Ham Radio and Moonbounce

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.

The tower is on the beach in that it borders the beach. In the other photo, he was standing on a paved trail which is between the tower and the beach.

Please look at the photo gallery. "On the beach" clearly means "on the beach" and not "up on a tower".

Here's the album in its sequential order. The captions are left in tact. All pictures were taken on the same day:


A Seagull Takes Flight at Lake Ontraio Beach



A Bistro at Lake Ontraio Beach



Hutches Fish & Chips and Ice Cream at Lake Ontraio Beach



Driftwood at Lake Ontraio Beach



Me (Rick) at Lake Ontraio Beach



David at Lake Ontraio Beach



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



Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto



Lake Ontraio Beach

Quote

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.

Unless the photographer was lying, of course!

If NASA's photos of The Earth from The Moon are fake as you say ...

Then these photos of Toronto could be fake too.

And let's face it - photoshopping a skyline with a flat base onto a lake with a flat top is so easy a five year-old could do it.

Edit - as already suggested:

nice photoshop skills leveee
try using real evidence instead of bullshit.

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."

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

Tom, here's another photo that was taken at Lake Ontario Beach by the same photographer.  Was it taken at precisely the same location as the one in question?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487754623/

The lot of you, round earth and flat earth alike:

You arguments are not successfully progressing the OP of this thread....please cut it out.

I want to talk about circumnavigational propagation and suchlike....many of the previous posts have not enticed debate on such subjects.

Tom Bishop, I am going to point the finger at you. You seem to continually want to mislead this thread from a topic that has serious repercussions for FE and RE skeptics alike. Please would you desist and take your dubious methods elsewhere?

I don't care for them in serious discussion.

And yes, 3 tesla, I can very easily knock up an image to display the propagation I mean. And yes, ionospheric reflection is what I am talking about. In the HF band.

You arguments are not successfully progressing the OP of this thread....please cut it out.

Please don't take it personally - it's a common "debate" tactic around here.

If you do a search for "Toronto" you will find plenty of threads that Levee, et al. have tried to derail with their dubious lake-view pictures.

(Or "Tunguska" - another of Levee's favourite defelction tactics.)

levee,

1. stop swearing - not necessary
2. you don't mean centrifugal - if you had studied any post high school physics you would know the word you are looking for is centripetal.
3. your whole post is off topic.

levee,

1. stop swearing - not necessary
2. you don't mean centrifugal - if you had studied any post high school physics you would know the word you are looking for is centripetal.
3. your whole post is off topic.

Also, by "tangential force" I think levee actually means "radial force".

Tom, here's another photo that was taken at Lake Ontario Beach by the same photographer.  Was it taken at precisely the same location as the one in question?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487754623/

Sorry, but that's still on the beach. Plenty of grass types grow in sand. Turf, for example.

If you do a search for "Toronto" you will find plenty of threads that Levee, et al. have tried to derail with their dubious lake-view pictures.

It's not dubious. When there is no explanation for how there is no curvature in the view across Lake Ontario, it's crystal clear that the RE model is incorrect.

Quote from: markjo on June 19, 2009, 03:01:13 PM

Tom, here's another photo that was taken at Lake Ontario Beach by the same photographer.  Was it taken at precisely the same location as the one in question?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487754623/

Sorry, but that's still on the beach. Plenty of grass types grow in sand. Turf, for example.

Yes Tom, I know that the picture was on the beach.  However, Lake Ontario has lots of beach.  Miles of beach.  That wasn't what I was asking.  I was asking if all of those pictures in that photographer's fliker page were taken from the exact same spot on Lake Ontario beach?

Quote

If you do a search for "Toronto" you will find plenty of threads that Levee, et al. have tried to derail with their dubious lake-view pictures.

It's not dubious. When there is no explanation for how there is no curvature in the view across Lake Ontario, it's crystal clear that the RE model is wrong.

Yes, it is dubious.  There is no verifiable documentation stating exactly where (location and elevation) those pictures were taken.  Forgive us if we seem a bit skeptical of Levee's claim of "no curvature visible" when we can't determine how much curvature should be visible.

BTW, as has been mentioned before, those photos are off topic anyways.

Yes Tom, I know that the picture was on the beach.  However, Lake Ontario has lots of beach.  Miles of beach.  That wasn't what I was asking.  I was asking if all of those pictures in that photographer's fliker page were taken from the exact same spot on Lake Ontario beach?

