The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: AndersonG22 on August 08, 2011, 03:33:55 AM
-
At 6:10 you can clearly see very good special effects.
-
They are looking down at a circle.
-
a very good video of our giant disc,
thanks for sharing
-
They are looking down at a circle.
Then how come it shows North America as being at the edge then? :P
-
They are looking down at a circle.
Then how come it shows North America as being at the edge then? :P
I didn't see that. If you look into the distance the atmosphere builds up and you can't really see surface features.
-
They are looking down at a circle.
Then how come it shows North America as being at the edge then? :P
Canada is the ice wall?
-
They are looking down at a circle.
Then how come it shows North America as being at the edge then? :P
I didn't see that. If you look into the distance the atmosphere builds up and you can't really see surface features.
I watched the whole programme when it was shown on TV.
-
A bastardized Dragon Lady. Somewhat sad.
-
What would you expect to see? Our line of sight is a circular, one would expect a rounded edge to our field of vision.
-
What would you expect to see? Our line of sight is a circular
Incorrect.
-
What would you expect to see? Our line of sight is a circular
Incorrect.
Incorrect
-
What would you expect to see? Our line of sight is a circular
Incorrect.
Incorrect
Please elaborate.
-
What would you expect to see? Our line of sight is a circular
Incorrect.
Incorrect
Please elaborate.
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
-
What would you expect to see? Our line of sight is a circular
Incorrect.
Incorrect
Please elaborate.
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
Do you mean as in, we can see around 360 degrees? By line of sight presumed he meant the straight line from the eye to the object that is being viewed.
-
What would you expect to see? Our line of sight is a circular
Incorrect.
Incorrect
Please elaborate.
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
If by line of sight you mean field of vision, its not circular.
-
What would you expect to see? Our line of sight is a circular
Incorrect.
Incorrect
Please elaborate.
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
If by line of sight you mean field of vision, its not circular.
What if we cut one of your eyes out?
Would it then be circular?
Berny
Zombie Movie Night
-
What would you expect to see? Our line of sight is a circular
Incorrect.
Incorrect
Please elaborate.
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
If by line of sight you mean field of vision, its not circular.
This is a Parsifal-esque level of pedantry. It is semi-circular then, depending on one's peripheral vision.
-
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
If by line of sight you mean field of vision, its not circular.
This is a Parsifal-esque level of pedantry. It is semi-circular then, depending on one's peripheral vision.
Its not pedantry at all. If by line of sight he actually meant field of vision it makes a big difference to claims made about it. Even the view from a single eye is not circular. You can test this yourself, but I will be a tease and let you work out how.
-
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
If by line of sight you mean field of vision, its not circular.
This is a Parsifal-esque level of pedantry. It is semi-circular then, depending on one's peripheral vision.
Its not pedantry at all. If by line of sight he actually meant field of vision it makes a big difference to claims made about it. Even the view from a single eye is not circular. You can test this yourself, but I will be a tease and let you work out how.
Lolwut? Clearly there has been some misunderstanding. One's line of sight (field of vision, whatever you want to call it) is curved, as for about a 160 degree arc you can see equally in every direction. I thought it was pretty simple that it is an arc of a circle.
-
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
If by line of sight you mean field of vision, its not circular.
This is a Parsifal-esque level of pedantry. It is semi-circular then, depending on one's peripheral vision.
Its not pedantry at all. If by line of sight he actually meant field of vision it makes a big difference to claims made about it. Even the view from a single eye is not circular. You can test this yourself, but I will be a tease and let you work out how.
Lolwut? Clearly there has been some misunderstanding. One's line of sight (field of vision, whatever you want to call it) is curved, as for about a 160 degree arc you can see equally in every direction. I thought it was pretty simple that it is an arc of a circle.
You cant see equally in every direction. You assume you can because your eye is round, but each eye has part of its vision blocked by your facial features such as nose and brow. Unless your eye is on a stalk or you are grotesquely deformed, these areas are permanently vignetting your sight. The lateral side of your vision has the greatest periphery, the superior part the least. The medio-lateral axis has greater coverage than the supero-inferior axis (in laymans terms you can see more side to side than you can up and down).
You would think this would be noticeable but it isnt very because your eyes are used to it throughout your life. You also are almost unable to see colour at the edge of your vision but your brain fills it in for you without you realising.
-
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
If by line of sight you mean field of vision, its not circular.
This is a Parsifal-esque level of pedantry. It is semi-circular then, depending on one's peripheral vision.
Its not pedantry at all. If by line of sight he actually meant field of vision it makes a big difference to claims made about it. Even the view from a single eye is not circular. You can test this yourself, but I will be a tease and let you work out how.
Lolwut? Clearly there has been some misunderstanding. One's line of sight (field of vision, whatever you want to call it) is curved, as for about a 160 degree arc you can see equally in every direction. I thought it was pretty simple that it is an arc of a circle.
You cant see equally in every direction. You assume you can because your eye is round, but each eye has part of its vision blocked by your facial features such as nose and brow. Unless your eye is on a stalk or you are grotesquely deformed, these areas are permanently vignetting your sight. The lateral side of your vision has the greatest periphery, the superior part the least. The medio-lateral axis has greater coverage than the supero-inferior axis (in laymans terms you can see more side to side than you can up and down).
You would think this would be noticeable but it isnt very because your eyes are used to it throughout your life. You also are almost unable to see colour at the edge of your vision but your brain fills it in for you without you realising.
Go to the ocean and look at the horizon. It will be curved.
-
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
If by line of sight you mean field of vision, its not circular.
This is a Parsifal-esque level of pedantry. It is semi-circular then, depending on one's peripheral vision.
