The results of my experiment to prove the shape of the Earth

Recently I organized an experiment to prove the shape of the Earth where Dephelis and I both took pictures of the Sun at the same time at two very distant locations.  Time zones were obviously taken into account.

My photo:


Dephelis's photo:


Astronomy telescopes have a tendency to flip their image as well as rotate it in weird ways and also it was sunrise for me and sunset for Dephelis so we are seeing the sun at different orientations.  Here is my image rotated 180 degrees to match Dephelis's image better:


Here I have identified the sunspots on the two images:


Both these images contain the same sunspots in the same places which means that when they were taken the same side of the Sun was facing the two telescopes, but these images were taken at the same time from different continents so the only explanation is that the Sun is really far away, and if the Sun is really far away then the only way that time zones and seasons can be explained is by saying that the Earth is round.  Any resident of Earth has experienced seasons, and time zones had to be taken into account when this experiment was being preformed so they are obviously real.

Conclusion: the Earth is round.

From viewers like us. Thank You ! (For your experiment and the results of it.)

In the world of reality it is a foregone conclusion that the earth is round.
But you have keep in mind that this is The Flat Earth Society Forum and as incredible as it seems there are some who think otherwise . LOL.

I would call the evidence conclusive, the earth is round. I fell the pictures also rule out a flat sun.

Clearly flawed, those suns are not even the same size in your pictures! 

Clearly flawed, those suns are not even the same size in your pictures! 

Shills all the way down. :p

Although I missed the thread planning all this, and it wouldn't be the exact same time, I'd go take my own picture of the sun to add to this if it weren't cloudy and raining at the moment. 

It's like I said a couple years ago when I posted some pictures here of the sun with sunspots, if it's round and someone else took a picture too from a significant distance away,  whether or not the spots are in the same position would prove one way or the other.

The big and small sunspots are in very different areas of the circle. What does that prove? What was the elevation above sea level for each pic? Delphi's spots are way above the middle of the circle, while yours are near the center line. Elevation may play a role.
 Why did you rotate 1 one of the pics? Do you know that one camera takes reverse image and one camera doesn't?
 Good work by the way. But you may need help interpreting them.

The big and small sunspots are in very different areas of the circle. What does that prove? What was the elevation above sea level for each pic? Delphi's spots are way above the middle of the circle, while yours are near the center line. Elevation may play a role.
 Why did you rotate 1 one of the pics? Do you know that one camera takes reverse image and one camera doesn't?
 Good work by the way. But you may need help interpreting them.

If you have any experience with telescopes then you would know that they do odd things to the rotation of the images, but if you are looking at things in space where there is no up or down that's not a problem.  The other reason why the images were rotated differenty has to do with the roundness of the Earth and how it was to rise for me and sunset for Depelis.  I don't know how to rotate an image in smaller then 90 degree increments, but I assumed that even the flat earthers would be smart enough to realize that the images are rotated slightly differently.  Just rotate my image counterclockwise a little bit and then the sunspots will be in the exact same location as they are in Dephelis's image.  Was that so hard?

Quote from: hoppy on January 24, 2015, 05:01:49 PM

The big and small sunspots are in very different areas of the circle. What does that prove? What was the elevation above sea level for each pic? Delphi's spots are way above the middle of the circle, while yours are near the center line. Elevation may play a role.
 Why did you rotate 1 one of the pics? Do you know that one camera takes reverse image and one camera doesn't?
 Good work by the way. But you may need help interpreting them.

If you have any experience with telescopes then you would know that they do odd things to the rotation of the images, but if you are looking at things in space where there is no up or down that's not a problem.  The other reason why the images were rotated differenty has to do with the roundness of the Earth and how it was to rise for me and sunset for Depelis.  I don't know how to rotate an image in smaller then 90 degree increments, but I assumed that even the flat earthers would be smart enough to realize that the images are rotated slightly differently.  Just rotate my image counterclockwise a little bit and then the sunspots will be in the exact same location as they are in Dephelis's image.  Was that so hard?

So hard? It is your experiment, not mine.
Why the need to rotate 1 and not the other? Is it just so that they would line up closer? One of the camera telescope set ups inverses the image and 1 does not?
 I would think that both setups inverse the image, as telescopes usually do that. Why is only one of the images in need of a 180 deg rotation?

