Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

please explain

Explain what? That tides and swells are covering the hull?

Quote

please explain

Explain what? That tides and swells are covering the hull?

Waves - such a convenient thing to hide behind!

(No pun intended!)

The waves in the picture do not look high enough to be able to obscure the hull to that degree (if you look at all the original pics).

Using my "photogrammetry" skills, that is - which are second only to those of the great Matzy88!

:-)

Quote

please explain

Explain what? That tides and swells are covering the hull?

If the ship is floating, what effect will the tide have?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2009, 02:35:40 AM

Quote

please explain

Explain what? That tides and swells are covering the hull?

If the ship is floating, what effect will the tide have?

Good spot!

(Answer = next to none.)

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 27, 2009, 01:44:29 AM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 25, 2009, 06:05:27 AM

Quote from: mazty88 on June 25, 2009, 06:02:08 AM

Run a Laplacian Filter. Can easily see that your picture has been falsified.

Please go ahead and do that ...

(For my picture and Levee's.)

Still no Laplacian filter (edge detection) pictures, Mazty88?

I am genuinely keen for you to educate me on this one!

I am really looking forward to seeing your Laplacian filter images, Mazty88!

Sadly Mazty88 is too lazy/arrogant/dumb/stubborn to provide any filtering evidence, so I have had to do it myself!

Here is a picture showing my pyramid pic (left) and one of Levee's of Toronto, as anlysed using an edge-detection filter optimised to emphaise horizontal edges only (PaintShopPro - the help doesn't specify the exact filter type, sadly):



It can be clearly seen that Levee's pic has the much stronger and starighter edge at the land-water interface from which I conclude that my pic is real, and his is fake.

Q.E.D.

Photoshopped pictures, non-photoshopped pictures, i've seen the curvature of the earth with my own eyes.  Simples.

Photoshopped pictures, non-photoshopped pictures, i've seen the curvature of the earth with my own eyes.  Simples.

Ah, but when Tom Bishop says "when I look out of my window I can see that The Earth is flat" ...

Who should I believe?

Not me. I didn't take a picture to share with the class.

Camera's were forbidden.

Not me. I didn't take a picture to share with the class.

Camera's were forbidden.

Forbidden?

Are you in North Korea?

:-)

Not quite. Was on a boat.

Mirages can contribute with some tens of meters given the 128 km distance. No mirage in the world can account for the fact that buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) were seen from 128 km distance, not with a visual obstacle of 946 meters. The surface of the lake (Michigan) is flat.

Do you have any references or math to back up this claim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novaya_Zemlya_effect
The Novaya Zemlya mirage involves light curving around the earth's curvature for over 400km.

Whenever you can, if you can make that trip...if not, we have the Port Credit, Etobicoke, Hamilton photos...the Rochester, NY Toronto skyline...let me apply more death blows to the catastrophic round earth hypothesis...

SANDY HOOK - CONEY ISLAND

DISTANCE 7 MILES, 11.2 KM

CURVATURE 2.4 METERS

On a round earth, we should see a rising slope, with a midpoint visual obstacle of 2.4 meters, but there is no such thing in these photos taken right on the Sandy Hook beach:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2890814609/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2891651706/in/photostream/

It certainly looks as if 2.4 meters of the beach can be obstructed.
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2113950470026446265mxjYcK
Why do you make posts like this? Didn't you realize that the photos don't show enough detail to determine whether or not 2.4 meters of beach are obscured. We shouldn't have to point this stuff out for you.

cdenley, your explanations are standard freshman physics stuff...your trying to insinuate your way around here won't work...not with me...i'm sure that you could dazzle us with brilliance, instead of baffling us with bs...

Do you understand what we are discussing here? There is no curvature between Sandy Hook Beach and Coney Island, no ascending slope, no midpoint visual obstacle...none whatsoever...no matter what word games you try to play with me...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2890814609/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2891651706/in/photostream/

I am glad you brought up the Novaya Zemlya effect...it is closely related to the mistakes made by Rowbotham in those chapters describing the Solar orbit above the Earth...in order to understand the real cause (not a 400 km mirage), please read:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33410#msg33410
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33509#msg33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33520#msg33520
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg34143#msg34143
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=eb9d6819f6da030f65ba6e6cbc1ebae8&topic=830.0

This IS the correct Solar orbit; as it should be included in that wikipedia like reference flat earth book being prepared right now...the explanation offered by Rowbotham, there, is wrong...

