Lady Blount's photograph

I noticed that the infamous Lady Blount photograph was included in some of the new material Daniel recently posted in the Announcements sub forum.

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/library/Flat%20or%20Spherical%20-%2008%20-%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Globular%20Theory.pdf





Color me unimpressed.

What are we looking at here? What's it meant to show?

Apparently, it is supposed to be a dam on the Old Bedford River as seen from 6 miles away using an early telephoto lens.  From what I understand, the camera is 2 feet above the surface.  I believe that there is a marker at the water level in front of the dam which is visible in the photo, demonstrating that there is no curvature to the river over the 6 mile stretch.

Allowing for the fact that the picture quality is so poor that I can't see where this alleged marker is, that is not a view at a distance of six miles from a camera 2 feet above the water. The perspective of the river bank is all wrong. It's looking from a far higher altitude than that.

It is a bad picture by ours modern standards, but it does show that people have been interested in finding the true shape of the Earth for quite some time.  I am not an expert in photography, but the shoreline in the bottom right corner of the photos could be a long distance from the camera. 

It is a bad picture by ours modern standards, but it does show that people have been interested in finding the true shape of the Earth for quite some time.  I am not an expert in photography, but the shoreline in the bottom right corner of the photos could be a long distance from the camera.

It's not the distance from the camera, it's the angle and view of it considering it's a telephoto lens.

So your view is that the globularist photographer is lying? 

I am now questioning if that is really shore or just vegetation growing near the shore.  The banks are supposed to be very straight and parallel. 

Anyway, with the lack of detail in this photo and the use of a telephoto lens, I don't see how anyone could claim to be capable of determining whether or not the height of the camera is in fact 2 feet above the water level.

I am now questioning if that is really shore or just vegetation growing near the shore.  The banks are supposed to be very straight and parallel. 

Anyway, with the lack of detail in this photo and the use of a telephoto lens, I don't see how anyone could claim to be capable of determining whether or not the height of the camera is in fact 2 feet above the water level.

If the dark things on the lower right of the photograph are strands of vegetation intruding into the river, or little irregularities in the bank, and the paler areas between them are clear water, then from a height of 2 feet above the water, and including the extremely compressed perspective given by a powerful telephoto lens, the gaps between them should not be visible like that as they'd be lying in front of each other. This view is taken by a camera at a higher altitude than those strands, able to easily see over the top of them. This is backed up by the reflection of the pole-like thing - its reflection should be obscured by the dark strands if the camera was close to the water. Instead, we see its whole length, something which requires a camera at higher altitude.

Daniel posted a better quality version a while back.

Daniel posted a better quality version a while back.

Do you have a link to it?

Here is the picture that Daniel posted.



And this is a link to the pdf of The Earth magazine that explains the experiment and marks on the pictures.

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/library/Earth%20-%20Monthly%20Magazine%2049-50.pdf

still hardly a clear photo. and you mock us for are use of photos

It's not regarded as a proof, rather than an ancient precedent. Anyway, fisheye lenses are easy , but how about straighten up something round without distortion? Anyway, for me, this photo is irrelevant as a proof, but a historical curiosity.

Here is the picture that Daniel posted.



And this is a link to the pdf of The Earth magazine that explains the experiment and marks on the pictures.

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/library/Earth%20-%20Monthly%20Magazine%2049-50.pdf

Thanks for the link. A fascinating article, I shall study it.

This view is taken by a camera at a higher altitude...

Can you think of a reason the globularist photographer would lie?

photographs and videos are easily faked and do not represent evidence.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 28, 2012, 04:04:15 AM

This view is taken by a camera at a higher altitude...

Can you think of a reason the globularist photographer would lie?

Apart from a bribe of some sort, no. Yet the photograph does not bear out the description of its creation. I have not fully read the accompanying text yet though.

Do you think then, that the photographer was bribed by the eminent Lady Blount?

Do you think then, that the photographer was bribed by the eminent Lady Blount?

I have yet to draw any conclusions until I have read the accompanying article. There are other possibilities besides the photographer telling a lie, after all.

Like the possibility that you aren't seeing what you expect to see and are discarding it out of hand for that reason?

Like the possibility that you aren't seeing what you expect to see and are discarding it out of hand for that reason?

