« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Space for £1000

  • 99 Replies
  • 19227 Views
?

VJ

  • 66
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« on: September 20, 2006, 09:49:23 AM »
If a couple of students can get pictures of the upper atmosphere for £1000, all you flat earthers can now go and do it yourself: http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/09/spaceflight-on-cheap.html

Maybe you'll believe the evidence you gather by your own work, here are the pictures the students got: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/index.html

The curvature of the earth is clearly viewable.
Logged
- share & enjoy
?

Curious

  • 413
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2006, 11:25:39 AM »
UMM....CURVED LENSES...
...They'er  part of the conspiracy...
...It just shows the difraction of the light through the air.

Please ignore the curves in the pictures.

Neat stuff actually.  
Amazing what resources are available to "normal people" these days.
Logged
?

VJ

  • 66
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2006, 11:45:12 AM »
Quote from: "Curious"
UMM....CURVED LENSES...
...They'er  part of the conspiracy...
...It just shows the difraction of the light through the air.

Please ignore the curves in the pictures.

Neat stuff actually.  
Amazing what resources are available to "normal people" these days.

So get £1000, and try it yourself. I'm sure you FE people can get £1000 between you, and once and for all you'll find out the truth; if the earth is flat; you'll be able to expose the truth to the world; or, more likley you'll finally realise that the world is atually a globe.
Logged
- share & enjoy
?

soggycrouton

  • 111
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2006, 12:09:11 PM »
Quote from: "Curious"
UMM....CURVED LENSES...
...They'er  part of the conspiracy...
...It just shows the difraction of the light through the air.

Please ignore the curves in the pictures.


But that doesn't make any sense.

In this photo, there are no curved lines.

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/images/100_0281.jpg

In this photo, there are. It is the same camera, so the curve should be consistent in all photos taken. And they aren't even fisheye curved lines, from a camera lense. This is a very subtle curve, suggesting it is caused by an exetremely large sphere. Namely, the earth.

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target41.html

You can't say the photo takers are part of the conspiracy, they're just a couple of kids from a college.

Further evidence:

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target38.html
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target48.html

As you can see, the curvature becomes more pronounced as altitude increases? Why would this be?
Logged
?

VJ

  • 66
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2006, 01:05:56 PM »
Quote from: soggycrouton
Quote from: "Curious"

You can't say the photo takers are part of the conspiracy, they're just a couple of kids from a college.
Obviously the illuminati have got to them </sarcasm> :roll:
Logged
- share & enjoy
?

Idi Admin

  • 8
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2006, 02:21:21 PM »
lol @ photo takers.

 :roll:
Logged
?

Big Dave

  • 13
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2006, 03:59:04 PM »
Quote from: VJ
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
Quote from: "Curious"

You can't say the photo takers are part of the conspiracy, they're just a couple of kids from a college.
Obviously the illuminati have got to them </sarcasm> :roll:


fukin illuminati they are screwing the world up

i hate them alll

and you flat earthers

and daniel
Logged
ofl omfg wtf lol wowomg fyi haha n00b ROFLMAO OMG 19K VGC TNT FSH PAS AAC OBC ICE ABS EBD DSC  ESP ECU TLA FFS M4A OGG FY DMY IRC WRC AFL NBA NBL NRL ACB AWB MSN ICQ MP5A4         LOL ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THIS FLAT EARTH CRAP SHOULD BE SHOT
*

Inquisitor Bob

  • 124
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2006, 04:56:59 PM »
I have to say that those are quite nice pictures.

Ok, so, what guarantee do we have that they're not part of the conspirators?
The Illuminati could've gotten some students to their cause easily.
Logged
t's a conspiracy.
?

soggycrouton

  • 111
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2006, 05:05:43 PM »
Quote from: "Inquisitor Bob"
I have to say that those are quite nice pictures.

Ok, so, what guarantee do we have that they're not part of the conspirators?
The Illuminati could've gotten some students to their cause easily.


See, I know you're kidding.
Logged
?

gavstilldaman

  • 12
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2006, 05:05:53 PM »
i am the chairman of the illuminati

send little boys my way

from the pope
Logged
*

Inquisitor Bob

  • 124
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2006, 06:08:21 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

See, I know you're kidding.