The big and small sunspots are in very different areas of the circle. What does that prove? What was the elevation above sea level for each pic? Delphi's spots are way above the middle of the circle, while yours are near the center line. Elevation may play a role.

Several factors are at play here, including the telescope mount type and the orientation of the camera when attached to the telescope. I was using an Alt-Az mount which results in objects appearing to change orientation throughout an observing session in the same way the stars change orientation when they are in the west compared to the east. I also had to attach the camera according to the way the connectors were aligned, I could of re-orientated it to the same angle as mikeman's had there been some way to know exactly how his was orientated. It's unimportant as we can correct that by rotating the images with software instead.

Why did you rotate 1 one of the pics?

To compensate for the differences in camera orientation as explained above.

Do you know that one camera takes reverse image and one camera doesn't?

Neither image was reversed compared to each other. This would have been apparent from the posted images had it been the case. The only difference was camera orientation.

Good work by the way. But you may need help interpreting them.

Thanks. No we don't, at least not from anyone here judging on apparent familiarity and competence with subjects such as photography or telescopy in general.


Edit: removed errant closing quote tag

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 24, 2015, 05:17:41 PM

Quote from: hoppy on January 24, 2015, 05:01:49 PM

The big and small sunspots are in very different areas of the circle. What does that prove? What was the elevation above sea level for each pic? Delphi's spots are way above the middle of the circle, while yours are near the center line. Elevation may play a role.
 Why did you rotate 1 one of the pics? Do you know that one camera takes reverse image and one camera doesn't?
 Good work by the way. But you may need help interpreting them.

If you have any experience with telescopes then you would know that they do odd things to the rotation of the images, but if you are looking at things in space where there is no up or down that's not a problem.  The other reason why the images were rotated differenty has to do with the roundness of the Earth and how it was to rise for me and sunset for Depelis.  I don't know how to rotate an image in smaller then 90 degree increments, but I assumed that even the flat earthers would be smart enough to realize that the images are rotated slightly differently.  Just rotate my image counterclockwise a little bit and then the sunspots will be in the exact same location as they are in Dephelis's image.  Was that so hard?

So hard? It is your experiment, not mine.
Why the need to rotate 1 and not the other? Is it just so that they would line up closer? One of the camera telescope set ups inverses the image and 1 does not?
 I would think that both setups inverse the image, as telescopes usually do that. Why is only one of the images in need of a 180 deg rotation?

The sun is rotated in one image because the Earth is round and "up" is a different direction for Dephelis then it is for me.  It's as simple as that.

What's funny is that the FE are  just spouting vague sentences. We broke them guys, I think.

The images when viewed as taken, show that they were clearly taken from different angles and elevations. It is not the same image.

The images when viewed as taken, show that they were clearly taken from different angles and elevations. It is not the same image.

Incorrect on both counts.

What's funny is that the FE are  just spouting vague sentences. We broke them guys, I think.

I think the only  thing you broke was wind from having a bad case of  verbal disentry. You haven even established the sun is even a solid object, to be running around makeing  any claims. 

Quote from: Misero on January 24, 2015, 05:43:52 PM

What's funny is that the FE are  just spouting vague sentences. We broke them guys, I think.

I think the only  thing you broke was wind from having a bad case of  verbal disentry. You haven even established the sun is even a solid object, to be running around makeing  any claims. 

Does this mean that you agree with my data Charls?

Great results.

When the images are rotated to match orientation of the cameras, the images are both identical (barring focus and pixel count). Excellent work guys.

Hoppy - the result would have been a negative for RE if the sunspots had been in different places entirely eg one set were in the middle of the sun disc or absent entirely. As it is they are a perfect match and perfectly prove a distant sun with parallel light rays.

The level of excuses now coming from FE land is laughable.  Every post should be answered with 'See results of experiment to prove the shape of the Earth.  Sorry, Game Over'.

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 24, 2015, 06:11:24 PM

Quote from: Misero on January 24, 2015, 05:43:52 PM

What's funny is that the FE are  just spouting vague sentences. We broke them guys, I think.