Here are shots of the effect: http://www.eh2r.com/mp/data3.html

As for this, http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/ , it was taken at the Beamer Falls Conservation Area, I have included 3 photographs showing the altitude and the location, don't try stuff like that here...in order to see that view, you must ascend to 200 meters, right there...no such geographical reference point at the Conservation Area...no curvature whatsoever in the picture...try again...

Please read again, for you information:

A spherically shaped star/planet would have been impossible to attain from the start.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.0 (the complete demonstration that a supernova could not have produced any kind of rotating gaseous nebula)

Now, a gaseous nebula approaching the form of a disk involves several things. Because of the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action, and we are told that parts of matter more on the periphery broke up into rings. Matter must have been concentrated in just a tiny sector of those rings, given the distance (the diameter) of the rings themselves (in our case, about 150 million kilometers).

Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation (the complete demonstration here: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=536.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=552.0 ), to get from a disk to a sphere, a tangential force of compression which would produce circumferential shortening/radial shrinkage (on the equatorial plane) would have been needed. To get from a disk (transversal cross section in the shape of an ellipse, with the eccentricity very close to unity, about 0.9995) to a sphere (eccentricity of about 0.314), given the centrifugal force of rotation, would have been impossible.

A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.

Being smaller than the Earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinkage and a has a lighter specific weight than the Earth. The moon was produced, it is assumed, from the superificial layers of the earth's body; this assumption means that the origin of the moon was not simultaneous with that of the earth; that is, the earth had to undergo a process of leveling (cooling) before the moon parted from the earth. Therefore, we are told that a stupendous collision took place between a heavenly body and the earth, but this collision MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE EARTH COOLED DOWN, that is 3.9 billion years ago (4.6 billion years - gaseous nebula, 4.5 billion years - incandescent conglomerate of matter and elements). Such a collision would have melted completely the surface of the earth; this in sharp contrast with the facts we are told: 3.85 billion years ago, DNA appeared out of nowhere. Also, in the official storyline, this collision would have been responsible for the 23.5 degree tilt, but such a collision would have disrupted completely any axial rotation, not to mention the orbital motion.

Faint young sun paradox:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718434#msg718434

Impossibility of a spherically shaped sun:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg24706#msg24706

Stationary Earth, clouds trajectories/restoring forces paradox:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=535.0

I do not need to resort to photographs to prove the Earth is flat...the correct explanation for gravity will take care of things...since it cannot be attractive, we only have two choices left: rotational or pressure type gravity. A pressure gravity can only work on a flat surface, otherwise the force required to keep the 1000 billion trillion liters of water in place would crush everything else...use your intellect...the complete demonstration that there is no such thing as attractive gravitation here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=536.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=552.0


zork, you are a well intended young man...please come back here on this site five years from now...

cdenley, your explanations are standard freshman physics stuff...your trying to insinuate your way around here won't work...not with me...i'm sure that you could dazzle us with brilliance, instead of baffling us with bs...

Resorting to rudeness again?

A spherically shaped star/planet would have been impossible to attain from the start.

Going off-topic again?

zork, you are a well intended young man...please come back here on this site five years from now...

Being patronising again?

I am working right now on three messages...much more on the Tunguska explosion, the fact that there is no attractive gravitation, and more on the stationary earth proof (the clouds)...

Look carefully at the analysis of the standard gaseous nebula fabulations you accept as science...there is no way a spherical earth (or sun for that matter) could have been formed...

Do you understand what we are discussing here? There is no curvature between Sandy Hook Beach and Coney Island, no ascending slope, no midpoint visual obstacle...none whatsoever...no matter what word games you try to play with me...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2890814609/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2891651706/in/photostream/

What makes you think the "midpoint visual obstacle" aka horizon is not in the photo. All it would appear to be is the point at which the water meets the beach. There is no reason to think it can't be seen in that photo.