Logged
t's a conspiracy.
?

soggycrouton

  • 111
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2006, 06:43:25 PM »
Why is it so hard to get real responses from real FEs?
Logged
?

Curious

  • 413
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2006, 06:46:42 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
Quote from: "Curious"
UMM....CURVED LENSES...
...They'er  part of the conspiracy...
...It just shows the difraction of the light through the air.

Please ignore the curves in the pictures.


But that doesn't make any sense.

In this photo, there are no curved lines.

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/images/100_0281.jpg

In this photo, there are. It is the same camera, so the curve should be consistent in all photos taken. And they aren't even fisheye curved lines, from a camera lense. This is a very subtle curve, suggesting it is caused by an exetremely large sphere. Namely, the earth.

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target41.html

You can't say the photo takers are part of the conspiracy, they're just a couple of kids from a college.

Further evidence:

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target38.html
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target48.html

As you can see, the curvature becomes more pronounced as altitude increases? Why would this be?



ummm......the lens curves as the altitude increases due to the difference in air pressure inside the camera and out!  An easy mistake to make, which is why such things should be left to the experts (who are all illumiati, unless they are members of the golden Dawn).
Logged
?

Unimportant

  • 1229
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2006, 08:10:09 PM »
Or there's two cameras.

Quote
So get £1000, and try it yourself.

Why in God's name would I spend £1000 to confirm for myself something I already know to be true?

Hey, you think your name is John? Give me £1000 and I'll let you see your birth certificate! Then you'll know for sure!

What a silly suggestion.

You're the one trying to prove to us the earth is round. Why don't you give me £1000, and we'll go from there?
Logged
?

soggycrouton

  • 111
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2006, 08:51:44 PM »
Quote
ummm......the lens curves as the altitude increases due to the difference in air pressure inside the camera and out! An easy mistake to make, which is why such things should be left to the experts (who are all illumiati, unless they are members of the golden Dawn).


But that's not consistent with what the pictures look like.

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/images/100_0619.jpg

That is not what a curved lens looks like. In a curved/fisheyed lens, the curve would be in center of the photo. Like this:



However, the curve is going the wrong way, meaning the curve starts at the corner of the photo.



Also, I'm pretty sure you made that up about the altitude. Are you suggesting that the camera is vacuum sealed? It would seem to me that the pressure inside the camera would change to be the same as the altitude.

EDIT: Further Support

http://www.picture-newsletter.com/fishey/clouds-fisheye-001.jpg

http://www.picture-newsletter.com/fishey/clouds-fisheye-002.jpg

http://www.picture-newsletter.com/fishey/clouds-fisheye-003.jpg

Again, this confirms what I was saying. The curve always is centered in the center of the photograph. Therefore, the horizon line looks concave, convex, or normal in all three photos depending on where the center is. If the curve is consistent, then the "problem" is not in the photos, but the "problem" is in the shape of the earth.
Logged
?

soggycrouton

  • 111
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2006, 08:53:56 PM »
Quote
Or there's two cameras.


But there aren't two cameras, because, again, that's not what a fisheye would look like in any camera. Also, it states in the description that there was one camera. So you're saying they're lying?
Logged
?

Riefnu

  • 34
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2006, 10:12:37 PM »
Quote
Why in God's name would I spend £1000 to confirm for myself something I already know to be true?


Then you could provide evidence from your journey to show the world a FE person has seen the world and not a conspiracy man.

Quote
You're the one trying to prove to us the earth is round. Why don't you give me £1000, and we'll go from there?


Your same circular logic turned around. You're the one trying to prove the earth is flat. Why dont you give us £1000, and we can go together.

Quote
ummm......the lens curves as the altitude increases due to the difference in air pressure inside the camera and out! An easy mistake to make, which is why such things should be left to the experts (who are all illumiati, unless they are members of the golden Dawn).


glass lenses dont bend so much as break you know.
Logged
quot;It's all a lie!", screamed the man.

"That means you're a liar too!", answered the crowd.
?

Unimportant

  • 1229
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2006, 03:06:21 AM »
Quote from: Riefnu
Quote
Quote
You're the one trying to prove to us the earth is round. Why don't you give me £1000, and we'll go from there?