I think the only  thing you broke was wind from having a bad case of  verbal disentry. You haven even established the sun is even a solid object, to be running around makeing  any claims. 

Does this mean that you agree with my data Charls?

No I dont , not when i have inverted photos of the moon & mars , which just happen to over lay the southern & northern hemisphere . I have also been working on in my spare time , a series of co2 lassers  that simulate eclips projections by altering wave freqencey . Aswell as working on reverse engernering defused sun light back to its lasser  state . To prove the sun is a naturaly acouring co2 lassers ,which is  reflected on to  & defused by the most outer atmosphere & not what you pin heads perceived it to be.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 24, 2015, 08:12:47 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 24, 2015, 06:11:24 PM

Quote from: Misero on January 24, 2015, 05:43:52 PM

What's funny is that the FE are  just spouting vague sentences. We broke them guys, I think.

I think the only  thing you broke was wind from having a bad case of  verbal disentry. You haven even established the sun is even a solid object, to be running around makeing  any claims. 

Does this mean that you agree with my data Charls?

No I dont , not when i have inverted photos of the moon & mars , which just happen to over lay the southern & northern hemisphere . I have also been working on in my spare time , a series of co2 lassers  that simulate eclips projections by altering wave freqencey . Aswell as working on reverse engernering defused sun light back to its lasser  state . To prove the sun is a naturaly acouring co2 lassers ,which is  reflected on to  & defused by the most outer atmosphere & not what you pin heads perceived it to be.

What nonsense.  Have you heard of spell check?  Got a picture of that CO2 laser you been working on?  This is just too lazy, not even clever as a troll.  At least Dr V can spin a yarn.

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 25, 2015, 12:47:06 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 24, 2015, 08:12:47 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 24, 2015, 06:11:24 PM

Quote from: Misero on January 24, 2015, 05:43:52 PM

What's funny is that the FE are  just spouting vague sentences. We broke them guys, I think.

I think the only  thing you broke was wind from having a bad case of  verbal disentry. You haven even established the sun is even a solid object, to be running around makeing  any claims. 

Does this mean that you agree with my data Charls?

No I dont , not when i have inverted photos of the moon & mars , which just happen to over lay the southern & northern hemisphere . I have also been working on in my spare time , a series of co2 lassers  that simulate eclips projections by altering wave freqencey . Aswell as working on reverse engernering defused sun light back to its lasser  state . To prove the sun is a naturaly acouring co2 lassers ,which is  reflected on to  & defused by the most outer atmosphere & not what you pin heads perceived it to be.

What nonsense.  Have you heard of spell check?  Got a picture of that CO2 laser you been working on?  This is just too lazy, not even clever as a troll.  At least Dr V can spin a yarn.

Well now is your time to shine dip shit . Care to give us all the dimension of the sun ?

Lets get a bit closer to earth....

Does any of the FET's in this forum own a telescope?

If you do, what do you see when you look at a full moon? What do you see a few days later when the moon has a bit of shadow? What happens to the edge of the shadow when you observe it every day? What do you observe when you look at the craters of the moon?

I see a round object

You don't even need a telescope, decent pair of binoculars will do..

Also..

The ISS can be observed very easily with a telescope. How do you explain seeing the ISS with your own eyes through a telescope? How do you explain a machine flying up in the sky with no aerodynamic properties on it? How do you explain the speed it moves at while you observe the ISS?

And this is experiments you can do out of your own back garden.

And in case you think telescopes is part of the conspiracy, take it apart. Look at how it works. Purchase a simple laser pointing device, shine it on the mirrors and look at what happens. A normal light bulb will also work in this experiment

The round earth believers have massive amounts of modern proof the earth is round, The flat earth believers have old ancient drawings that they consider as proof.

Something else that need explaining. If the sun was a flat disk, then normal rotation on it's axis as we understand it will not be possible. Why is it that when you take a picture of the sun today with it's sunspots and two days later another, then the sunspots have moved. Another two days and the same sunspots will be further along possibly on the edge of the "disk"

And then somehow after a few more days those same sunspots will start to appear on the opposite side of the sun which tells intelligent people that it moved behind the sun and reappeared, this indicates rotation of a round object and not a flat disk

Lets get a bit closer to earth....

