Conduct an experiment to prove that Earth is Flat

Meanwhile in the real world everyone else realized it was the same globe and to make it appear the same size different levels of zoom were used. 

There is no possible way to produce those three different images of "the same globe" by just moving away from the globe itself. Again, the globe remains the exact same size, but the PICTURES ON THE GLOBE change? Sorry, that's not how it works. And you can take all of your zooming tricks with you. The description simply states that the person moved farther away from the globe each time he took the next picture...

Do you know the very advanced photo editing called cutting? You select a part of the photo, cut it and paste as a new image. Viola, we have 3 globes with different angles, we don't even need to zoom, and yet we can have then all the same size.

Seriously, is it so hard to understand? Are you literally trying to find the smallest hole just to deny something so easy to verify?

Quote from: deserted on August 10, 2016, 11:14:06 AM

There is no possible way to produce those three different images of "the same globe" by just moving away from the globe itself. Again, the globe remains the exact same size, but the PICTURES ON THE GLOBE change? Sorry, that's not how it works. And you can take all of your zooming tricks with you. The description simply states that the person moved farther away from the globe each time he took the next picture...

Do you know the very advanced photo editing called cutting? You select a part of the photo, cut it and paste as a new image. Viola, we have 3 globes with different angles, we don't even need to zoom, and yet we can have then all the same size.

Seriously, is it so hard to understand? Are you literally trying to find the smallest hole just to deny something so easy to verify?

Again, the description below the picture of the three globes says that three pictures were taken at different distances. Nothing about zooming, or cutting, or editing. It's very simple and straight forward. Joe Blow took a photo of the first globe. Then he stepped further away and snapped the second. Then backing up further, he snapped the third. That's what we're told. None of you can seem to accept the photograph's simple description. You just keep coming up with different tactics to manipulate the image (none of which were used according to the author of the picture), and then call me an idiot for not buying your explanation.

None of your fancy methods were used. Period. Why is that difficult to wrap your mind around? The reason is because it proves deception on your part. It's as simple as that.

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

Quote from: Brouwer on August 10, 2016, 11:37:03 AM

Quote from: deserted on August 10, 2016, 11:14:06 AM

There is no possible way to produce those three different images of "the same globe" by just moving away from the globe itself. Again, the globe remains the exact same size, but the PICTURES ON THE GLOBE change? Sorry, that's not how it works. And you can take all of your zooming tricks with you. The description simply states that the person moved farther away from the globe each time he took the next picture...

Do you know the very advanced photo editing called cutting? You select a part of the photo, cut it and paste as a new image. Viola, we have 3 globes with different angles, we don't even need to zoom, and yet we can have then all the same size.

Seriously, is it so hard to understand? Are you literally trying to find the smallest hole just to deny something so easy to verify?

Again, the description below the picture of the three globes says that three pictures were taken at different distances. Nothing about zooming, or cutting, or editing. It's very simple and straight forward. Joe Blow took a photo of the first globe. Then he stepped further away and snapped the second. Then backing up further, he snapped the third. That's what we're told. None of you can seem to accept the photograph's simple description. You just keep coming up with different tactics to manipulate the image (none of which were used according to the author of the picture), and then call me an idiot for not buying your explanation.

None of your fancy methods were used. Period. Why is that difficult to wrap your mind around? The reason is because it proves deception on your part. It's as simple as that.

Why not do it yourself?  Even the camera on your phone should work.  You do not need a globe of the Earth. A ball with some markings on it would do.

This is just so easy to verify.  Why are you so reluctant to agree that is what is expected when taking photos with different focal lengths and distances of the Earth? 

I will challenge you again to conduct an experiment taking pictures of a sphere from different distances. 

Stand a certain distance away take a picture.  Zoom in and take a picture.

Do the same thing at different distances.

You can also watch the movie Vertigo.  The dolly zoom is used rather frequently in that movie.  You will notice things appear to change size in relation to the stuff around them. Just googling," Vertigo dolly zoom", will give you the examples from the movie.

This is something that is well known to photography enthusiast and professionals.  Does the conspiracy now not only include NASA but these people as well?

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

It is so hard to tell here.  I have seen people deny something is true when it is so easy to verify .  I would like to think Deserted is trolling at this point.  Him first questioning it is valid IMHO.  Then he was offered some very compelling evidence, I think the best was the examples of the dolly zoom.

Yes, the cinematography in The Wire is nothing short of visionary

Quote from: deserted on August 10, 2016, 03:51:04 PM

Quote from: Brouwer on August 10, 2016, 11:37:03 AM

Quote from: deserted on August 10, 2016, 11:14:06 AM

There is no possible way to produce those three different images of "the same globe" by just moving away from the globe itself. Again, the globe remains the exact same size, but the PICTURES ON THE GLOBE change? Sorry, that's not how it works. And you can take all of your zooming tricks with you. The description simply states that the person moved farther away from the globe each time he took the next picture...

Do you know the very advanced photo editing called cutting? You select a part of the photo, cut it and paste as a new image. Viola, we have 3 globes with different angles, we don't even need to zoom, and yet we can have then all the same size.

Seriously, is it so hard to understand? Are you literally trying to find the smallest hole just to deny something so easy to verify?

Again, the description below the picture of the three globes says that three pictures were taken at different distances. Nothing about zooming, or cutting, or editing. It's very simple and straight forward. Joe Blow took a photo of the first globe. Then he stepped further away and snapped the second. Then backing up further, he snapped the third. That's what we're told. None of you can seem to accept the photograph's simple description. You just keep coming up with different tactics to manipulate the image (none of which were used according to the author of the picture), and then call me an idiot for not buying your explanation.

None of your fancy methods were used. Period. Why is that difficult to wrap your mind around? The reason is because it proves deception on your part. It's as simple as that.

Why not do it yourself?  Even the camera on your phone should work.  You do not need a globe of the Earth. A ball with some markings on it would do.

This is just so easy to verify.  Why are you so reluctant to agree that is what is expected when taking photos with different focal lengths and distances of the Earth? 

I will challenge you again to conduct an experiment taking pictures of a sphere from different distances. 

Stand a certain distance away take a picture.  Zoom in and take a picture.

Do the same thing at different distances.

You can also watch the movie Vertigo.  The dolly zoom is used rather frequently in that movie.  You will notice things appear to change size in relation to the stuff around them. Just googling," Vertigo dolly zoom", will give you the examples from the movie.

This is something that is well known to photography enthusiast and professionals.  Does the conspiracy now not only include NASA but these people as well?

I just experimented with my phone. This is what happened:
I took a picture of the computer I'm working on (making sure I was getting the edges in the picture). Then I moved back some and was ready to snap the second, when I immediately noticed the computer was considerably, and very noticeably smaller. The pictures ON the computer were smaller, as well as the computer itself - just like I said they would be. I didn't even have to snap the second picture because I could plainly see what the picture would have looked like. So again, I maintain my position. When someone takes a picture with a camera, and then moves away, the entire image appears smaller - both the computer and all of the images on the computer. Remember, nothing fancy was used in photographing the three globes. The description plainly says that the photos were taken from three different distances.

Meanwhile in the real world everyone else realized it was the same globe and to make it appear the same size different levels of zoom were used.

No, zoom wasn't used. Read the description again.

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

I'm simply going by what the author of the picture claimed. You all keep talking about zooming and Dolly Zooming and cutting. You're all going against the pictures description. YOU are violating protocol, not me. I'm sticking with the description, while you are resorting to tricks. No tricks like Zooming were used. Period.
Is this a real stumper? You people got caught with a bogus picture of three globes in an attempt to excuse a fake CGI "photo" of "Earth from Space". You got busted. Admit it.

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 04:08:12 PM

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

It is so hard to tell here.  I have seen people deny something is true when it is so easy to verify .  I would like to think Deserted is trolling at this point.  Him first questioning it is valid IMHO.  Then he was offered some very compelling evidence, I think the best was the examples of the dolly zoom.

One more time, Woody...
No zooming was used. The first photo was taken, then the photographer stepped back and took the second photo, then back further and took the third. That's what the description says. No tricks were used. Why can't you guys accept it the way it's written?