Its not pedantry at all. If by line of sight he actually meant field of vision it makes a big difference to claims made about it. Even the view from a single eye is not circular. You can test this yourself, but I will be a tease and let you work out how.
Lolwut? Clearly there has been some misunderstanding. One's line of sight (field of vision, whatever you want to call it) is curved, as for about a 160 degree arc you can see equally in every direction. I thought it was pretty simple that it is an arc of a circle.
You cant see equally in every direction. You assume you can because your eye is round, but each eye has part of its vision blocked by your facial features such as nose and brow. Unless your eye is on a stalk or you are grotesquely deformed, these areas are permanently vignetting your sight. The lateral side of your vision has the greatest periphery, the superior part the least. The medio-lateral axis has greater coverage than the supero-inferior axis (in laymans terms you can see more side to side than you can up and down).
You would think this would be noticeable but it isnt very because your eyes are used to it throughout your life. You also are almost unable to see colour at the edge of your vision but your brain fills it in for you without you realising.
Go to the ocean and look at the horizon. It will be curved.
How is this relevant? Also, the curvature is too insignificant to be seen at sea level.
-
Go to the ocean and look at the horizon. It will be curved.
1. Irrelevant
2. Incorrect.
-
Start watching the video below at 5:04, you can clearly see him look left then right. If the earth was flat then alot of it would not be reciving light from a spotlight. But the entire side is lit up, showing us that the FET is wrong.
-
You cant see equally in every direction. You assume you can because your eye is round, but each eye has part of its vision blocked by your facial features such as nose and brow. Unless your eye is on a stalk or you are grotesquely deformed, these areas are permanently vignetting your sight. The lateral side of your vision has the greatest periphery, the superior part the least. The medio-lateral axis has greater coverage than the supero-inferior axis (in laymans terms you can see more side to side than you can up and down).
You would think this would be noticeable but it isnt very because your eyes are used to it throughout your life. You also are almost unable to see colour at the edge of your vision but your brain fills it in for you without you realising.
And here I thought Thork was the resident expert on semantic derails.
The point of the original comment about line of sight had nothing to do with eye/face anatomy and the relative extent of your peripheral vision in various directions. I think we can all fairly agree that the video in question was shot using some sort of camera, which presumably has a symmetrical lens system for capturing images and a symmetrical boundary restricting outside light.
In such a device, the field of vision is indeed circular (or approximately so). If a camera can only see (hypothetically) objects 40 yards directly in front, then barring any major defects we can take this to be the radius of its field of vision. Said another way: if a camera pointed along the x-axis can see objects up to 40 yards away along that axis, then it will not be able to see objects 40 yards along the x-axis and 1 yard along the y-axis; it will, however, be able to see objects within the circle defined by x^2 + y^2 = 1600 (within the left/right bounds of its vision of course).
The original comment about line of line of sight was meant (I think) to imply that for objects receding into infinity we will observe a circular shape over a large enough area, presumably because we can only see to a certain distance. Thus, for a flat Earth that extends infinitely along its plane, any observer sufficiently high up will note a circular boundary to the portion of Earth that they can see.
If you really want to find flaw with the argument, ask instead about the reasons which might limit the distance that we can see. Without obstruction, light will travel into infinity. In this case, observing blackness beyond a certain radius indicates that either there is nothing in that direction at all to emit/reflect light, or that there is something that is obstructing the light.
If it were the first case, then there would not even be a question of the shape of our line of sight. Since the poster (Hazbollah, I think?) made the comment, we must therefore assume that he believes something is obstructing light from traveling after a long enough distance.
The only thing possible to obstruct light in this case is the atmosphere (a reasonable candidate, to be sure). The problem with this, however, is that such an observation of a very regularly-shaped circular section would require an extremely homogenous chunk of atmosphere between the observer and the horizon. Without this homogeneity, different amounts of light will be obstructed over different areas, and the horizon that we see here would not be very regularly shaped.
It is well known that the atmosphere is far from homogenous. It may contain a fairly regular mix of gases, but it varies greatly in density, moisture content, temperature, etc. (hence, weather happens). All of these things would affect the transmission of light through the medium. The clouds alone in this video are enough to demonstrate that no such homogeneity is being observed.
So the question becomes: If you expect your observations from limited field of vision to imitate a circle, then you must also expect the limiting factors to be regular along the field; when no such regularity exists, what else could be an explanation for the observed circularity?
-
Start watching the video below at 5:04, you can clearly see him look left then right. If the earth was flat then alot of it would not be reciving light from a spotlight. But the entire side is lit up, showing us that the FET is wrong.
Flat earthers, please respond.
-
To START: forgiveness is a truly beautiful and amazing characteristic of humans... none the less i am going to post a few screenshots of this video to point out some things that RE'S and FE'S of the like can both agree on.
1. Wide angle lens curvature.
2. PROOF of a Wide Angular lens
3. Evidence as to curvature of film
4. PROOF as to why the camera man didn't zoom in all the way into the earth in his handheld camera view.
5. I do believe it is the ONLY TIME the Hand Held cameraman looked at the stationary camera, and it directly proceeded the view of this screenshot
so lady's and gentleman, probably only Gentlemen... the show you have all been waiting for.Fear has to do with Punishment, test it out, most time's i get fearful I am afraid of the consequenes of something.
-
(http://i52.tinypic.com/2vlo006.jpg)
(http://i53.tinypic.com/w17c00.jpg)
(http://i54.tinypic.com/t6qu4w.jpg)
(http://i56.tinypic.com/4t9btw.jpg)
this is sequenced, meaning in the order in which the frames were taken, as evidence you can count the time lapse numbers(as if numbers mean anything anymore). Evidence is for the net to decide for themselves what they think, I have my opinions, but I am always open to others. Especially if they are logical and truthful.