Does any of the FET's in this forum own a telescope?

If you do, what do you see when you look at a full moon? What do you see a few days later when the moon has a bit of shadow? What happens to the edge of the shadow when you observe it every day? What do you observe when you look at the craters of the moon?

I see a round object

You don't even need a telescope, decent pair of binoculars will do..

Also..

The ISS can be observed very easily with a telescope. How do you explain seeing the ISS with your own eyes through a telescope? How do you explain a machine flying up in the sky with no aerodynamic properties on it? How do you explain the speed it moves at while you observe the ISS?

And this is experiments you can do out of your own back garden.

And in case you think telescopes is part of the conspiracy, take it apart. Look at how it works. Purchase a simple laser pointing device, shine it on the mirrors and look at what happens. A normal light bulb will also work in this experiment

The round earth believers have massive amounts of modern proof the earth is round, The flat earth believers have old ancient drawings that they consider as proof.

Have you read the veiw ISS for beginners web site . Experiment out of your own back yard lol . Why dont you explain why the ISS does not maintain the same course ? Tell me how you apparently get supplies &  change  crews when its traveling at that speed . Provied the evidence  its   not a blimp being carried around in a high speed jet stream .

Something else that need explaining. If the sun was a flat disk, then normal rotation on it's axis as we understand it will not be possible. Why is it that when you take a picture of the sun today with it's sunspots and two days later another, then the sunspots have moved. Another two days and the same sunspots will be further along possibly on the edge of the "disk"

And then somehow after a few more days those same sunspots will start to appear on the opposite side of the sun which tells intelligent people that it moved behind the sun and reappeared, this indicates rotation of a round object and not a flat disk

have you ever studied a laser projected on to a large screen that has had its currant fluctuated ?

Quote from: Pavarotti on January 25, 2015, 03:27:14 AM

Lets get a bit closer to earth....

Does any of the FET's in this forum own a telescope?

If you do, what do you see when you look at a full moon? What do you see a few days later when the moon has a bit of shadow? What happens to the edge of the shadow when you observe it every day? What do you observe when you look at the craters of the moon?

I see a round object

You don't even need a telescope, decent pair of binoculars will do..

Also..

The ISS can be observed very easily with a telescope. How do you explain seeing the ISS with your own eyes through a telescope? How do you explain a machine flying up in the sky with no aerodynamic properties on it? How do you explain the speed it moves at while you observe the ISS?

And this is experiments you can do out of your own back garden.

And in case you think telescopes is part of the conspiracy, take it apart. Look at how it works. Purchase a simple laser pointing device, shine it on the mirrors and look at what happens. A normal light bulb will also work in this experiment

The round earth believers have massive amounts of modern proof the earth is round, The flat earth believers have old ancient drawings that they consider as proof.

Have you read the veiw ISS for beginners web site . Experiment out of your own back yard lol . Why dont you explain why the ISS does not maintain the same course ? Tell me how you apparently get supplies &  change  crews when its traveling at that speed . Provied the evidence  its   not a blimp being carried around in a high speed jet stream .

DO you have a telescope and have you used it. If you have, what do you see when you look at the moon and ISS? Just answer my question. You can use a telescope in your own backyard.
And light reflects of mirrors... test it yourself

Quote from: Pavarotti on January 25, 2015, 03:39:38 AM

Something else that need explaining. If the sun was a flat disk, then normal rotation on it's axis as we understand it will not be possible. Why is it that when you take a picture of the sun today with it's sunspots and two days later another, then the sunspots have moved. Another two days and the same sunspots will be further along possibly on the edge of the "disk"

And then somehow after a few more days those same sunspots will start to appear on the opposite side of the sun which tells intelligent people that it moved behind the sun and reappeared, this indicates rotation of a round object and not a flat disk

have you ever studied a laser projected on to a large screen that has had its currant fluctuated ?

Don't use a laser then, drill a hole through your door and observe what happens when sunlight hits a mirror. The idea is that you can study how light and mirrors work for yourself. Because this is the basic tools used for astronomy.

