earth flat

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 10:59:17 PM

http://www.pbase.com/exzim/image/137501232

this picture does on face value, lets be honest

It might be viewed through a telescope and restored to its appearance as was noted at a closer vantage as happens with ships.

Quote from: Archibald on February 05, 2012, 11:05:46 PM

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 10:59:17 PM

http://www.pbase.com/exzim/image/137501232

this picture does on face value, lets be honest

It might be viewed through a telescope and restored to its appearance as was noted at a closer vantage as happens with ships.

It was viewed from a telescope. Nice try though.

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 10:59:17 PM

http://www.pbase.com/exzim/image/137501232

this picture does on face value, lets be honest

It might be viewed through a telescope and restored to its appearance as was noted at a closer vantage as happens with ships.

this is not a telescope

this is what your link says was used, there is no mention of a telescope. you should stand by your own rules too

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 11:34:16 PM

this is what your link says was used, there is no mention of a telescope. you should stand by your own rules too

I simply take the license to observe that the image pictured could only have be taken with a camera with a telescope involved. If you'd do the math, you'd quickly agree.

Do you wish to maintain your challenge that no telescope was involved?

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 11:34:16 PM

this is what your link says was used, there is no mention of a telescope. you should stand by your own rules too

I simply take the license to observe that the image pictured could only have be taken with a camera with a telescope involved. If you'd do the math, you'd quickly agree.

Do you wish to maintain your challenge that no telescope was involved?

Quote from: ClockTower on February 05, 2012, 11:24:57 PM

Quote from: Archibald on February 05, 2012, 11:05:46 PM

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 10:59:17 PM

http://www.pbase.com/exzim/image/137501232

this picture does on face value, lets be honest

It might be viewed through a telescope and restored to its appearance as was noted at a closer vantage as happens with ships.

It was viewed from a telescope. Nice try though.

Telescope have various degrees of power to see at greater distances, some allowing for further clarity.   Nice try though.

Whining that you meant a "special" telescope now is called special pleading. You fail.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 05, 2012, 11:43:52 PM

Whining that you meant a "special" telescope now is called special pleading. You fail.

Adjusting one's claims as new evidence is presented is more or less the whole point of the scientific method. It's such a shame to find out that the scientific method is called special pleading [sic].

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 11:34:16 PM

this is what your link says was used, there is no mention of a telescope. you should stand by your own rules too

I simply take the license to observe that the image pictured could only have be taken with a camera with a telescope involved. If you'd do the math, you'd quickly agree.

Do you wish to maintain your challenge that no telescope was involved?

Quote from: ClockTower on February 05, 2012, 11:37:27 PM

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 11:34:16 PM

this is what your link says was used, there is no mention of a telescope. you should stand by your own rules too

I simply take the license to observe that the image pictured could only have be taken with a camera with a telescope involved. If you'd do the math, you'd quickly agree.

Do you wish to maintain your challenge that no telescope was involved?

CT this is special pleading! then its suggested the lense counts as a telescope which im sure will be the come back.
it doesnt matter. the picture in question was not magnified close enough. there is no way at that magnification will you determine that teenagers are playing frisbee.
unless you have a series of picters from the same spot with the same camera with different zooms at:
1x
20x
100x
with a very good clarity you cannot say that this is proof. it does not stand alone.  this has been done and demonstrated on here to some length but the best shots were too pixelated to determine the results. although to me it looked like there was no restoration

Quote from: squevil on February 06, 2012, 08:51:24 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on February 05, 2012, 11:37:27 PM

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 11:34:16 PM

this is what your link says was used, there is no mention of a telescope. you should stand by your own rules too

I simply take the license to observe that the image pictured could only have be taken with a camera with a telescope involved. If you'd do the math, you'd quickly agree.

Do you wish to maintain your challenge that no telescope was involved?