Please see my previous post on the subject: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg724809#msg724809

The author's photo album shows the pictures in chronological order as he and his friend walk along the beach. Each image is captioned "from the beach," indicating that the pictures were taken from the beach.

The author doesn't ascend any towers in the plaza. He is walking along a beach.

Yes, it is dubious.  There is no verifiable documentation stating exactly where (location and elevation) those pictures were taken.

Actually, there is documentation. The captions of the images clearly say that they were taken from the beach. We know exactly where the images were taken. They were taken FROM THE BEACH.

They were taken FROM THE BEACH.

OK, that narrows it down to about a 3 mile stretch.  WHERE on the beach were those pictures taken?

OK, that narrows it down to about a 3 mile stretch.  WHERE on the beach were those pictures taken?

It doesn't matter. The beach is at or just above sea level.

Quote from: markjo on June 20, 2009, 01:39:53 PM

OK, that narrows it down to about a 3 mile stretch.  WHERE on the beach were those pictures taken?

It doesn't matter. The beach is at or just above sea level.

Except there are things on the beach, such as that tower, which would give the photographer a much better view.

The tower borders the trail which the next photograph was taken from. You can't deny the possibility that the photographer took that photo from a higher elevation, then still considered the photo to have been taken from Lake Ontario Beach when writing the caption. That was just one example of how the photographer could have used higher elevation for that photo. This means we can't determine what elevation the photo was taken from.

The tower borders the trail which the next photograph was taken from. You can't deny the possibility that the photographer took that photo from a higher elevation, then still considered the photo to have been taken from Lake Ontario Beach when writing the caption. That was just one example of how the photographer could have used higher elevation for that photo. This means we can't determine what elevation the photo was taken from.

There are probably plenty of four story buildings next to that beach. No one climbs a building in a plaza, takes a picture, and says that they took it "from a beach". Not to mention, I've never heard of a 200 foot tall four story building.

The order of the photos are as follows: a picture of some driftwood at the water's edge, a picture of the photographer, a picture of the photographers friend, a picture of Toronto, and finally another picture of the ocean splashing at the water's edge. Obviously the photographer never climbed any towers in that sequence.

All pictures are captioned as taken "from the beach". Therefore they are "from the beach". No leaps of logic necessary.

Quote

The tower borders the trail which the next photograph was taken from. You can't deny the possibility that the photographer took that photo from a higher elevation, then still considered the photo to have been taken from Lake Ontario Beach when writing the caption. That was just one example of how the photographer could have used higher elevation for that photo. This means we can't determine what elevation the photo was taken from.

There are probably plenty of four story buildings next to that beach. No one climbs a building in a plaza, takes a picture, and says that they took it "from a beach". Not to mention, I've never seen a 200 foot tall four story building.

The order of the photos are as follows: a picture of some driftwood at the water's edge, a picture of the photographer, a picture of the photographers friend, a picture of Toronto, and finally another picture at the water's edge. Obviously he never climbed any towers in that sequence.

All pictures are captioned as taken "from the beach". Therefore they are "from the beach". No leaps of logic involved.

Tom, unless you were there, you don't know the order in which those pictures were taken.  You only know the order in which they were posted.  You also don't know where exactly those pictures were taken, other than "from the beach".

Tom, unless you were there, you don't know the order in which those pictures were taken.  You only know the order in which they were posted.  You also don't know where exactly those pictures were taken, other than "from the beach".

I do know where the photos were taken. They were taken from the beach. Exactly as the photographer informs us himself in his own words. He would know because he was there.

If you think that they were taken from the Sears Tower or wherever, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. Until then they were taken from the beach.

Quote from: markjo on June 20, 2009, 02:14:36 PM

Tom, unless you were there, you don't know the order in which those pictures were taken.  You only know the order in which they were posted.  You also don't know where exactly those pictures were taken, other than "from the beach".

I do know where the photos were taken. They were taken from the beach. Exactly as the photographer informs us himself in his own words. He would know because he was there.

If you think that they were taken on the Sears Tower or wherever, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. Until then they were taken from the beach.

Get out of this thread unless you have something useful about radio transmissions to contribute. At the minute, I am classing you as a spammer.

Quote

If you do a search for "Toronto" you will find plenty of threads that Levee, et al. have tried to derail with their dubious lake-view pictures.

