Photographic hoax?

  • 50 Replies
  • 8975 Views
*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2007, 01:04:21 AM »
Welcome back....
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

ash bash

  • 278
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2007, 01:29:07 AM »
hello evilomen. actualy the photo could be faked. but possibly isnt
i believe the world is an oblate spheroid. anything i say that contradicts this is purely for the sake of argument.

?

evilomen

  • 8
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2007, 06:36:31 AM »
it cannot be fake, you have to be able to create a picture that looks just like the real thing! which is impossible because nothing is the same as the real thing, except for the real thing!!!!
God hates all haters!

(including himself)

?

ash bash

  • 278
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2007, 06:41:26 AM »
no, it could be an edited photo.
i believe the world is an oblate spheroid. anything i say that contradicts this is purely for the sake of argument.

?

evilomen

  • 8
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2007, 06:43:16 AM »
no it couldnt because it is the real thing, you cannot edit the real thing to look like a different real thing!!
God hates all haters!

(including himself)

?

ash bash

  • 278
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2007, 06:45:38 AM »
it is not sopposed to look like a "different real thing" it is sopposed to look like a not-real think. hence the editing
i believe the world is an oblate spheroid. anything i say that contradicts this is purely for the sake of argument.

?

evilomen

  • 8
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2007, 06:49:08 AM »
wtf ashley valentine from Sharnbrook upper school in bedfordshire in England!!

you're spose to be on my side and say it is real u twirp!!
God hates all haters!

(including himself)

?

ash bash

  • 278
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2007, 06:52:53 AM »
hi george, your points are bad, where are you?
i believe the world is an oblate spheroid. anything i say that contradicts this is purely for the sake of argument.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2007, 09:28:39 PM »
fail
If you can't argue both idees, you ugnnderstand unnderstand neither

*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2007, 05:29:18 AM »
no it couldnt because it is the real thing, you cannot edit the real thing to look like a different real thing!!

Wait, how do you know it's the real thing?

?

ash bash

  • 278
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2007, 06:18:52 AM »
igno0re evilomen. he has mental issues
i believe the world is an oblate spheroid. anything i say that contradicts this is purely for the sake of argument.

*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2007, 08:34:52 AM »
igno0re evilomen. he has mental issues

Then you have lots in common :D

?

evilomen

  • 8
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #42 on: September 14, 2007, 01:15:32 AM »
It must be a fake, with the earth as a background.

how the hell can it be fake if the earth is in the backround, the whole point of the image is to have the earth in it to show the curve!! u smelly person! (i really want to swear but i shall be kicked  :'()
God hates all haters!

(including himself)

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #43 on: September 14, 2007, 02:59:51 AM »
go away
If you can't argue both idees, you ugnnderstand unnderstand neither

?

Pqqu

  • 19
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2007, 05:15:57 PM »


I love my job.

?

ash bash

  • 278
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2007, 09:24:57 AM »
the extent of evilomens mental issues goes well beyond the boundaries of thhis forum. i am sad to say that i know him personally...
i believe the world is an oblate spheroid. anything i say that contradicts this is purely for the sake of argument.

?

Torn Bishop

Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2007, 09:30:12 AM »
the extent of evilomens mental issues goes well beyond the boundaries of thhis forum. i am sad to say that i know him sexually...
Too much information.

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • +0/-0
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2007, 11:42:57 AM »
no it couldnt because it is the real thing, you cannot edit the real thing to look like a different real thing!!

Wait, how do you know it's the real thing?


'cause only the real thing can look like the real thing.
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

?

bubbles

  • 97
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2007, 01:05:42 PM »

This is not faked, it's not a hoax, it's not a fish-eye lens, and it's not distorted by the window.  Nobody is lying, and most of the "I'm right you're wrong" analyses of this photo are complete shit.

But it is distorted.  If this were the true curvature of the Earth, then it would indeed be a Small World After all!

Look folks, this isn't complicated.  This was clearly taken out of an airplane window, by a small snappy-style digital camera.  (I'd guess from about 15,000 feet from a small regional jet...Bombardier, me thinks...)

The apparent distortion is due to the camera's wide angle--the widest it can get, surely.  It is not technically "fish-eye", because it's not so extreme as to produce a round image.  Nor can consumer cameras get so wide as to produce objectionable distortion, or people wouldn't buy them.  But there is distortion.  You can prove this yourself the next time you are faced with a vast apparently flat area--zoom all the way out, point the camera slightly down so the horizon line is high in the frame, and snap.  The horizon will be warped.  Just like this.  Guaranteed.  And yet, a photo of someone's face with the same zoom level will seem just fine.

The wing doesn't appear distorted because 1) it is mostly in line with the vertical midpoint of the lens, thus not warping vertically like the horizon.  It is however warping in the horizontal direction, it's just not very obvious.  Furthermore, 2) The total amount of distortion is not that severe.  The only time you notice it is in shots like this, with horizontal and/or vertical lines that drastically dominate the scene, and your brain knows they should be much straighter--the slightest deviation is overpowering.  With the wing, your brain has not been hardwired since birth to know exactly what shape it should be, so you don't notice the distortion.

You can prove this to yourself: find you favorite little consumer-grade snappy digicam, zoom it all the way out, and take a picture looking perfectly perpendicular to a brick wall that consumes the whole frame.  Then look at the picture.  Any horizontal line above and below the midpoint of the lens will seem warped--more severely so the farther away from center, even though other photos--say, of your friends, or a wing--with the same lens setting will seem perfectly fine.

It's that simple.  Pretty boring, huh.  Hardly worth everyone getting all worked up over.  Only on this forum could this happen.


(Trust me, I've owned some 20 or 30 cameras of all grades and types, have been a semi-pro [not primary income] photographer for 20 years, have written countless advanced photo how-to blogs and articles, and have snapped several terabytes of photos since going digital in 2000.)
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2007, 02:06:45 AM »

The first photo is a fake

Everything is fake. Nothing is real.


?

bubbles

  • 97
  • +0/-0
Re: Photographic hoax?
« Reply #50 on: October 10, 2007, 09:48:41 AM »

The first photo is a fake

Everything is fake. Nothing is real.


And everything is a conspiracy.
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.