-
Start watching the video below at 5:04, you can clearly see him look left then right. If the earth was flat then alot of it would not be reciving light from a spotlight. But the entire side is lit up, showing us that the FET is wrong.
The parts that aren't lit up are the dark parts. They might be difficult to distinguish from the also dark space. I would think that to be obvious.
-
I sense a look to see if anyone is watching, an exposure of the deceit with a slight hint of (i'm gonna get so busted for this), then a look to heaven, then a sense of despair.
any others?
BTW. IN ORDER TO SEE PICTURES MORE CLEARLY YOU HAVE TO ZOOM TO THE RIGHT.
-
PLEASE VIEW PICTURES UP ABOVE... ALSO WATCH THE VIDEO WITH OUT THE SOUND, YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT THEY ARE SAYING...
-
Our line of sight is circular regardless of what theory you prescribe to.
If by line of sight you mean field of vision, its not circular.
This is a Parsifal-esque level of pedantry. It is semi-circular then, depending on one's peripheral vision.
Its not pedantry at all. If by line of sight he actually meant field of vision it makes a big difference to claims made about it. Even the view from a single eye is not circular. You can test this yourself, but I will be a tease and let you work out how.
Lolwut? Clearly there has been some misunderstanding. One's line of sight (field of vision, whatever you want to call it) is curved, as for about a 160 degree arc you can see equally in every direction. I thought it was pretty simple that it is an arc of a circle.
You cant see equally in every direction. You assume you can because your eye is round, but each eye has part of its vision blocked by your facial features such as nose and brow. Unless your eye is on a stalk or you are grotesquely deformed, these areas are permanently vignetting your sight. The lateral side of your vision has the greatest periphery, the superior part the least. The medio-lateral axis has greater coverage than the supero-inferior axis (in laymans terms you can see more side to side than you can up and down).
You would think this would be noticeable but it isnt very because your eyes are used to it throughout your life. You also are almost unable to see colour at the edge of your vision but your brain fills it in for you without you realising.
Go to the ocean and look at the horizon. It will be curved.
How is this relevant? Also, the curvature is too insignificant to be seen at sea level.
Sorry. I phrased this poorly. What I'd meant to say was that you will see a disk shaped-horizon, and thus you can see equally in every direction, within obvious restraints.
-
How is that possible if the earth is flat?
-
Actually you wouldn't see a disc from altitude if the earth was flat. Atleast not a disc with sharply delineated edges. What you would see would be a very gradual merging of the horizon with the sky, equally in all directions.
You would most certainly not see a sharply delineated disk with the edge bisecting a continent.
-
there is no factual evidence based upon these videographs that the earth is round, if you would have seen the photo's i posted, the wide angle lense caused a distortion creating the illusion of curvature, but without the lense the video would have been narrower and flat.
-
there is no factual evidence based upon these videographs that the earth is round, if you would have seen the photo's i posted, the wide angle lense caused a distortion creating the illusion of curvature, but without the lense the video would have been narrower and flat.
You said yourself that you arent even sure its a wide angle lense. Either way 75% of the edge of the earth is lit up, disproving the FET.
Let say that what you can see is the lit up area by the spotlight, you would still be able to see the unlit area. If you think the unlit area wouldnt be visible then you havnt used a flashlight before.
-
it is in fact a wide angle lense, SIR. how else would it create the curvature? Do not get my words twisted.
-
and the special effects are horrendous, if the conspirators were good at what they do, there would not be this site.
-
it is in fact a wide angle lense, SIR. how else would it create the curvature? Do not get my words twisted.
Your pic, your words.(http://i52.tinypic.com/2vlo006.jpg)
You pic, your words, very clearly showing I didnt twist your words.
(http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll182/korn228/Jamesmay.jpg)
-
it is in fact a wide angle lense, SIR. how else would it create the curvature? Do not get my words twisted.
hang on, we are saying that from that height the curvature of the earth is visible; so your argument is that camera must be a wide angle lens, because the Earth appears curved when it can't be because it's flat?? That's not proof the lens is wide angle, that's a theory that the lens is wide angle based on a theory that the Earth is flat.
In anycase, I agree that it's possible that curvature is due to the lens, afterall there probably wasn't a high end 1080p telephoto video camera perched in the cockpit - it's quite likely the video camera lens would have introduced curvature. However that doesn't proove that the Earth doesn't appear curved at that altitude.
Many pilots who have flown at that altitude have reported seeing with their own eyes the curvature. The ZETETIC evidence they observe with their very own eyes is concurrent with what we could expect by looking at the geometry.
-
This photo is taken from 100,000 feet.
(http://epod.typepad.com/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b0120a563f7d7970c-600wi)
http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2003/07/one-hundred-thousand-feet-up.html
Using this camera:
(http://di1.shopping.com/images1/pi/ef/50/fe/20175-177x150-0-0.jpg)
http://www.epinions.com/specs/Canon_Elph_LT__IXUS_Mach_1_APS_Compact_Camera___Camera_canixusm1
Notice the curvature. Now, compact cameras often have barrel distortion (distorted vertical lines), but not necessarily moustache distortion (distorted horizontal lines).
The image below is taken with the same model camera. The horizon is flat (it looks warped, but put a ruler up to it, it's dead straight). No Tom Bishop, that doesn't prove the Earth is flat. It proves the lens does not suffer from horizontal distorion.
Click the link to see the large view.
(http://images.betterphoto.com/0014/0308260935301enter_coastal_waters__fl_t.jpg)
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.asp?photoID=171588&catID=556&contestCatID=&rowNumber=18&camID=117
Tadah! Proof the Earth is round. The 100,000 foot image, is taken from balloon by Amateur Radio enthusiasts (Nebraska Stratospheric Amateur Radio). Nothing to do with NASA.