Your same circular logic turned around. You're the one trying to prove the earth is flat. Why dont you give us £1000, and we can go together.

What makes you think I care about proving the earth is flat? I know it's the truth, I don't care much what you think.

If an RE'er asks a question about the FE model, I'm happy to oblige. I, however, have no desire to push my beliefs on anyone else. This is where I differ from the common REer.
Logged
?

VJ

  • 66
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2006, 05:48:47 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Or there's two cameras.

Quote
So get £1000, and try it yourself.

Why in God's name would I spend £1000 to confirm for myself something I already know to be true?
And your empirical, peer-reviewed evidence of this is where?
Logged
- share & enjoy
?

Curious

  • 413
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2006, 06:52:25 AM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
...



OOOPS! sloppy HTML I meant to write

Quote
[sarcasm]ummm......the lens curves as the altitude increases due to the difference in air pressure inside the camera and out! An easy mistake to make, which is why such things should be left to the experts (who are all illumiati, unless they are members of the golden Dawn).[/sarcasm]


COME ON GUYS!!! CAN"T ANYONE TELL WHEN SOMEONE IS JOKING!
Logged
*

Inquisitor Bob

  • 124
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2006, 09:31:21 AM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

Also, I'm pretty sure you made that up about the altitude. Are you suggesting that the camera is vacuum sealed? It would seem to me that the pressure inside the camera would change to be the same as the altitude.


Well don't look at me for not knowing how to make a bleedin' 1000 quid satelite.
Or any satelite at all, I just asumed that the things needs to be properly sealed somewhere cause I'm quite certain that normal camera cassetes could'nt stand the temperatures changes ( I mean, if writable cd's can't even stand anything over 50 degrees Celsius, I'm sure as hell those little cassettes can't.).
Or maybe I just made it up, I don't recall correctly.
Logged
t's a conspiracy.
?

soggycrouton

  • 111
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2006, 09:53:23 AM »
Quote from: "Curious"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
...



OOOPS! sloppy HTML I meant to write

Quote
[sarcasm]ummm......the lens curves as the altitude increases due to the difference in air pressure inside the camera and out! An easy mistake to make, which is why such things should be left to the experts (who are all illumiati, unless they are members of the golden Dawn).[/sarcasm]


COME ON GUYS!!! CAN"T ANYONE TELL WHEN SOMEONE IS JOKING!


Oh, sorry. That does seem like something a FEer would say.


And I put all that effort into the response...


Well, then, it would seem no FEer has actually responded to this piece of evidence.
Logged
?

soggycrouton

  • 111
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2006, 10:02:33 AM »
Quote from: "Inquisitor Bob"
Quote from: "soggycrouton"

Also, I'm pretty sure you made that up about the altitude. Are you suggesting that the camera is vacuum sealed? It would seem to me that the pressure inside the camera would change to be the same as the altitude.


Well don't look at me for not knowing how to make a bleedin' 1000 quid satelite.
Or any satelite at all, I just asumed that the things needs to be properly sealed somewhere cause I'm quite certain that normal camera cassetes could'nt stand the temperatures changes ( I mean, if writable cd's can't even stand anything over 50 degrees Celsius, I'm sure as hell those little cassettes can't.).
Or maybe I just made it up, I don't recall correctly.


Well, it's an expensive digital camera. I assume it can withstand different altitudes, but I doubt it's vacuum sealed.

Plus all that stuff I said about the fisheye not being the case.
Logged
*

Inquisitor Bob

  • 124
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2006, 11:17:39 AM »
How could you get a expensive digital camera when you've only got 1000 quid and have to spend the majority of that on getting the thing outside of our atmosphere to begin with?

And the fisheye thing only proves that apearantly the illuminati have already gotten to students too.


On different notice, does 'Psychodog' ring a bell?
If not, I was'nt trying to insult you.
Logged
t's a conspiracy.
?

soggycrouton

  • 111
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2006, 12:55:40 PM »
Quote
How could you get a expensive digital camera when you've only got 1000 quid and have to spend the majority of that on getting the thing outside of our atmosphere to begin with?


What exactly are you trying to establish? It's a cheap camera, therefore it's not sealed, therefore air can get in and out and the pressure changes, so the lens won't bend? That's sort of my point.

