Pictures taken at Sea

  • 68 Replies
  • 21663 Views
Pictures taken at Sea
« on: October 03, 2008, 01:04:37 AM »
Here are pictures that I took yesterday...


View toward the north-northeast with no magnification


Magnified view of Thunder Horse PDQ (Thunder Horse at BP.com)


Magnified view of the drillship Discoverer Enterprise (Discoverer Enterprise at Deepwater.com)

The ship and the structure are both approximately 16 nautical miles (nm) north-northwest of our location as determined by radar.  My height of eye while taking the pictures was 23 meters (76 feet) and the magnified pictures were taken using binoculars (7x50) with the digital camera.

Here are pictures of the two vessels for reference...


Thunder Horse


Discoverer Enterprise

In the picture of Thunder Horse you can see that there is no gap at the waterline that would be visible is we were able to see her waterline, instead we see her upper works at the horizon.

In the picture of the Discoverer Enterprise we see the forward superstructure and the gap between the forward superstructure and the derrick, but again, the hull is not visible.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2008, 06:19:41 AM by Rig Navigator »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2008, 05:04:11 AM »
More pictures with clouds. I don't trust them at all.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2008, 07:52:56 AM »
Quote from: Rig Navigator
Here are pictures that I took yesterday...
Without Binoculars:


With Binoculars:


Your binoculars seem to have uncovered a good part of the obscured structure's bottom, exactly as Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Thomas Winship, and Cyrus Teed said they would.

Maybe if you had a telescope instead of some binoculars we could see even more of it.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2008, 11:46:24 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2008, 08:52:17 AM »
Quote from: Rig Navigator
Here are pictures that I took yesterday...
Unzoomed:


Zoomed:


Your binoculars seem to have uncovered a good part of the obscured structure's bottom, exactly as Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Thomas Winship, and Cyrus Teed said they would.

Maybe if you had a telescope instead of some binoculars we could see even more of it.

So you're saying a telescope would reveal ALL of a ship no matter how far?
Why don't you just try that out, or are you afraid to...
(I've done it as a matter of fact)

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2008, 09:00:35 AM »
So you're saying a telescope would reveal ALL of a ship no matter how far?
Why don't you just try that out, or are you afraid to...
(I've done it as a matter of fact)

Samual Rowbotham mentioned something about a Law of Perspective where the point of perspective falls past the horizon.
Quote from: Raist
One thing we have learned is don't fuck around in Africa. It leads to bad.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2008, 09:03:29 AM »
So you're saying a telescope would reveal ALL of a ship no matter how far?
Why don't you just try that out, or are you afraid to...
(I've done it as a matter of fact)

Samual Rowbotham mentioned something about a Law of Perspective where the point of perspective falls past the horizon.
Yeah I agree, it's called the curvature of the earth

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2008, 11:53:26 AM »
Quote
So you're saying a telescope would reveal ALL of a ship no matter how far?

When Cyrus Teed viewed a half sunken hull with a telescope he was able to restore its hull, proving that it was not really behind a "hill of water," but was hidden due to a Vanishing Point effect.

When Rig Navigator viewed the oil platform with his binoculars he was able to restore a good part of its base. This proves that it was not really behind a "hill of water". If Rig Navigator were to use a telescope like the writers do in the Flat Earth literature he would be able to restore the entire structure.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2008, 11:56:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2008, 12:28:01 PM »
Quote
So you're saying a telescope would reveal ALL of a ship no matter how far?

When Cyrus Teed viewed a half sunken hull with a telescope he was able to restore its hull, proving that it was not really behind a "hill of water," but was hidden due to a Vanishing Point effect.

When Rig Navigator viewed the oil platform with his binoculars he was able to restore a good part of its base. This proves that it was not really behind a "hill of water". If Rig Navigator were to use a telescope like the writers do in the Flat Earth literature he would be able to restore the entire structure.



Yeah well, why don't you just go try that yourself, instead of pondering what 'would have happened' had it been done. (Though in fact it's been done countless times)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42250
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2008, 12:38:22 PM »
Quote
So you're saying a telescope would reveal ALL of a ship no matter how far?

When Cyrus Teed viewed a half sunken hull with a telescope he was able to restore its hull, proving that it was not really behind a "hill of water," but was hidden due to a Vanishing Point effect.

When Rig Navigator viewed the oil platform with his binoculars he was able to restore a good part of its base. This proves that it was not really behind a "hill of water". If Rig Navigator were to use a telescope like the writers do in the Flat Earth literature he would be able to restore the entire structure.