-
My apologies, I thought you used my words as i said, 75% sure, but yes, i am positive that is a wide angle lense, there is no other way for that picture to have been curved, and i don't believe you took that picture with that camera, nor did you have anything to do with it. but regardless, that picture was framed with a wide angle lense, also what can you say about the rest of my argument considering he never looked at the camera, except until he exposed the fraud?
-
My apologies, I thought you used my words as i said, 75% sure, but yes, i am positive that is a wide angle lense, there is no other way for that picture to have been curved, and i don't believe you took that picture with that camera, nor did you have anything to do with it. but regardless, that picture was framed with a wide angle lense, also what can you say about the rest of my argument considering he never looked at the camera, except until he exposed the fraud?
I'm not saying I took that picture with that camera, it wasn't my experiment. I'm sure though that Nebraska Stratospheric Amateur Radio would be quite offended to hear you accuse them of faking the experiment. This experiment was a simple weather baloon experiment, not designed to measure the earth's curvature. What I have done, is my own research into the camera they used, to deomonstrate that the picture of the earth is not curved due to the lens of the camera, but is actual curvature of the earth.
If you don't believe Nebraska Stratospheric Amateur Radio conducted this weather balloon experiment using the equipment they claimed to use, well I can't really say anything to that except "paranoid much".
Regarding your statement on the U2 video footage: You are right, the camera video itself is not good evidence that the world is round. I agree. If James May says that he could see curvature of the earth though, that is solid evidence.
Though of course you are free to believe James May is under thepay of NASA as well. Matter of fact, I'll add him to my list:
The NASA big three are really wishing right now they'd never started this bloody conspiracy....it's getting a bit expensive paying off: James May, stratosphere pilots, Art school tutors, PHysicists in the field of Optics, Observatories world wide and their staff and anyone who has access to the observatory (and who can view teh sun and observe that it is flat and not round), So Jose Bonet of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias in Spain and colleagues, Astronomy magazine editors and "reader contribution" faking staff, various actors involved in faked artic bases, moonlandings etc, family and loved one's of disposed-of artic explorers paid to keep quiet, cell phone tower engineers, management and firmware designers , The many thousands of civilians who witnessed shuttle launches, the media that reported the shuttle launches, and the police, army and airforce who provided the shuttle launch security, Cosmologists, fake arctic scientists, arctic set builders, artic computer graphics designers, Geophysists, professional astronomers, global climate scientists, particle physicists and partical accelerator designers, telecommunications engineers, astro-physicists, NASA boffins, engineers, astronauts, ground crew, contractors, Indian, Chinese, European and Russian space agencies, private satelitte launch company management and engineers, gps manufacturers, ham radio operators (the vhf line of sight conspiracy), international airline pilots, flight path designers, "gps" aircraft pilots, mapping companies, surveyors, radar operators and manufacturers, ballistics engineers and ice wall guards, but the world's body of amatuer astronomers, Microsoft founder Paul Allen, Virgin owner Richard Branson, Burt Rutan, Brian Binnie, Mike Melvill (BB and MM, they just gotta be made up names), doctors, hospital administrators, moonburn patients, nurses and pharmacists, artic south pole explorers, circumnavigators.
-
it is in fact a wide angle lense, SIR. how else would it create the curvature? Do not get my words twisted.
hang on, we are saying that from that height the curvature of the earth is visible; so your argument is that camera must be a wide angle lens, because the Earth appears curved when it can't be because it's flat?? That's not proof the lens is wide angle, that's a theory that the lens is wide angle based on a theory that the Earth is flat.
In anycase, I agree that it's possible that curvature is due to the lens, afterall there probably wasn't a high end 1080p telephoto video camera perched in the cockpit - it's quite likely the video camera lens would have introduced curvature. However that doesn't proove that the Earth doesn't appear curved at that altitude.
Many pilots who have flown at that altitude have reported seeing with their own eyes the curvature. The ZETETIC evidence they observe with their very own eyes is concurrent with what we could expect by looking at the geometry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
camera must be a wide angle lens because the Earth appears curved when it can't be because it's flat??
(http://s1.postimage.org/smtibm2s/camera.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/smtibm2s/)
In anycase, I agree that it's possible that curvature is due to the lens
My point exactly, there is no other way, considering the earth is in fact FLAT. F. L. A. T. FLAT AS A PANCAKE.
In anycase, I agree that it's possible that curvature is due to the lens, afterall there probably wasn't a high end 1080p telephoto video camera perched in the cockpit
(http://s1.postimage.org/sn8e5qis/infinite_grid.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/sn8e5qis/)
also
(http://s1.postimage.org/sna1p30k/camera.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/sna1p30k/)
the lens was a Wide Angle Lense, similar to a Fish Eye Lens or a Death Lens a wide angle lens does not create as much curvature as a fisheye, but a fisheye doesn't create as much curvature as a death, most professional skateboard video's use mkI's or MKII's which are distortion telephoto lenses which create the effect the "astronauts" use to create their "high tech" video's that are fraudulant and quite sincerely deception to the american public, since heaven and hell are real, people who help create this dellusion will be there.
(http://s1.postimage.org/snjyx5z8/wide_angle.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/snjyx5z8/)
(http://s3.postimage.org/aakvuybo/wide_angle_lens_landscape.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/aakvuybo/)
note the curvature is the opposite of the said curvature of the earth. this is due to the wide angle distortion.