You want me to list some ideas that occurred to me? Very well then. The photograph in the article may not be the photograph purported to have been taken by the globularist photographer. The quote from the photographer may not be from him at all. There's two possibilities right there.
Now let me read the damned article.
Considering how many RE'ers on this forum will instantly dismiss things posted up by FE'ers like this, when someone comes along who at least wishes to judge the evidence on its own merits and is genuinely interested, such as myself, the least you can do is afford my attitude some respect. Why are you trying to goad me? You're a moderator for goodness sake, don't behave like a child. Set an example.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 28, 2012, 07:45:10 PM

Now let me read the damned article.

This is an internet forum; no one is keeping you from reading the article by posting here. Any number of responses to this thread (even those in all caps with lots of exclamation points) should not be able to interrupt your reading. In fact, you really have no reason to even look in here again until you're finished. If someone is trying to goad you, perhaps it is to finally get something substantial out of you rather than the idle speculation you've subjected us to so far. One might get the impression that you do not even want to read the article at all.

If anyone is attempting to incite with malicious intent here it's you with your feigned offense and agitation, as well as your ridiculous accusations of harassment and berating of one of the most respected members of our community. A moderator too, no less, as you observe. Again, this could be taken as indicative of stalling.

I think someone's forgotten the real reason the FES forum is here 
I can play the game just like the Flat Earthers do, if that's what you want: Lady Blount bribed the photographer, probably with sexual favours as she was known for her comely bosom.
Prove me wrong. 

You claimed the picture could not be what Lady Blount and the photographer said it was. I am merely trying to see why you think that, or if you have any reason to think that apart from "it doesn't look like what I think it should look like."

You claimed the picture could not be what Lady Blount and the photographer said it was. I am merely trying to see why you think that, or if you have any reason to think that apart from "it doesn't look like what I think it should look like."

Lady Blount was well known for her shenanigans, I should think. Prove me wrong.

No-one is obligated or even expected to "prove" you wrong. But it is fairly reasonable to ask you to substantiate your claims. If you can't, no matter, but you should expect to be challenged on such points.

No-one is obligated or even expected to "prove" you wrong. But it is fairly reasonable to ask you to substantiate your claims. If you can't, no matter, but you should expect to be challenged on such points.

It is self evident. I will happily substantiate my claims once the claims about the existence of aether and Tom Bishop's Wiki Perspective have been substantiated. It is reasonable to ask that.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 29, 2012, 08:01:06 PM

No-one is obligated or even expected to "prove" you wrong. But it is fairly reasonable to ask you to substantiate your claims. If you can't, no matter, but you should expect to be challenged on such points.

It is self evident. I will happily substantiate my claims once the claims about the existence of aether and Tom Bishop's Wiki Perspective have been substantiated. It is reasonable to ask that.

Not in this thread.
In this thread you are discussing a photograph and it's authenticity.

If you have nothing further to add, don't ask others to derail the topic for you.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 30, 2012, 08:28:24 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 29, 2012, 08:01:06 PM

No-one is obligated or even expected to "prove" you wrong. But it is fairly reasonable to ask you to substantiate your claims. If you can't, no matter, but you should expect to be challenged on such points.

It is self evident. I will happily substantiate my claims once the claims about the existence of aether and Tom Bishop's Wiki Perspective have been substantiated. It is reasonable to ask that.

Not in this thread.
In this thread you are discussing a photograph and it's authenticity.

If you have nothing further to add, don't ask others to derail the topic for you.

As a response to a request from Willmore which is entirely relevant to the thread, it is not derailing, as it accurately explains the conditions which are to be fulfilled for me to substantiate my claim regarding the activities of the wanton Lady Blount, the subject of the thread.
I don't see a moderator label on your profile there, Dave.

As a response to a request from Willmore which is entirely relevant to the thread, it is not derailing, as it accurately explains the conditions which are to be fulfilled for me to substantiate my claim regarding the activities of the wanton Lady Blount, the subject of the thread.

I can see no connection between the authenticity of a photograph and caption in a very old news article and Tom Bishop or Aether.  Therefore, asking for proof of Tom Bishop's physics or Aether is not relevant to this thread.

I don't see a moderator label on your profile there, Dave.

Flat Earth Curator.