It's a shame that Cyrus Teed didn't have a camera and snap a quick pick through his telescope so that his observation could be preserved for posterity.   :(
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2008, 12:48:27 PM »
Quote
Yeah well, why don't you just go try that yourself, instead of pondering what 'would have happened' had it been done. (Though in fact it's been done countless times)

Why do I need to do it for myself? Rig Navigator already restored some of an obscured body by looking at it through binoculars.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2008, 01:32:45 PM »
Quote
Yeah well, why don't you just go try that yourself, instead of pondering what 'would have happened' had it been done. (Though in fact it's been done countless times)

Why do I need to do it for myself? Rig Navigator already restored some of an obscured body by looking at it through binoculars.
So you would have first-hand evidence to base your beliefs on, duh. I've got mine.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2008, 04:38:04 PM »
Your binoculars seem to have uncovered a good part of the obscured structure's bottom, exactly as Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Thomas Winship, and Cyrus Teed said they would.

Simply not true.



As you can see, the ratio of lower part to upper part remains the about same (it actually decreases slightly with increasing zoom). Rowbotham (and you) say it should increase significantly wih higher zoom.

These pictures are evidence against Rowbotham, although they are too blurry to be of much use.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2008, 11:15:47 PM »
Why do I need to do it for myself? Rig Navigator already restored some of an obscured body by looking at it through binoculars.

The base of Thunder Horse was not brought back through the use of binoculars.  [Thunder Horse is supported by four large legs with an air gap underneath...



In the magnified picture, those legs are not visible.  According to FE, I would have been able to restore the upper hull and the legs of the platform through magnification.  We can see the flare boom at the left side of the binoculars image (in the publicity shot this comes off of the right side of the platform) and we can also make out the crane booms to the left and right of the derrick, but can not see the legs that are painted red.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2008, 06:26:23 AM »
Quote
In the magnified picture, those legs are not visible.  According to FE, I would have been able to restore the upper hull and the legs of the platform through magnification.

Through proper magnification. You failed to use a telescope like the authors did in the literature.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 06:27:54 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2008, 06:30:18 AM »
B
Quote
In the magnified picture, those legs are not visible.  According to FE, I would have been able to restore the upper hull and the legs of the platform through magnification.

Through proper magnification. You failed to use a telescope like the authors did in the literature.

What is proper magnification? Explain.

What actual differences, besides magnification, does a telescope have over binoculars or zoom lenses?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2008, 06:37:05 AM »
Quote
What is proper magnification? Explain.

A quality telescope, as described in the Flat Earth Literature. Read the books referenced in my signature link.

Quote
What actual differences, besides magnification, does a telescope have over binoculars or zoom lenses?

Magnification and resolution ratio.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2008, 06:41:02 AM »
A quality telescope, as described in the Flat Earth Literature. Read the books referenced in my signature link.

I must have missed where he described his telescope.  Can you post that please?


Quote
Magnification and resolution ratio.

How would the magnification effect the outcome of this experiment?  If I have a higher magnification, the size of the image would be bigger, but no other difference.

I can understand that resolution would have made the images clearer, but that is also a function of the camera that was used.  If the resolution of the camera isn't that great, you will still get grainy images.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2008, 06:41:54 AM »
Tom, get a clue!!  Today's optics, including the cheap ones, are much better than any telescope from over 100 years ago.  

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2008, 06:44:07 AM »
Quote
I must have missed where he described his telescope.  Can you post that please?

READ THE LITERATURE

Quote
How would the magnification effect the outcome of this experiment?  If I have a higher magnification, the size of the image would be bigger, but no other difference.

A proper amount of magnification restores bodies lost to perspective. READ THE LITERATURE

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2008, 06:45:06 AM »
Quote
What is proper magnification? Explain.

A quality telescope, as described in the Flat Earth Literature. Read the books referenced in my signature link.

Quote
What actual differences, besides magnification, does a telescope have over binoculars or zoom lenses?

Magnification and resolution ratio.

Rowbowtham doesn't actually state any information about the telescope in the bedford experiments. What is a ""good telescope"?
Nowhere does he mention the magnification or resolving power of the telescope he used.
Reading the literature doesn't help if the information isn't there to begin with.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 06:46:56 AM by dyno »

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2008, 06:45:14 AM »
Tom, get a clue!!  Today's optics, including the cheap ones, are much better than any telescope from over 100 years ago.  