(http://s3.postimage.org/aari0cas/wideangle.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/aari0cas/)
-
the media has warped your mind so much that you can look at a flat earth photo and make yourself believe it is curved, that is how powerful they have become, but truth will always win.
-
the media has warped your mind so much that you can look at a flat earth photo and make yourself believe it is curved, that is how powerful they have become, but truth will always win.
Dude, you need to read my posts a little more carefully.
1. Not all camera lenses introduce curvature on the horizontal plane.
2. If one such camera is lifted to 100,000 feet and shows the horizon is curved, it is evidence that the Earth is round, or at the very least curved.
3. Just because you don't believe the Earth is curved, is not evidence to me that it isn't. You need to provide proof. All your analysis of the U2 flight shows is that the video doesn't prove the Earth is round. But that doesn't mean it proves the world is flat either. It just means the evidence is inadmissable.
4. Stop smoking hydro and get some nice calming home grown outdoor shit, it will do you wonders. And lay off the crack altogether.
-
a very good video of our giant disc,
thanks for sharing
Oh jeez...
-
the media has warped your mind so much that you can look at a flat earth photo and make yourself believe it is curved, that is how powerful they have become, but truth will always win.
Dude, you need to read my posts a little more carefully.
1. Not all camera lenses introduce curvature on the horizontal plane.
2. If one such camera is lifted to 100,000 feet and shows the horizon is curved, it is evidence that the Earth is round, or at the very least curved.
3. Just because you don't believe the Earth is curved, is not evidence to me that it isn't. You need to provide proof. All your analysis of the U2 flight shows is that the video doesn't prove the Earth is round. But that doesn't mean it proves the world is flat either. It just means the evidence is inadmissable.
4. Stop smoking hydro and get some nice calming home grown outdoor shit, it will do you wonders. And lay off the crack altogether.
This is your last warning for personal attacks.. You were doing ok until point4.
-
This is your last warning for personal attacks..
And this is a warning for membrating.
-
This is your last warning for personal attacks.. You were doing ok until point4.
Actually point 4 was well meaning advice. But out of respect to Even Plane, and not because I think you are entitled to issue warnings (suggestions maybe but not warnings) I am happy to not mention it again.
-
Wow, thanks for sharing that. Never saw footage from a aircraft with that altitude. Truly beautiful. Reminds me of why I love flying, not just the speed or the freedom, but the simple beauty of being both a part of the planet, but kind of separate in a way and looking down on it. :D
-
Depending on where you are, on a FE model, the curvature of the Earth would look very different.
If you were on a plane in, let's say Madagascar, if you looked over to Africa, the curvature, if visible, would look very wide, whereas if you looked the other side, it would look much smaller.
-
Depending on where you are, on a FE model, the curvature of the Earth would look very different.
So, now are you saying that flat earthers believe there is a curvature to the Earths horizon?
-
Depending on where you are, on a FE model, the curvature of the Earth would look very different.
So, now are you saying that flat earthers believe there is a curvature to the Earths horizon?
When you are at great heights you are looking down at a circle.
-
Depending on where you are, on a FE model, the curvature of the Earth would look very different.
So, now are you saying that flat earthers believe there is a curvature to the Earths horizon?
When you are at great heights you are looking down at a circle.
If that were the case, continents would not wrap around the edge of that circle. If what we are seeing in footage like this and that of the ISS is a circle at the edge of the world, where is the ice wall, why aren't all of the continents in the middle and why do we have absolutely no images of seeing the earth from it's side at different angles? The only object that appears round from EVERY angle is a sphere. Hold a marble in your hand and roll it around. 2 dimensionally, it looks like a disc (except for seeing that tigers eye pattern wrapping around it) but if it were a disc, like a coin, the only way it looks round is looking straight down at it from the top. the slightest changes in view of a coin cause it to flatten out.
-
Depending on where you are, on a FE model, the curvature of the Earth would look very different.
So, now are you saying that flat earthers believe there is a curvature to the Earths horizon?
When you are at great heights you are looking down at a circle.
If that were the case, continents would not wrap around the edge of that circle. If what we are seeing in footage like this and that of the ISS is a circle at the edge of the world, where is the ice wall, why aren't all of the continents in the middle and why do we have absolutely no images of seeing the earth from it's side at different angles? The only object that appears round from EVERY angle is a sphere. Hold a marble in your hand and roll it around. 2 dimensionally, it looks like a disc (except for seeing that tigers eye pattern wrapping around it) but if it were a disc, like a coin, the only way it looks round is looking straight down at it from the top. the slightest changes in view of a coin cause it to flatten out.
You wouldn't see all of the continents because all of the continents are not illuminated at once. You are looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth.
-
Depending on where you are, on a FE model, the curvature of the Earth would look very different.
So, now are you saying that flat earthers believe there is a curvature to the Earths horizon?
When you are at great heights you are looking down at a circle.
If that were the case, continents would not wrap around the edge of that circle. If what we are seeing in footage like this and that of the ISS is a circle at the edge of the world, where is the ice wall, why aren't all of the continents in the middle and why do we have absolutely no images of seeing the earth from it's side at different angles? The only object that appears round from EVERY angle is a sphere. Hold a marble in your hand and roll it around. 2 dimensionally, it looks like a disc (except for seeing that tigers eye pattern wrapping around it) but if it were a disc, like a coin, the only way it looks round is looking straight down at it from the top. the slightest changes in view of a coin cause it to flatten out.
You wouldn't see all of the continents because all of the continents are not illuminated at once. You are looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth.
