"Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.

  • 144 Replies
  • 24693 Views
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #120 on: April 27, 2013, 08:24:13 AM »
What is the maximum height we are able to reach to be "real" ?

They knew he was 70 km off because he had a tracking device. That's how they stay on focus with him.
Or maybe GPS and lenses does not exists ?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #121 on: April 27, 2013, 08:26:39 AM »
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

20,000 ft is extremely low. I'm working with a helo today flying at 25,000 ft. It's nothing.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5063
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #122 on: April 27, 2013, 08:27:53 AM »
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

What makes 20,000 feet an incredible feat (judging its incredible by you being extremely generous with the height)?  Commercial jets fly above 30,000 feet.  Weather balloons routinely break 60,000 feet.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #123 on: April 27, 2013, 08:36:05 AM »
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

What makes 20,000 feet an incredible feat (judging its incredible by you being extremely generous with the height)?  Commercial jets fly above 30,000 feet.  Weather balloons routinely break 60,000 feet.

right, and the felix jump was a little over twice what a weather balloon does. A weather balloon is designed to carry a light package called a radiosonde while felix's was designed to carry a vessel large enough for him and his equipment.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5063
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #124 on: April 27, 2013, 09:16:12 AM »
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

What makes 20,000 feet an incredible feat (judging its incredible by you being extremely generous with the height)?  Commercial jets fly above 30,000 feet.  Weather balloons routinely break 60,000 feet.
Parachuting humans don't though.

Why can't they?  I don't see a single reason why it's not possible.  A person would hit terminal velocity if jumping from 20,000 feet, so it can't be their speed would be too great.  Parachutes don't open immediately upon the jump, so that can't be it.  So what makes this impossible?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #125 on: April 27, 2013, 09:28:01 AM »
  So what makes this impossible?
Because if it involves atmosphere, relative motion, light, optics, video cameras, math, photography, or any type of physics in general, then it's beyond Sceptimatic's ability or willingness to comprehend, and therefore they're magic and fake, etc.

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #126 on: April 27, 2013, 09:54:52 AM »
  So what makes this impossible?
Because if it involves atmosphere, relative motion, light, optics, video cameras, math, photography, or any type of physics in general, then it's beyond Sceptimatic's ability or willingness to comprehend, and therefore they're magic and fake, etc.

THIS, people. It's funny how you guys didn't catch on yet.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #127 on: April 27, 2013, 10:29:49 AM »
Yes, but I was (still am) interested to hear a genuine answer from Scepti for *why* it just isn't possible to ride a balloon and jump off. Okay recently he said it's possible at 20kft, but why not at a different altitude, we still don't know.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #128 on: April 27, 2013, 11:20:23 AM »
Trying to get his logic :

The air is pushed upward by the UA, so when there is no air, you aren't pushed anymore and so you stay there or drop.

Don't ask me why we are not falling toward the sky.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #129 on: April 27, 2013, 11:57:20 AM »
well they would be rubbish if you did if you did so probably not, no.

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #130 on: April 27, 2013, 12:04:10 PM »
Do I need to put any words to this?

[video clip]

It looks like a fantasy. How were many of the shots even taken? And he descended with his board?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 10:23:17 PM by odes »
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #131 on: April 27, 2013, 12:52:14 PM »
Staying on topic of these jumps. Haven't FE proponents numerous times brought up that the flat disk earth would seem round from above, or even if it's not disk-shaped but infinite or whatever it may seem circular due to bendy light, sun's spotlight illumination or something else. So, what I've been saying here is, why on whatever shape earth these jumps would be impossible? Again, it's a friggin' balloon going up and a guy jumping off then deploying a parachute. According to some that requires magic but so far there has been no explanation offered whatsoever why a high altitude jump is impossible or why these particular jumps must have been faked.
It doesn't require any magic if he jumps from a sensible height. Just not the height that they claim to have jumped from.
I'd say a height of maybe 20,000 feet and I'm being extremely generous with him for this height.
You only have to look at the footage to see how silly it all gets. It's worse than pathetic and after all the fakery is over, they show a picture of him, in all his glory, coming down in his parachute, perfectly in focus, despite him being  supposedly 70 km off course.

