Ham Radio and Moonbounce

Here is a link to another Toronto-across-the-lake photo that clearly shows that you *can't* see the shoreline from that distance (because there is a "hump" of water in the way):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Ontario#Images

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_from_LO.JPG

So who's right?

How close was the camera to the surface of the water? How high were those waves? Was the tide in?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 15, 2009, 01:59:13 AM

Here is a link to another Toronto-across-the-lake photo that clearly shows that you *can't* see the shoreline from that distance (because there is a "hump" of water in the way):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Ontario#Images

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_from_LO.JPG

So who's right?

How close was the camera to the surface of the water? How high were those waves? Was the tide in?

What was the true elevation at which Levee's photos were taken?

How do we know that they weren't really taken on a boat sat near the Toronto shoreline?

Edit: can we agree that lake photos prove nothing and return to the OP, please?

What was the true elevation at which Levee's photos were taken?

I don't know. I'm not Levee, neither am I the photogorapher.

I'm asking you to describe the nature of the photos you presented as evidence. So how about it?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 15, 2009, 02:09:44 AM

What was the true elevation at which Levee's photos were taken?

I don't know. I'm not Levee, neither am I the photogorapher.

I'm asking you to describe the nature of the photos you presented as evidence. So how about it?

I have not given adequate details of the second-hand photos which I have referenced ...

In the same way that Levee has not given adequate details of the second-hand photos which he has referenced.

From which I reasonably conclude that second-hand lake photos are not suitable evidence.

"So how about that?"

Now: please return to the OP.

And where is that maths that I asked you for re star-trails?

I'm asking you to describe the nature of the photos you presented as evidence. So how about it?

So you instictively attack the admissability of my evidence because in am a Round Earther ...

But you do not draw into question the admissability of Levee's evidence because he is a Flat Earther?

Do I detect a significant bias in your motives?

If so, then I think that you lack the necessary fairness and critical reasoning skills to engage in grown-up scientific debate.

I have not given adequate details of the second-hand photos which I have referenced ...

In the same way that Levee has not given adequate details of the second-hand photos which he has referenced.

From which I reasonably conclude that second-hand lake photos are not suitable evidence.

No evidence then. Got it.

So you instictively attack the admissability of my evidence because in am a Round Earther ...

But you do not draw into question the admissability of Levee's evidence because he is a Flat Earther?

Do I detect a significant bias in your motives?

If so, then I think that you lack the necessary fairness and critical reasoning skills to engage in grown-up scientific debate.

I've looked at the pictures Levee presented. The caption in the picture album labels the picture as "Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton." I don't know of many 194 foot high beaches.

In that photo album there's also a picture of the photographer standing right there on the Lake Ontraio Beach, dated at the same time as the other picture. He's obviously not standing on a giant 200 foot sand dune.

I've looked at the pictures Levee presented. The caption in the picture album labels the picture as "Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton." I don't know of many 194 foot high beaches.

The photographer could be lying - he could have really taken the photos from a boat half way across the lake.

Or he could have photoshopped them - the same way that NASA do with all their space pictures.

For all we know he is part of some grand Flat Earth Conspiracy and cannot be trusted.

mulian jartin let me completely destroy your mediocre, half-assed beliefs in the round earth system. Your snicker at the actual scientific data quoted by me, tells everybody that you have a very immature approach to science, the complete defeat of your arguments should serve you as a lesson...

(mulian, I speak several languages; in one of them, pacient = patient, how come you did not notice the fact that the explosion from Tunguska was seen from 1000 km distance?)

You are assuming a round shape; I will prove to you the shape of the surface is 100% flat, therefore my electrical signal model is correct, as I have described it.

GRIMSBY - TORONTO, 53 KM, 55 METER CURVATURE

Highest point of reference in the village, 45 meters (Beamer Falls Conservation Area).

In order to see the complete details from Toronto shoreline, you must ascend all the way to 220 meters.

If we go inland, 2 kilometers, we will ascend to about 170 meters; in order to see the complete details, we must ascend further to 237 meters.

NOW, THE COMPLETE DETAILS FROM TWO ZOOM PHOTOGRAPHS:

Normal day with no mirage
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html





Smaller format:





Original photos with no zoom:




In the zoom taken at nighttime, the complete details, even the lights from the small island in front of Toronto, details which could be seen only if we would ascend to 220 meters in Grimsby (place photographs were taken), or to 237 meters 2 km further inland.