Of course when we showed you video of the international space station going from the dark side to the light side of the earth, with all of the lights on at night and a bit of moonlight showing the surface, it proves that isn't true. when you saw that stunning footage Tom, the best you could come up with is "it's fake" Somehow that argument is supposed to be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for RE'ers when we say FE is fake. Every image we have from space or the upper atmosphere shows a round earth and you would think that from some angle we would see it flatten out if it was a FE. As stated before the only object that looks round from every angle is a sphere. So you are saying the entire earth cannot be seen and all we will see is a spotlight cast by the sun? How do you explain the existence of moonlight? or have you never witnessed this phenomenon before?
-
Of course when we showed you video of the international space station going from the dark side to the light side of the earth, with all of the lights on at night and a bit of moonlight showing the surface, it proves that isn't true. when you saw that stunning footage Tom, the best you could come up with is "it's fake"
NASA images are fake, but amateur shots of the earth from high altitudes are not.
As stated before the only object that looks round from every angle is a sphere.
A circle looks round from every angle except when looking at it parallel to its surface.
So you are saying the entire earth cannot be seen and all we will see is a spotlight cast by the sun?
The entire earth isn't lit up at once.
How do you explain the existence of moonlight? or have you never witnessed this phenomenon before?
Moonlight does not illuminate the earth to any significant degree.
-
Of course when we showed you video of the international space station going from the dark side to the light side of the earth, with all of the lights on at night and a bit of moonlight showing the surface, it proves that isn't true. when you saw that stunning footage Tom, the best you could come up with is "it's fake"
NASA images are fake, but amateur shots of the earth from high altitudes are not.
As stated before the only object that looks round from every angle is a sphere.
A circle looks round from every angle except when looking at it parallel to its surface.
So you are saying the entire earth cannot be seen and all we will see is a spotlight cast by the sun?
The entire earth isn't lit up at once.
How do you explain the existence of moonlight? or have you never witnessed this phenomenon before?
Moonlight does not illuminate the earth to any significant degree.
A flat disc absolutely does not look like a circle from every angle except looking at it parallel. the moment you start tilting a disc, it's two dimensional appearance starts to turn into an oblong oval and eventually a flat plane. Again, take a coin out of your pocket and look at it face first. start flipping the coin and the circle flattens eventually becoming a flat line at it's parralel. Or simply look at this picture of tops below. Even a monkey could do this experiment with a frisbee in their hand. Apparently Tom suffers from a bad case of night blindness too if he's never see the clouds lit up on a full moon night or looked out over a field when the moon is full. I think we figured out your problem, you need better glasses.
(http://www.birthdaydirect.com/product_thumb.php?img=images/86196-laser-spinning-discs-value-favors.jpg&w=250&h=250)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01_02/8Babek_650x628.jpg)
In a moonlit night of Nepal Himalayas, bright star Capella, the sixth brightest in the night sky, rises above the top of the world, Mount Everest. To the right is Mt. Lhutse, the world's 4th highest mountain. A Buddhist religious monument is also visible in the foreground. The brightest star is the mysterious eclipsing binary star Epsilon Aurigae. Taken by Iranian photographer Babak Tafreshi.
-
You're aware of a thing called "exposure time", right?
-
You're aware of a thing called "exposure time", right?
you are aware of a thing called moonlight right? Have you ever been outside during a full moon or are you worried about something else without any evidence, like werewolves? Is there any photo you will accept of moonlight or are you really going to sit there and say that moonlight doesn't light up the surface of the earth (especially viewing it above the clouds) as we have all witnessed this outdoors at some point in our lives. The point that you people are really going to debate the existence of moonlight makes obvious troll pretty obvious.
http://sarnd.tumblr.com/post/430713552/atozfield-rod42-mrshats-moonlight
How did they get these horses to stand so still, mid gallop during a 13 second exposure without blurring the shot? Amazing.
-
I'm not denying that moonlight exists. I'm denying that the picture posted is anything other than a long exposure photo. Like many Mr. Tafreshi has taken, it is a lovely image, but clearly taken with a long exposure time. This means it appears lighter than it would otherwise look.
The horse photo looks like a composite image. Can you source it for us?
-
A flat disc absolutely does not look like a circle from every angle except looking at it parallel. the moment you start tilting a disc, it's two dimensional appearance starts to turn into an oblong oval and eventually a flat plane. Again, take a coin out of your pocket and look at it face first. start flipping the coin and the circle flattens eventually becoming a flat line at it's parralel. Or simply look at this picture of tops below. Even a monkey could do this experiment with a frisbee in their hand. Apparently Tom suffers from a bad case of night blindness too if he's never see the clouds lit up on a full moon night or looked out over a field when the moon is full. I think we figured out your problem, you need better glasses.
(http://www.birthdaydirect.com/product_thumb.php?img=images/86196-laser-spinning-discs-value-favors.jpg&w=250&h=250)
I didn't say that a circle looks like a perfect circle from every angle. I said that a circle looks round from all angles except one parallel to the circle's surface.
My statement was accurate. Ovals are round.
Those tops are round. When looking down at them they have curved edges.
-
what evidence do you have that it is a composite image, other than its existence destroys your argument? The shadows look right to me, and why bother photoshopping something that occurs all of the time, (a bright moonlit night) As I asked before, is there an image you will accept? quit throwing out red herring distractions about having an extensive citation on a photo and just admit that we have all seen bright moonlit nights and that arguing against that is so trollish, its ridiculous. If I was trying to prove the existence of a horse by showing a picture, would your demands be so outlandish? I guess they would have to be if you were arguing that horses did not exist. I also love how the picture of the tops is being totally ignored. Nice job there.
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=13&month=01&year=2009
Once again, Ice skaters, in motion, are they holding that pose for overexposure? If this one isn't good enough for you, with its source, nothing will be. Calling "fake" isn't an argument, it's a cop out. Like I said before, it isn't good enough for you when we call FE fake, why do you expect it to be for me?