Quote
And the fisheye thing only proves that apearantly the illuminati have already gotten to students too.


...or that the earth is round. Except my explanation isn't stupid.

Quote
On different notice, does 'Psychodog' ring a bell?
If not, I was'nt trying to insult you.


Are you referring to Psychodog Studio Forums? Have I argued with you before? I don't remember you.
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Space for £1000
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2006, 01:16:03 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
Quote
How could you get a expensive digital camera when you've only got 1000 quid and have to spend the majority of that on getting the thing outside of our atmosphere to begin with?


What exactly are you trying to establish? It's a cheap camera, therefore it's not sealed, therefore air can get in and out and the pressure changes, so the lens won't bend? That's sort of my point.

He probably got that idea from the statement you made just before his post:
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
Well, it's an expensive digital camera.
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

Unimportant

  • 1229
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2006, 01:33:27 PM »
Quote from: "VJ"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Or there's two cameras.

Quote
So get £1000, and try it yourself.

Why in God's name would I spend £1000 to confirm for myself something I already know to be true?
And your empirical, peer-reviewed evidence of this is where?

What kind of warped reality do you live in where someone needs empirical, peer-reviewed evidence for their beliefs?

That's just crazy talk.

I need empiricle, peer-reviewed evidence to convince YOU.

But I'm not trying to convince you.

So I don't.
Logged
*

Inquisitor Bob

  • 124
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2006, 01:33:49 PM »
Quote from: "soggycrouton"
How could you get a expensive digital camera when you've only got 1000 quid and have to spend the majority of that on getting the thing outside of our atmosphere to begin with?


What Engineer said.

Quote
...or that the earth is round. Except my explanation isn't stupid.


Or your's is.

Quote

Are you referring to Psychodog Studio Forums? Have I argued with you before? I don't remember you.


Bob_de_Barbaar is what I believe was my username there, but that was like 2 years ago.
I got banned cause I agrued too much with Xaphod.
For some reason I still remember your name so you probably posted alot there.
Logged
t's a conspiracy.
?

Riefnu

  • 34
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2006, 02:36:57 PM »
Quote
Quote:
Quote:
You're the one trying to prove to us the earth is round. Why don't you give me £1000, and we'll go from there?


Your same circular logic turned around. You're the one trying to prove the earth is flat. Why dont you give us £1000, and we can go together.

What makes you think I care about proving the earth is flat? I know it's the truth, I don't care much what you think.

If an RE'er asks a question about the FE model, I'm happy to oblige. I, however, have no desire to push my beliefs on anyone else. This is where I differ from the common REer.



There are two things wrong with this.

First, you do want to put your opinion onto others. If you did not, why then did you post in a thread that is about the discussion of is earth flat or not if you did not wish to share your opinion?

Secondly, most of the FE model's I have seen on this forum are computer graphics, which means they could be made to look like anything. So why don't you provide some proof of the flat earth theory?
Logged
quot;It's all a lie!", screamed the man.

"That means you're a liar too!", answered the crowd.
?

soggycrouton

  • 111
  • +0/-0
Space for £1000
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2006, 03:07:29 PM »
Quote from: "Inquisitor Bob"

Quote
...or that the earth is round. Except my explanation isn't stupid.


Or your's is.

Quote

Are you referring to Psychodog Studio Forums? Have I argued with you before? I don't remember you.


Bob_de_Barbaar is what I believe was my username there, but that was like 2 years ago.
I got banned cause I agrued too much with Xaphod.
For some reason I still remember your name so you probably posted alot there.


Ah. Yeah, I posted there a while ago.

Anyways, are you suggesting it's more likely that the government has brainwashed these students into posting fake photos? It's that or the earth is actually round, and these students actually did this, which seems substantially more likely.

I mean, that's how humans think. Hamsters could be controlling the earth. One could find an explanation for this. But the explanation that they actually aren't controlling the earth is substantially more likely, therefore it's reasonable to accept it as true. Similarly, there are some crazy explanations for the earth being flat, involving an intricate government plot, but it's highly unlikely, therefore most normal people accept it as fact that the earth is round.

So either admit that hamsters rule the earth, or admit the illuminati probably does not exist. Or that the hamsters rule the illuminati. 'Cause that would be cool.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »