIDENCE ON THIS SITE
Not even if they seem to prove your theory. You claim that images of RE from space are faked, yet you cannot tell, yet you post obviously fake images to prove your own theory.
-
Hehe! I like his defense against the proofs it's forged. Admitting it would have been less painful.
You can test its legitimacy by comparing compression of separate images for loss of data...
No!
;D