-
You're aware of a thing called "exposure time", right?
-
You're aware of a thing called "exposure time", right?
The photo was taken with 1/320th of a second exposure time.... if you care to click the image, download it and check the exif information. F8 aperture and ISO 640 and f-stop -1.3.
-
A flat disc absolutely does not look like a circle from every angle except looking at it parallel. the moment you start tilting a disc, it's two dimensional appearance starts to turn into an oblong oval and eventually a flat plane. Again, take a coin out of your pocket and look at it face first. start flipping the coin and the circle flattens eventually becoming a flat line at it's parralel. Or simply look at this picture of tops below. Even a monkey could do this experiment with a frisbee in their hand. Apparently Tom suffers from a bad case of night blindness too if he's never see the clouds lit up on a full moon night or looked out over a field when the moon is full. I think we figured out your problem, you need better glasses.
(http://www.birthdaydirect.com/product_thumb.php?img=images/86196-laser-spinning-discs-value-favors.jpg&w=250&h=250)
I didn't say that a circle looks like a perfect circle from every angle. I said that a circle looks round from all angles except one parallel to the circle's surface.
My statement was accurate. Ovals are round.
All of those tops are round. Looking down at them we see curved edges.
In a moonlit night of Nepal Himalayas, bright star Capella, the sixth brightest in the night sky, rises above the top of the world, Mount Everest. To the right is Mt. Lhutse, the world's 4th highest mountain. A Buddhist religious monument is also visible in the foreground. The brightest star is the mysterious eclipsing binary star Epsilon Aurigae. Taken by Iranian photographer Babak Tafreshi.
You're aware of a thing called "exposure time", right?
ovals and cylinders are not circles this does not address that we see a consistent arc of the curvature of the earth from every angle of every space photograph. I AM saying that the earth looks like a nearly perfect circle from every angle, because it's a sphere (slightly fatter at the equator)The only way this is possible is with a sphere. We do not see cylinders, we do not see ovals. Show me this oval picture of the earth. We always see a circle and the only shape that this is physically possible with is a sphere FROM ALL ANGLES. See my last two posts on exposure and keep denying moonlight
-
what evidence do you have that it is a composite image, other than its existence destroys your argument?
It looks very sharp, like most composite images do.
... just admit that we have all seen bright moonlit nights and that arguing against that is so trollish, its ridiculous.
Of course I have seen bright moonlit nights. If I was going to produce evidence of it, I'd find a photo more compelling than a lengthy exposure or composite image. Accepting nonsense as compelling just shows how desperate you are to maintain your precious world view. Well, guess what -- you're welcome to it. I don't care if you think the earth is a globe or not.
I also love how the picture of the tops is being totally ignored. Nice job there.
It's not ignored. If I have to type "I expect to see curvature at altitude over the earth" one more time this week, I might stop typing. That you are not bright enough to figure out why one might expect to see curvature over a disc (or a top), then my conversation with you is likely to be for naught anyway. Good day, sir.
-
So you are saying the entire earth cannot be seen and all we will see is a spotlight cast by the sun? How do you explain the existence of moonlight? or have you never witnessed this phenomenon before?
...
Apparently Tom suffers from a bad case of night blindness too if he's never see the clouds lit up on a full moon night or looked out over a field when the moon is full. I think we figured out your problem, you need better glasses.
NASA apparently disagrees with you and does not expect that the non-lit portions of the earth would be visible to the observer.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/5052744816_83b563a837.jpg)
-
So you are saying the entire earth cannot be seen and all we will see is a spotlight cast by the sun? How do you explain the existence of moonlight? or have you never witnessed this phenomenon before?
...
Apparently Tom suffers from a bad case of night blindness too if he's never see the clouds lit up on a full moon night or looked out over a field when the moon is full. I think we figured out your problem, you need better glasses.
NASA apparently disagrees with you and does not expect that the non-lit portions of the earth would be visible to the observer.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/5052744816_83b563a837.jpg)
But note the terminator, it is not sharp and clear like the edge of the Earth is. This is one of two main problems with the "only the the lit part of the earth is visible" theory of why flat disc in space looks like a globe. The terminator is the edge of a shadow; a shadow edge is blurry due to diffraction. The light coming from a spotlight also diffracts. The only way the edge of the earth can have such a clear and sharp delineation is if it's the actual edge of the earth (be it flat disc, or globe) with the sun shining on and past the edge.
The other main problem, is that continents wrap around the edge, therefore the edge cannot be the circumference of a flat earth disc. This photo doesn't show any clear examples of continents wrapping around the edge, but they are not hard to find.
-
what evidence do you have that it is a composite image, other than its existence destroys your argument?
It looks very sharp, like most composite images do.
... just admit that we have all seen bright moonlit nights and that arguing against that is so trollish, its ridiculous.
Of course I have seen bright moonlit nights. If I was going to produce evidence of it, I'd find a photo more compelling than a lengthy exposure or composite image. Accepting nonsense as compelling just shows how desperate you are to maintain your precious world view. Well, guess what -- you're welcome to it. I don't care if you think the earth is a globe or not.
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=13&month=01&year=2009
This one's nice and blurry for you, So if all you're doing is bashing the images I provide, and you aren't denying that moonlight basks the earth in light, what sort of content are you providing for the debate here? I question your ability to be a moderate moderator.
-
ovals and cylinders are not circles
I never said that looking at a circle from an angle looked like a circle. I said that a circle from an angle looked round.
this does not address that we see a consistent arc of the curvature of the earth from every angle of every space photograph.
Only NASA photographs. Photographs from amateur high balloons at the edge of the atmosphere shows elliptical curvature.