CT this is special pleading! then its suggested the lense counts as a telescope which im sure will be the come back.
it doesnt matter. the picture in question was not magnified close enough. there is no way at that magnification will you determine that teenagers are playing frisbee.
unless you have a series of picters from the same spot with the same camera with different zooms at:
1x
20x
100x
with a very good clarity you cannot say that this is proof. it does not stand alone.  this has been done and demonstrated on here to some length but the best shots were too pixelated to determine the results. although to me it looked like there was no restoration

1) I don't see any special pleading. What claim defeated by evidence did I change to defend the claim, without any evidence.
2) Where did I talk about teenagers playing Frisbee?
3) Tell me the difference between a telescopic lens and a telescope and then how that difference relates to Archy's outlandish claim that a telescope, without qualification, would restore the skyline to its actually form.
4) Why do you expect this to be proof of anything?
5) Why do you argue that the best shots are too grainy? What does that have to do with destroying Archy's outlandish claim.

ok lets break it down into numbers....
1. you said there was a telescope and a camera used, when the link says it was a camera. you then stated that a telescope was robably envolved too.
2.you didnt i did, your not that forgetful you know what im refering to. i think frisbee playing teenager magnification should be the standerd for these tests.
3.a telescopic lene and a telescope are practicly the same. but you never said telescopic lens, you said they used a telescope. if you dont want to be made a fool of then speak the terms correctly.
4.you said this goes against the bedford level experiment. however it does not. you need to repeat the test i have demonstrated
5.it has nothing to do with archie, im talking about tests in the past. they did not have the resolution to distiguish between restoration or not when taken over a large distance. your just have to search for it and see for yourself. it was a very good post.

do just come here to argue or do you have any purpose at all? i thought you were one of the more thoughtful posters but you just appear to be an arse

Quote from: squevil on February 06, 2012, 09:10:09 AM

ok lets break it down into numbers....
1. you said there was a telescope and a camera used, when the link says it was a camera. you then stated that a telescope was robably envolved too.
2.you didnt i did, your not that forgetful you know what im refering to. i think frisbee playing teenager magnification should be the standerd for these tests.
3.a telescopic lene and a telescope are practicly the same. but you never said telescopic lens, you said they used a telescope. if you dont want to be made a fool of then speak the terms correctly.
4.you said this goes against the bedford level experiment. however it does not. you need to repeat the test i have demonstrated
5.it has nothing to do with archie, im talking about tests in the past. they did not have the resolution to distiguish between restoration or not when taken over a large distance. your just have to search for it and see for yourself. it was a very good post.

do just come here to argue or do you have any purpose at all? i thought you were one of the more thoughtful posters but you just appear to be an arse

1) Yes, I did say that a telescope was used. Yes, I did show that it was. How is that special pleading?
2) Sorry, but I don't accept that standard. I don't see its relevance to a skyline scenario.
3) If the two are "practically the same", what's your beef. Surely, you're not arguing just semantics, are you?
4) The BL experiment was to show that a body of water did not curve in such a way as to block the viewing of a distance object. The photo of the distant skyline across Lake Ontario shows that it does. I don't see any reason that I should have to repeat the test that you demonstrated. Did you have some reason for that claim?
5) I commented on Archy's claim that a telescope would restore the skyline. I'm not sure what else you thought I was doing. I think you're putting too much emphasize on resolution. T
here are many BL-type tests that can be performed without modern-day resolution. For example, R.'s effort with lighthouses requires only detecting a distant light, not seeing the lighthouse.

Quote from: Noogah on February 05, 2012, 08:59:49 PM

But it is no more proof that the earth is flat than the fact that the earth appears flat. This is because the results of the bedford experiment can exist in a round earth.

how can they exist on a round earth if the bedford level experiment is showing zero curvature? over the required distance i may add

Quote from: Noogah on February 05, 2012, 08:59:49 PM

So, if you want to prove to your friend that the earth is flat, the bedford experiment cannot work.

Incorrect.