Quote from: gpssjim on January 25, 2015, 01:08:21 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 25, 2015, 12:47:06 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 24, 2015, 08:12:47 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on January 24, 2015, 06:11:24 PM

Quote from: Misero on January 24, 2015, 05:43:52 PM

What's funny is that the FE are  just spouting vague sentences. We broke them guys, I think.

I think the only  thing you broke was wind from having a bad case of  verbal disentry. You haven even established the sun is even a solid object, to be running around makeing  any claims. 

Does this mean that you agree with my data Charls?

No I dont , not when i have inverted photos of the moon & mars , which just happen to over lay the southern & northern hemisphere . I have also been working on in my spare time , a series of co2 lassers  that simulate eclips projections by altering wave freqencey . Aswell as working on reverse engernering defused sun light back to its lasser  state . To prove the sun is a naturaly acouring co2 lassers ,which is  reflected on to  & defused by the most outer atmosphere & not what you pin heads perceived it to be.

What nonsense.  Have you heard of spell check?  Got a picture of that CO2 laser you been working on?  This is just too lazy, not even clever as a troll.  At least Dr V can spin a yarn.

Well now is your time to shine dip shit . Care to give us all the dimension of the sun ?

The sun is freaking big and far far away.  It is hot too, ask Icarus about that.  Nice improvement in spelling though! 

Quote from: Pavarotti on January 25, 2015, 03:27:14 AM

Lets get a bit closer to earth....

Does any of the FET's in this forum own a telescope?

If you do, what do you see when you look at a full moon? What do you see a few days later when the moon has a bit of shadow? What happens to the edge of the shadow when you observe it every day? What do you observe when you look at the craters of the moon?

I see a round object

You don't even need a telescope, decent pair of binoculars will do..

Also..

The ISS can be observed very easily with a telescope. How do you explain seeing the ISS with your own eyes through a telescope? How do you explain a machine flying up in the sky with no aerodynamic properties on it? How do you explain the speed it moves at while you observe the ISS?

And this is experiments you can do out of your own back garden.

And in case you think telescopes is part of the conspiracy, take it apart. Look at how it works. Purchase a simple laser pointing device, shine it on the mirrors and look at what happens. A normal light bulb will also work in this experiment

The round earth believers have massive amounts of modern proof the earth is round, The flat earth believers have old ancient drawings that they consider as proof.

Have you read the veiw ISS for beginners web site . Experiment out of your own back yard lol . Why dont you explain why the ISS does not maintain the same course ? Tell me how you apparently get supplies &  change  crews when its traveling at that speed . Provied the evidence  its   not a blimp being carried around in a high speed jet stream .

The ISS doesn't change course, it just appears to because the Earth rotates under it.  How the ISS is re supplied is by launching rockets and then using a lot of math to meet up with the ISS at a reasonable speed.

How would my evperiment's results be possible if the Earth was flat?  Is the Sun in on the conspiracy or has light been getting drunk again?

The images when viewed as taken, show that they were clearly taken from different angles

You do at least realize on a sphere, people on roughly opposite sides would be orientated differently when viewing something 93 million miles away right?  I hope so.  Anyway, try actually looking through a telescope at distant hills or buildings.  What happens with the view orientation?  Now add in other adapters that may have been used.

What it comes down to is that the same face of the sun is visible in both pictures.  Are you a spherical sun believer or a spotlight sun believer?  If the sun is spherical and 3000 miles above a flat earth, how would the same face be visible from two locations several thousand miles apart?

If it's a spotlight, why doesn't it look like an ellipse from an angle?

You should try some more photography experiments of your own again.  A cheap welding lens over the front of that video camera you bought a while back would probably let you get your own images of the sun.  Or try the house across the bay again.  I recall the bottom of the house being hidden behind the waterline.

and elevations.

And?.....How much would it matter?  Near sunset and sunrise for both photographers, different equipment and probably different levels of magnification used, and the sun is either 3000 miles, or 93million miles, away.

It is not the same image.

Um... yeah, it's two separate images of the same object from different locations.

I have also been working on in my spare time , a series of co2 lassers  that simulate eclips projections by altering wave freqencey .

No, you're not.  We know you're lying because you would at least be able to spell laser, eclipse, and frequency.