It's ridiculous.

What makes 20,000 feet an incredible feat (judging its incredible by you being extremely generous with the height)?  Commercial jets fly above 30,000 feet.  Weather balloons routinely break 60,000 feet.
Parachuting humans don't though.
Parachuting from 20kft isn't that unusual, not even 30k.

#t=02m30s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#t=02m30s

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #132 on: April 27, 2013, 05:44:01 PM »
^That video is obviously fake. You can't think that's real, can you? Come ON, guys!!



....

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #133 on: May 13, 2013, 08:20:27 PM »
They clearly used a fish-eye lens in Felix's jump.  That alone is deceiving.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #134 on: May 13, 2013, 10:05:41 PM »
They clearly used a fish-eye lens in Felix's jump.  That alone is deceiving.
And?.....

People use fish-eye lenses for snowboarding, kayaking, quads, all kinds of video.  Are those all deceiving too?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #135 on: May 30, 2013, 03:18:13 PM »
Yep!

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #136 on: May 30, 2013, 03:39:44 PM »
Yep!

Have a look at the following pictures. Below the google earth image from roughly the same location, same altitude and same perspective as the first high altitude picture. Same curvature. It would be very coincidentally if both google and the photo have the same distortion.
(remember to scroll to the left and right, or download the picture to view on your computer



Hello!

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #137 on: June 05, 2013, 08:57:39 AM »
LolFlat,

The question is, what camera lens was used to take that first photo?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #138 on: June 05, 2013, 09:11:36 AM »
LolFlat,

The question is, what camera lens was used to take that first photo?

The same one as in the second photo. And judging by the plane's fuselage, it's not a wide angle lens.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #139 on: June 05, 2013, 09:59:26 AM »
Yep!

Have a look at the following pictures. Below the google earth image from roughly the same location, same altitude and same perspective as the first high altitude picture. Same curvature. It would be very coincidentally if both google and the photo have the same distortion.
(remember to scroll to the left and right, or download the picture to view on your computer





If there was a fish eye effect in the first photo, then you would see the line of the plane engine curving in a concave manner.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #140 on: June 21, 2013, 11:16:38 PM »
Thanks for the baseless assumptions, but I am actually saying this photo was taken from a balloon, not an imaginary spacestation. Now if you think you can prove that this photo was taken at an altitude too high for a balloon, carry on. I can't believe there are fully grown educated adults walking around that believe in spacestations.

I find it ironic that you say you can't believe there are people who believe in space stations... Yeah all that money and research was for fun. I'd rather believe in balloons somehow floating in space. Makes much more sense.

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #141 on: June 28, 2013, 11:54:44 AM »
LolFlat,

The question is, what camera lens was used to take that first photo?
Uh, even if it were a fish eye lens wouldn't the wing be bent concave?

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #142 on: June 28, 2013, 04:02:49 PM »



Photos that clearly show a rounded horizon from the vantage point of space
Does that not look like a flat disk to you? I mean, FErs say that that is the spot light of the sun, shining down on earth. A huge circle lit up, the rest is night and the edge, the terminator of the sun.



Another thing that seems quite obvious to me (IMHO)  in Thork's animation :
The moon and the sun are shown in the same orbit and are always 180 degrees apart.
Which of course they are obviously  not in reality.

IMHO Round Earthers can justifiably say "fake" about the animation.  :D ;D ::)
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #143 on: June 28, 2013, 07:54:22 PM »
ok What Continent is that?  I'm pretty sure its no continent actually and is just some small island... ok so if that small island looks that big to 1/4 of the earth then why isnt it a continent again?... yea its called ratio. FAKE

EDIT: Otherwise.. seriously folks I think we have newly discovered continent here.. this is HUGE news.. what should we name it how about "Afakerica."
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 08:39:22 PM by Thinker »

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« Reply #144 on: June 29, 2013, 04:52:01 PM »
^That video is obviously fake. You can't think that's real, can you? Come ON, guys!!



....

The horizon looks terribly concave as they jump out of the aircraft. Perhaps it is convincing enough for you to change your mind on the shape of the earth? 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 04:54:57 PM by Ski »
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."