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2008, 06:46:16 AM »
Quote
I must have missed where he described his telescope.  Can you post that please?

READ THE LITERATURE

Quote
How would the magnification effect the outcome of this experiment?  If I have a higher magnification, the size of the image would be bigger, but no other difference.

A proper amount of magnification restores bodies lost to perspective. READ THE LITERATURE

POST EXPERIMENTS YOU HAVE DONE YOURSELF

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2008, 06:55:39 AM »
Quote
Rowbowtham doesn't actually state any information about the telescope in the bedford experiments. What is a ""good telescope"?
Nowhere does he mention the magnification or resolving power of the telescope he used.
Reading the literature doesn't help if the information isn't there to begin with.

It's all right there in the literature. Read it.

Quote
POST EXPERIMENTS YOU HAVE DONE YOURSELF

Here's an experiment I did for myself: I read the literature and found the methods inconsistent to the methods used in this thread.

Quote
Tom, get a clue!!  Today's optics, including the cheap ones, are much better than any telescope from over 100 years ago. 

Nope. The 1800's were the golden age of telescopes, when glass and lens manufacturing was perfected.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 07:16:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2008, 06:57:18 AM »
So, you are telling me that the telescopes of old are better than the computer ground glass and micro-coated glass of today?

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2008, 06:58:16 AM »
Quote
Rowbowtham doesn't actually state any information about the telescope in the bedford experiments. What is a ""good telescope"?
Nowhere does he mention the magnification or resolving power of the telescope he used.
Reading the literature doesn't help if the information isn't there to begin with.

It's all right there in the literature. Read it.

Quote
Tom, get a clue!!  Today's optics, including the cheap ones, are much better than any telescope from over 100 years ago. 

Nope. The 1800's were the golden age of telescopes, when glass and lens manufacturing was perfected.

I just did read the bedford experiment pages. It isn't in there. Perhaps you can quote it to help us out?

You believe the manufacture of optics 200 years ago was superior to methods used today? You believe the quality of glass used 200 years ago was superior? You think the glass used then had less contaminants?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2008, 06:58:21 AM »
So, you are telling me that the telescopes of old are better than the computer ground glass and micro-coated glass of today?

They're nearly exactly the same. Telescopes are a technology which were perfected in the 1800's. The 1800's were the golden age of telescopes.

Quote
I just did read the bedford experiment pages. It isn't in there. Perhaps you can quote it to help us out?

Read a little more than the first couple of pages. I'm not your reference librarian.

Quote
You believe the manufacture of optics 200 years ago was superior to methods used today?

The manufacture of optics was perfected in the 1800's, the golden age of telescopes.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 07:00:29 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2008, 06:58:55 AM »
I BEG TO DIFFER!! >:(

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2008, 06:59:47 AM »
So, you are telling me that the telescopes of old are better than the computer ground glass and micro-coated glass of today?

They're nearly exactly the same. Telescopes are a technology which were perfected in the 1800's. The 1800's were the golden age of telescopes.

What makes you believe this?

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2008, 07:02:12 AM »
It's all right there in the literature. Read it.

I have read it and couldn't find where it described the telescope that he was using.

Here is the quote from Experiment #1...

Quote
The author, with a good telescope, went into the water

Not description of the telescope.  What does good mean?


Quote
Here's an experiment I did myself: I read the literature and found the methods inconsistent to the methods used in this thread.

Is there a link there that we are supposed to be able to go to?  Otherwise, that line doesn't make any sense.


Quote
Nope. The 1800's were the golden age of telescopes, when glass and lens manufacturing was perfected.

So in the 1800s they were making micro accurate lenses that were affordable for the common person, and portable?  Can you please provide some evidence of that?

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2008, 07:05:27 AM »
Quote
Rowbowtham doesn't actually state any information about the telescope in the bedford experiments. What is a ""good telescope"?
Nowhere does he mention the magnification or resolving power of the telescope he used.
Reading the literature doesn't help if the information isn't there to begin with.

It's all right there in the literature. Read it.

Quote
POST EXPERIMENTS YOU HAVE DONE YOURSELF

Here's an experiment I did myself: I read the literature and found the methods inconsistent to the methods used in this thread.



Well I read literature stating the earth was round, therefore I did sufficient experimentation to prove that it is.

POST EXPERIMENTS YOU HAVE DONE YOURSELF