In the zoom taken at daytime, we can see even the small 2-4 story buildings next to the shoreline, absolutely impossible on a round earth from 53 km distance; there is no point of reference in Grimsby of a height of 220 meters.

If we go inland, 2 kilometers, we will ascend to about 170 meters; in order to see the complete details, we must ascend further to 237 meters.

A few quick calculations show that the height of the hill of water at 170 meters a couple of kilometres back from Grimsby is about 3 meters. You should easily be able to see 2-4 storey buildings over that.

Your calculations were too quick; you should see nothing under 5.56 meters. In the zoom taken at nighttime we can see EVERYTHING, even the light from the small island in front of Toronto; and in the original (without zoom) photo in daytime, we can see every detail with no curvature whatsoever. 170 meters is a height which we will find 2 km inland, in Grimsby, the actual place the photographs were taken, we can ascend just to about 45 meters.

If you still have doubts, let me remove them right now:

Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meters curvature, absolutely nonexistent, there isn't one centimeter/one inch of curvature over this distance:












Let us increase the distance to 33.6 km, zero curvature (supposed to be 22 meters), Oakville - Toronto:

Has anyone got any decent diagrams or calculations to show how a radio signal can br transmitted in one direction then received again by the sender after a couple of seconds from 180 degrees behind?

(Remember the OP?)

Please don't just say that it bounces around on the atmospheric meniscus ...

Give us a decent diagram to illustrate your point - because I'd like to see hoe the signal moves at the bottom edges (where the Flat earth meets the edge of the atmosphere to make a semi-circle).

Thanks!

you should see nothing under 5.56 meters. In the zoom taken at nighttime we can see EVERYTHING, even the light from the small island in front of Toronto; and in the original (without zoom) photo in daytime, we can see every detail with no curvature whatsoever.

Are you saying that that's no lights on the island more than 6 meters above the surface of the water? I can't even tell that the lights are those of the island, but so be it.

Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meters curvature, absolutely nonexistent, there isn't one centimeter/one inch of curvature over this distance:

I wouldn't say the image is of a sufficient resolution to determine individual centimetres. As I haven't seen what the coast of Toronto looks like right down to the water's edge, I can's say if that's the whole of the coast, although it seems unlikely that it would be made of what looks like tree tops.


3 Tesla also has a good point, one of the earlier questions of the topic has been overlooked.

I don't know why you feel the need to reverse my name levee - just call me jules, that's fine.

Yeah I don't care about sea levels or whatever - that isn't the point of this thread. Go and talk about it in the relevant threads, how about here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

All you have been able to do is relate to dubious tesla EM theory that has no relevance to circumnavigational em propagation.

I want to know, how one can transmit a signal directionally in one plane, and then seconds to under a second later, receive said signal in the opposite plane behind oneself, BEFORE it is received again in front of oneself?

Stop citing sinking ship crap, with toronto appearing here and there. Put it in the appropriate thread. Here, is not the place.

Stop calling me half arsed, I know what I'm talking about. You are citing theorems that apply to either wildly different circumstances (ELF waves for example), and nothing (meniscus for example) that applies to HF waves. Give it up. It's annoying, and if anything, you are being childish. Answer the question directly:

How one can transmit a signal directionally in one plane, and then seconds to under a second later, receive said signal in the opposite plane behind oneself, BEFORE it is received again in front of oneself?

I've done it, as have countless others. Put some real maths down as opposed to pictures of Canada. I can go on flickr.com for that stuff.

How one can transmit a signal directionally in one plane, and then seconds to under a second later, receive said signal in the opposite plane behind oneself, BEFORE it is received again in front of oneself?

Still no diagrams illustaring how this can happen on a Flat Earth, I see.

Julian Martin:

Could you knock up a quick Round-Earth diagram to increase the pressure?

Am I right in thinking that the radio signal bounces from ionosphere to earth to ionosphere to earth all the way around?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2009, 05:32:47 AM

I've looked at the pictures Levee presented. The caption in the picture album labels the picture as "Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton." I don't know of many 194 foot high beaches.

The photographer could be lying - he could have really taken the photos from a boat half way across the lake.

Or he could have photoshopped them - the same way that NASA do with all their space pictures.

For all we know he is part of some grand Flat Earth Conspiracy and cannot be trusted.

So no explanation for the picture then?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 15, 2009, 10:25:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2009, 05:32:47 AM

I've looked at the pictures Levee presented. The caption in the picture album labels the picture as "Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton." I don't know of many 194 foot high beaches.