Maybe I'll address the rest of your post when I have nothing better to do, but it seems to contain a lot of information, and I've wasted enough time pointing out flaws in your "evidence".

No such thing happened...maybe in your dreams...you have not been able to prove anything...just statements, carefully crafted, which were immediately put to the test and shown for what they really were: pure bonkers!

There is no midpoint visual obstacle in the photo, we know very well how Coney Island looks like, the beach located there...just a completely flat surface of the water...

zork, you are a well intended young man...please come back here on this site five years from now...

 I doubt that I am younger than you but it's not relevant. As I see you backing up without any answers I must assume that you agree that I didn't call you with names, you don't have any explanation for Noctilucent clouds, you don't have any person from outside this forum back your theories up and you can't argue with scientific works from which you can conclude that round earth is more probable:
  Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth - http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf
  Turbulent ship wakes: further evidence that the Earth is round - http://www.thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf
 And with your copy/paste texts and internal forums quoting I only see you well versed in pseudoscience and demagogy, but not in actual science.

No such thing happened...maybe in your dreams...you have not been able to prove anything...just statements, carefully crafted, which were immediately put to the test and shown for what they really were: pure bonkers!

There is no midpoint visual obstacle in the photo, we know very well how Coney Island looks like, the beach located there...just a completely flat surface of the water...

Please post a photo or diagram about what you would expect to see with 2.4 meters obstructed by the horizon. The "midpoint visual obstacle" is water. The beach is obstructed by water, as you can see in the photos. That wouldn't even come close to obstructing the whole beach. Did you look at the photo I provided? That would be a little taller than one of those people standing on the beach.

zork, you are very confused...and I understand your predicament...you do not know what the hell you are writing...your pdf, again, has no bearing on our discussion, any of my photographs can instantly destroy that writer's assumptions...when you call other work pseudo-science, YOU must prove it is so...I invite you for the third time to come here with specific points on my astrophysics, mathematics, or other subjects, you will never find any such thing on my messages, not ever zork...your incapacity to find such things, means that, as I have told you before, you should come back here in some five years...you need much more maturity in order to communicate your ideas...

Here zork for you the very best proof that the Earth is indeed flat:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=1142.0

At this moment in time, you are not able to write even two paragraphs from my messages, zork...you lack the hundreds of books and thousands of links required to enlarge the size of your scientific balls...

PS cdenley, your photograph cannot be seen...post it in another format...there is no need for any diagram, those photographs are quite clear...

As for this, http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/ , it was taken at the Beamer Falls Conservation Area, I have included 3 photographs showing the altitude and the location, don't try stuff like that here...in order to see that view, you must ascend to 200 meters, right there...no such geographical reference point at the Conservation Area...no curvature whatsoever in the picture...try again...

You have yet to give the correct peak elevation for the Beamer Falls Conservation Area. You incorrectly assumed it was the elevation of a river than ran through it. I couldn't find the elevation, either. The peak elevation for the entire ridge is 213 meters, though I doubt that is at Beamer Falls. I'm assuming 200 meters is what you calculated the height to be in order to see Toronto unobstructed. However, once again, the photo does not show enough detail of the coast to determine if there is any curvature. I don't see any beaches or trees. For all I can tell, there could be a 10-20 meter obstruction in the photo. Those buildings weren't built at sea level.

I have included the correct value for the location of the Beamer Falls Conservation Area: three photographs, and the 45 meter altitude from a site which measures such things, do not pretend that you did not see them.

I have never mentioned anything about any river, what are you talking about?

I am telling you that Beamer Falls Conservation Area is located very much below the 200 meters required to see that view from Toronto; its height, as you can see from those 3 photographs, is just 45 meters.

PS cdenley, your photograph cannot be seen...post it in another format...there is no need for any diagram, those photographs are quite clear...

Sorry, I guess you can't link directly to the image.
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2113950470026446265mxjYcK
Those photos demonstrate the "midpoint visual obstacle" you expect to see? They certainly don't support your argument that the horizon is non-existent.