Quote from: squevil on February 05, 2012, 09:04:25 PM

Quote from: Noogah on February 05, 2012, 08:59:49 PM

But it is no more proof that the earth is flat than the fact that the earth appears flat. This is because the results of the bedford experiment can exist in a round earth.

how can they exist on a round earth if the bedford level experiment is showing zero curvature? over the required distance i may add

Quote from: Archibald on February 05, 2012, 09:18:07 PM

Quote from: Noogah on February 05, 2012, 08:59:49 PM

So, if you want to prove to your friend that the earth is flat, the bedford experiment cannot work.

Incorrect.

Incorrect, and very banal.

Here's why.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on February 06, 2012, 01:37:59 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on February 05, 2012, 11:43:52 PM

Whining that you meant a "special" telescope now is called special pleading. You fail.

Adjusting one's claims as new evidence is presented is more or less the whole point of the scientific method. It's such a shame to find out that the scientific method is called special pleading [sic].

No. Special pleading is clearly different.

He claims 'x'. We show that 'x' is false. He claims that he meant 'a special x'. That's special pleading.

He claims 'x'. We show 'x' is false. He retreats from his claim. That's the Scientific Method.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs

He is obviously in denial. Your brother can not refute your claims so he simply mocks you. Give it time and the truth will unfold to him.

Hello. Round earther here.

I wake up every day and see an earth which extends to the horizon. It looks just as flat to me as it does to you (actually, not really, since I have a lot of hills and ridges, but you get my point).

And guess what? I'm not in "denial". I can stare you in the eye, and say fifty times over that "The earth looks flat. The earth looks flat. The earth looks flat. The earth looks flat." with complete and utter confidence and security that it is, in fact, round.


You directly conflict yourself when you say that since the earth looks flat, it must therefore be flat.

Because,

If you intend to follow your logic that "it looks that way, and so it must be", then you must admit that this is a picture of a round earth.

Quote from: ClockTower on February 06, 2012, 01:51:32 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on February 06, 2012, 01:37:59 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on February 05, 2012, 11:43:52 PM

Whining that you meant a "special" telescope now is called special pleading. You fail.

Adjusting one's claims as new evidence is presented is more or less the whole point of the scientific method. It's such a shame to find out that the scientific method is called special pleading [sic].

No. Special pleading is clearly different.

He claims 'x'. We show that 'x' is false. He claims that he meant 'a special x'. That's special pleading.

He claims 'x'. We show 'x' is false. He retreats from his claim. That's the Scientific Method.

No. The scientific method would be:

He claims 'x'. We show 'x' is false. He changes his claim to 'y' after further research and experimentation. We show 'y' false. He changes his claim to 'z' after further research and experimentation. 'Z' is shown to be correct, so far as we can tell. Your insistence on using special pleading [sic] as an argument when it is not accurate only makes you sound silly and retards the progress of FET.

If you read the FAQ, pictures of a round earth can never be proof because they're all fake and *** and doctored.

Quote from: Aytron on February 09, 2012, 12:24:49 PM

If you read the FAQ, pictures of a round earth can never be proof because they're all fake and *** and doctored.

Did you even read my post? Let me explain myself again:

If you [fe'ers] do not believe the earth is round because of what LOOK like pictures of a round earth, then do not tell us to believe that the earth is flat because of a horizon that LOOKS flat.

I am not SAYING that the picture IS proof of a round earth (although, what we have is extreme evidence). What I AM saying is that things are not always what they seem to be.

That picture, for example, looks like a picture of a round earth. A FE'er would say it is not.

The earth APPEARS to be flat from the ground. A RE'er would say it is not.

For further back-and-forthing on this very point, you can read onwards from my op.

A picture of the Earth is not the Earth. If I see that the Earth appears to be flat, then the Earth appears to be flat. If I see a picture or a photo of a spherical object that is supposed to be the Earth, then that is all I see.

It has been discussed, but it has yet to be understood. Tell me, if you shouldn't trust your senses all the time, when exactly should you trust them?

your just like tom bishops evil twin. or the good twin, im not sure which is which
you win, i was wrong, congratulations