The photographer could be lying - he could have really taken the photos from a boat half way across the lake.

Or he could have photoshopped them - the same way that NASA do with all their space pictures.

For all we know he is part of some grand Flat Earth Conspiracy and cannot be trusted.

So no explanation for the picture then?

So no explanation for circular star-trails, then?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 15, 2009, 10:25:47 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2009, 05:32:47 AM

I've looked at the pictures Levee presented. The caption in the picture album labels the picture as "Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton." I don't know of many 194 foot high beaches.

The photographer could be lying - he could have really taken the photos from a boat half way across the lake.

Or he could have photoshopped them - the same way that NASA do with all their space pictures.

For all we know he is part of some grand Flat Earth Conspiracy and cannot be trusted.

So no explanation documentation for the picture then?

Fixed.

The photographer does document the picture. In that photo album there's also a picture of the photographer standing right there on the Lake Ontraio Beach, dated at the same time as the other picture. He's obviously not standing on a giant 200 foot sand dune.

The photographer does document the picture. In that photo album there's also a picture of the photographer standing right there on the Lake Ontraio Beach, dated at the same time as the other picture. He's obviously not standing on a giant 200 foot sand dune.

Look what is on that same beach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lakeland_Bistro.JPG
It looks like it would give you a great vantage point to photograph Toronto, with the higher elevation and all. I would be surprised if he didn't go up there for the photograph. No need for a 200 foot sand dune.

The photographer does document the picture. In that photo album there's also a picture of the photographer standing right there on the Lake Ontraio Beach, dated at the same time as the other picture. He's obviously not standing on a giant 200 foot sand dune.

Where does it say that the photo in question was taken from that precise location?

Where does it say that the photo in question was taken from that precise location?

Read the caption of the image in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream/

"Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton."

I've underlined the pertinent part of the image's description.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 01:24:43 PM

Where does it say that the photo in question was taken from that precise location?

Read the caption of the image in question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream/

"Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontraio Beach in Hamilton."

And there happens to be a tower with a balcony on that beach.

And there happens to be a tower with a balcony on that beach.

That little tower clearly isn't on any beach.

Quote from: cdenley on June 19, 2009, 02:00:29 PM

And there happens to be a tower with a balcony on that beach.

That little tower clearly isn't on any beach.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=Lakeland+Bistro+hamilton,+ontario&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&cid=2730876588235768871&li=lmd
Nice try.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 19, 2009, 02:01:59 PM

Quote from: cdenley on June 19, 2009, 02:00:29 PM

And there happens to be a tower with a balcony on that beach.

That little tower clearly isn't on any beach.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=Lakeland+Bistro+hamilton,+ontario&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&cid=2730876588235768871&li=lmd
Nice try.

Is Tom bending the truth as well as bending light, now?

:-)

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=Lakeland+Bistro+hamilton,+ontario&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&cid=2730876588235768871&li=lmd
Nice try.

180 Van Wagner's Beach Rd isn't on a beach.

Did you take the picture, Tom?  Can you personally verify it's authenticity?

No?  A caption on a photo found on the internet must be considered proof, isn't that right scientist Tom?

And another topic is successfully derailed by scientist Tom. 

Now, about those Ham radio waves...

Quote from: cdenley on June 19, 2009, 02:07:28 PM

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=Lakeland+Bistro+hamilton,+ontario&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&cid=2730876588235768871&li=lmd
Nice try.

Van Wagner's Beach Rd isn't on a beach.

No, but it *is* close enough to the beach that the photographer could have used it to take his/her pictures ...

As well you know!

Van Wagner's Beach Rd isn't on a beach.

A building between a road and a beach is still considered "on the beach". Hotels "on the beach" are still considered "on the beach" even though there is a road which leads to the hotel. What address would you expect a building on the beach to have? Now you are trying to divert everyone's attention to the meaning of "on the beach". However, it is reasonable to expect that someone taking a photo from the tower which is somewhere between Van Wagner's Beach Rd and Lake Ontario would say the photo is "from Lake Ontraio Beach". You can even tell from the photo you linked to the man is standing on the trail which borders the tower you can clearly see in the satellite photograph, or what you would believe to be an aerial photograph.

No, but it *is* close enough to the beach that the photographer could have used it to take his/her pictures ...

As well you know!

Fortunately the photographer tells us that he took the picture on the beach and includes pictures of himself and his friend standing on the beach.