It's not dubious. When there is no explanation for how there is no curvature in the view across Lake Ontario, it's crystal clear that the RE model is incorrect.

They are dubious for two very good reasons which you obstinately refuse to acknowledge:

1. The photogrpaher lied about where the photos were really taken from

2. The photos were faked using Photoshop, or some such (very easy, as the interface is a straight line)

Debating with you is like arguing with an eight year-old boy.

They are dubious for two very good reasons which you obstinately refuse to acknowledge:

1. The photogrpaher lied about where the photos were really taken from

2. The photos were faked using Photoshop, or some such (very easy, as the interface is a straight line)

Debating with you is like arguing with an eight year-old boy.

Actually the photographer does tell us where the photos were taken from. It's right there in the caption of every photograph. They were taken from Lake Ontario Beach.

If you believe that they were taken from the Barad-dur Tower, the burden is on you to demonstrate those contentions. Until then the photos were taken exactly as described. They were taken from the Lake Ontario Beach.

You can find reference to the photograph's location in the captions provided by the photographer. You will find that they were taken from the beach.

Actually the photographer does tell us where the photos were taken from. It's right there in the caption of every photograph. They were taken from Lake Ontario Beach.

If you believe that they were taken from the Barad-dur Tower or wherever, the burden is on you to demonstrate those contentions. Until then the photos were taken exactly as described. They were taken from the Lake Ontario Beach.

So when NASA says "look - here is a photo of The Earth that one of our astronauts took from The Moon" ...

And you say that the photo is faked ...

Then "the burden is on you to demonstrate those contentions. Until then the photos were taken exactly as described."

Therefore until you can do that I am forced to believe NASA when they say they have flown men to The Moon.

Maybe you could say "it's an elaborate beach hoax" if the beach photographer had a well documented history of deception and outright hoaxing like NASA does. However, he does not.

So the burden's still on you to demonstrate your contentions.

Maybe you could say "it's an elaborate beach hoax" if the beach photographer had a well documented history of deception and outright hoaxing like NASA does. However, he does not.

The fact that s/he has never lied before does not prove that s/he is telling the truth on this occasion.

The fact that s/he has never lied before does not prove that s/he is telling the truth on this occasion.

Sure it does. The fact that the photographer has not been shown to be untrustworthy, and has never been shown to be untrustworthy, demonstrates that there is no reason to doubt him now.

The burden is on you to show that the photographer is untrustworthy. Until then the photographs were taken exactly as depicted and described: from the beach.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 21, 2009, 06:50:12 AM

The fact that s/he has never lied before does not prove that s/he is telling the truth on this occasion.

Sure it does. The fact that the photographer has not been shown to be untrustworthy before, and has never been shown to be untrustworthy, demonstrates that there is no reason to doubt him now.

All liars have to start lying sometime.

Quote from: markjo on June 20, 2009, 02:14:36 PM

Tom, unless you were there, you don't know the order in which those pictures were taken.  You only know the order in which they were posted.  You also don't know where exactly those pictures were taken, other than "from the beach".

I do know where the photos were taken. They were taken from the beach. Exactly as the photographer informs us himself in his own words. He would know because he was there.

If you think that they were taken from the Sears Tower or wherever, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. Until then they were taken from the beach.

Tom, notice the lack of foreground reference points.  Unless that beach is about 3 square feet, it's impossible to know exactly where he was on that beach when he took that picture.

Tom, notice the lack of foreground reference points.  Unless that beach is about 3 square feet, it's impossible to know exactly where he was on that beach when he took that picture.

Sure we do. He's right there next to Hutches Fish & Chips and Ice Cream shop.

Please read the descriptions on the photographs. The photographs of Toronto were taken right there from the Lake Ontario Beach. The photographer is taking the pictures from the beach.

The photograph of Toronto was taken right there from the Lake Ontario Beach. The photographer is taking the pictures from the beach.

And then they put the full Toronto sky-line on afterwards with Photoshop?

And then they put the full Toronto sky-line on afterwards with Photoshop?

Clearly not, since the full Toronto sky-line is already visible.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 21, 2009, 08:56:06 AM

And then they put the full Toronto sky-line on afterwards with Photoshop?

Clearly not, since the full Toronto sky-line is already visible.

It's only visible because it has been pasted on top!