-
So you are saying the entire earth cannot be seen and all we will see is a spotlight cast by the sun? How do you explain the existence of moonlight? or have you never witnessed this phenomenon before?
...
Apparently Tom suffers from a bad case of night blindness too if he's never see the clouds lit up on a full moon night or looked out over a field when the moon is full. I think we figured out your problem, you need better glasses.
NASA apparently disagrees with you and does not expect that the non-lit portions of the earth would be visible to the observer.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4147/5052744816_83b563a837.jpg)
ISS space footage from a lower altitude, with the moon behind the camera.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/5146231463/
Looks like NASA is still on my side, although I love that you provide evidence from a notoriously fake conspirator to help prove your point while simultaneously condemning their credibility.
-
http://www.tntmagazine.com/tnt-today/archive/2011/09/19/flying-over-planet-earth-in-the-international-space-station-is-a-youtube-hit.aspx
Oh, and here's the video again, if we're going to get snarky about the quality of images provided, throwing out red herrings without debating anything.
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/5146231463/
Oh yes, the photos where Africa is half the size of earth. Very convincing. Where are all those city lights in the picture I linked to? Wouldn't the moonlight make them more difficult to see, not easier? Globularists must be getting desperate now.
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/5146231463/
Oh yes, the photos where Africa is half the size of earth. Very convincing. Where are all those city lights in the picture I linked to? Wouldn't the moonlight make them more difficult to see, not easier? Globularists must be getting desperate now.
Africa is not half the size of the earth in these images. ( Although it is a huge continent) The ISS flies at a low orbit, much lower than the shuttles did. As a matter of fact, you can go outside at night and see it with a pair of binoculars if it's going to be in your neighborhood. Of course, then you would have to research something before debunking it. You can check the website to see when it will be flying by near you. Does the moonlight make city lights more difficult to see at your house? it doesn't at mine. They are actually brighter than the moon. That's why we invented them and all. ::)
-
You're aware of a thing called "exposure time", right?
You are aware that the human eye is more sensitive to low light than normal cameras, right?
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/5146231463/
Oh yes, the photos where Africa is half the size of earth. Very convincing. Where are all those city lights in the picture I linked to? Wouldn't the moonlight make them more difficult to see, not easier? Globularists must be getting desperate now.
Africa is not half the size of the earth in these images. ( Although it is a huge continent)
It is atleast a third of the earth according to that photoshopped job you just showed me.
Does the moonlight make city lights more difficult to see at your house? it doesn't at mine. They are actually brighter than the moon. That's why we invented them and all. ::)
It would if I were trying to see them from very far away. This is so self-evident, I'm surprised that you would attempt to defend your position other than from hubris.
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/5146231463/
Oh yes, the photos where Africa is half the size of earth. Very convincing. Where are all those city lights in the picture I linked to? Wouldn't the moonlight make them more difficult to see, not easier? Globularists must be getting desperate now.
Africa is not half the size of the earth in these images. ( Although it is a huge continent)
It is atleast a third of the earth according to that photoshopped job you just showed me.
Does the moonlight make city lights more difficult to see at your house? it doesn't at mine. They are actually brighter than the moon. That's why we invented them and all. ::)
It would if I were trying to see them from very far away. This is so self-evident, I'm surprised that you would attempt to defend your position other than from hubris.
seriously? the moon would drown out how bright city lights are because it's farther away? How does that work? Shine a flashlight on a street light. Does the light dissapear? Look at a city light, far off in the distance, on a moonlit night, does it get significantly less bright because the moon is shining? These aren't a few light bulbs we're talking abot, these are the collective grids of major metropolitan areas. Of course we can't see your porch light from space, but we could see it if it were the size of Chicago. These light clusters are proportionate on the ISS footage. Oh and did you care to answer how people can see the ISS with a pair of binoculars? I really want to see a diagram of your 1/3 the size of earth Africa measurement, unless of course you are pulling that figure out of your arse with no actual scale provided and just saying "Geez dat looks big!"
-
And another thing about these "Photoshopped" or Fake or CGI claims. If you know anything about photoshop, it's very easy to download an image and check for trademark layers or pixelations and other evidence of alteration and prove it. I have yet to see any FE'er make even the most failed attempt at doing so. Once again just calling "fake" isn't good enough for me if I say it, why should it be good enough for you. Prove it or it's just rhetoric and a cop out.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/tell-if-that-jpg-has-been-altered-with-jpegsnoop-windows/
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28634332@N05/5146231463/
Oh yes, the photos where Africa is half the size of earth. Very convincing. Where are all those city lights in the picture I linked to? Wouldn't the moonlight make them more difficult to see, not easier? Globularists must be getting desperate now.
Africa is not half the size of the earth in these images. ( Although it is a huge continent)
It is atleast a third of the earth according to that photoshopped job you just showed me.
Does the moonlight make city lights more difficult to see at your house? it doesn't at mine. They are actually brighter than the moon. That's why we invented them and all. ::)
It would if I were trying to see them from very far away. This is so self-evident, I'm surprised that you would attempt to defend your position other than from hubris.
The first thing to realise is that Africa is freaking HUGE. Yes, it probably does take up a third of the visual area tghe globe when looking at it straight on.
(http://www.themapshop.co.uk/images/globes/Madison_Physical_small.jpg)
(http://www.diercke.de/pix/online_globus/globus1.jpg)
The second thing to realise is that the camera used in this image has a fair degree of distortion, enough to make the curvature flatter at the top than at the sides of the view. I tried to overlay a circle over the curvature and could not, regardless of the size I made the circle. So it's impossible to guage from this photo how big the circle would need to be to represent the rest of teh unseen part of the Earth.