A challenge for all of you:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=1142.0

The very best proof that the Earth is completely and absolutely flat!

I have included the correct value for the location of the Beamer Falls Conservation Area: three photographs, and the 45 meter altitude from a site which measures such things, do not pretend that you did not see them.

I have never mentioned anything about any river, what are you talking about?

I already pointed out that the source you site for the 45 meter altitude was for the river, not the peak elevation for the whole conservation area. Go back and look at your own reference.

River Forty Mile Creek

Class Ramp

Size Medium

Height: 45

Crest: 20

I am telling you that Beamer Falls Conservation Area is located very much below the 200 meters required to see that view from Toronto; its height, as you can see from those 3 photographs, is just 45 meters.

It is not 45 meters, as I have pointed out already.

your pdf, again, has no bearing on our discussion, any of my photographs can instantly destroy that writer's assumptions...

Nice to hear that. But I doubt that you go farther than your words. Your photographs don't have any scientific value and they can't destroy anything. You must provide something more solid. Real data and sound logical reasoning.

when you call other work pseudo-science, YOU must prove it is so...I invite you for the third time to come here with specific points on my astrophysics, mathematics, or other subjects

 First paragraph from wikipedia.
Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology,[1][2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status.
It describes exactly your way of presenting things. You don't use scientific method but quote other texts, present other people pictures, use myth, legends and ancient texts for your source and so on. And the only point you do is - the Earth is flat. No other valid scientific data which anyone can question. If you want me to question some your "specific points" then present one at first.

Here zork for you the very best proof that the Earth is indeed flat:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=1142.0

Hearsay, assumptions, speculations, copy/paste from newspapers. This is nothing like a proof.

At this moment in time, you are not able to write even two paragraphs from my messages, zork...you lack the hundreds of books and thousands of links required to enlarge the size of your scientific balls...

Your scientific balls stuffed with thousands of links and hundred of books isn't worth anything because you don't have even a one actually living scientist to back you up. As I have said before, Earth may be flat in this forum but outside, in real world, it isn't.

The conservation area location is well described in those three photographs...there is no 200 meter point of reference to go to, even if that is what you want...look carefully in the photograph: no curvature whatsoever, and we have the other photographs taken from Grimsby which show the same thing...

The best proof that the Earth is indeed stationary:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=1143.0

A challenge for all of you:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=1142.0
The very best proof that the Earth is completely and absolutely flat!

PS zork, you do not even know what science is...please study further to discover more facts...no hearsay or assumptions in those accounts...you are really out of your league here, and very dumb moreover...THE EFFECTS OF THE TUNGUSKA EXPLOSION WERE SEEN ALL OVER EUROPE THAT NIGHT, JUNE 30, 1908, THIS SHOWS JUST HOW IGNORANT YOU ARE ZORK...please do your homework...so far, you have shown yourself to be a superficial troller...no substance whatsoever...you have not been able to prove anything you claimed in your messages...

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 25, 2009, 03:04:25 AM

I will try and post the picture again when I am back on my own PC.

Whilst common sense says that this picture is obvioulsy fake (we all know that The Pyramids aren't by a lake) ...

It illustrates perfectly how you could fake the Toronto pictures because the picture itself does not look fake in any way.

How do we all know they are not by the lake? Have you been there?

PS zork, you do not even know what science is...please study further to discover more facts...

At least I know that this thing what you do here is not definitely science.

The conservation area location is well described in those three photographs...there is no 200 meter point of reference to go to, even if that is what you want...look carefully in the photograph: no curvature whatsoever, and we have the other photographs taken from Grimsby which show the same thing...

As I already explained, your photographs do not require an elevation of 200 meters to invalidate your "evidence" since there is not enough detail to determine if there is any obstruction from the horizon. You still haven't explained or diagrammed what you would expect the curvature to look like in the photograph. All photographs of yours I have examined so far do nothing to support your argument. I have come to the conclusion that you lack the ability to examine any photographs of a horizon objectively.