Quote from: Woody on August 10, 2016, 04:42:04 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 04:08:12 PM

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

It is so hard to tell here.  I have seen people deny something is true when it is so easy to verify .  I would like to think Deserted is trolling at this point.  Him first questioning it is valid IMHO.  Then he was offered some very compelling evidence, I think the best was the examples of the dolly zoom.

One more time, Woody...
No zooming was used. The first photo was taken, then the photographer stepped back and took the second photo, then back further and took the third. That's what the description says. No tricks were used. Why can't you guys accept it the way it's written?

Here is what can explain those pictures taken.

1. The photographer zoomed in while further back.  Notice the examples of dolly zoom everything seemed to change size around them and they remained the same apparent size.

2. The pictures were cropped and resized.  This would likely been done if zoom was not used.  It was done to make the globes the same size in each picture.

3.  The person made three globes and two  for the the pics showing Australia to fool people.

Now consider amateur enthusiast and professionals know about and use this effect when filming and taking pictures.  Are they making it up and part of the conspiracy?  That is a lot of people.

When a conspiracy starts getting to the size there are about as many people in on it as there are people who are not is it really a secrete or conspiracy anymore? 

If you do something similar as I described and keep the apparent size of the object about the same size you will see the apparent size of stuff around change.  I will point this out again. Many, many people know about this effect and take advantage of it.

Below the camera stays the same distance and the focal length changes:



The picture can be found on a site teaching and explaining photography.  Do you think the site is run by the conspiracy?

http://expertphotography.com/understand-focal-length-4-easy-steps/

You can continue to wallow in ignorance and ignore and dismiss any evidence as lies that say you are wrong about something.  You can also just admit that when different focal lengths and distances are used it can make things in pictures appear to have different spatial relations.

Quote from: Woody on August 10, 2016, 04:42:04 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 04:08:12 PM

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

It is so hard to tell here.  I have seen people deny something is true when it is so easy to verify .  I would like to think Deserted is trolling at this point.  Him first questioning it is valid IMHO.  Then he was offered some very compelling evidence, I think the best was the examples of the dolly zoom.

One more time, Woody...
No zooming was used. The first photo was taken, then the photographer stepped back and took the second photo, then back further and took the third. That's what the description says. No tricks were used. Why can't you guys accept it the way it's written?

Classic fallacy.

I quote the picture
"Three phtos of the same globe taken from different distances. North America seems a different size in each image becaue you can see more of the globe as you get further away."

As you've read it again, I hope you notice your fault.
In case you do not, let me explain it:
The text does not mention zoom was used. But since the distance has changed but the sphere itself stays the same size, the pictures taken were either cropped or diffrenet focal lenghts were used. Its called a logical conclusion.

To doublecheck it you can take a look at the background and will notice it has changed too (as with dolly-zooming).

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 10:21:53 AM

Quote from: Woody on August 10, 2016, 04:42:04 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 04:08:12 PM

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

It is so hard to tell here.  I have seen people deny something is true when it is so easy to verify .  I would like to think Deserted is trolling at this point.  Him first questioning it is valid IMHO.  Then he was offered some very compelling evidence, I think the best was the examples of the dolly zoom.

One more time, Woody...
No zooming was used. The first photo was taken, then the photographer stepped back and took the second photo, then back further and took the third. That's what the description says. No tricks were used. Why can't you guys accept it the way it's written?

Here is what can explain those pictures taken.

1. The photographer zoomed in while further back.  Notice the examples of dolly zoom everything seemed to change size around them and they remained the same apparent size.

2. The pictures were cropped and resized.  This would likely been done if zoom was not used.  It was done to make the globes the same size in each picture.

3.  The person made three globes and two  for the the pics showing Australia to fool people.

Now consider amateur enthusiast and professionals know about and use this effect when filming and taking pictures.  Are they making it up and part of the conspiracy?  That is a lot of people.

When a conspiracy starts getting to the size there are about as many people in on it as there are people who are not is it really a secrete or conspiracy anymore? 

If you do something similar as I described and keep the apparent size of the object about the same size you will see the apparent size of stuff around change.  I will point this out again. Many, many people know about this effect and take advantage of it.

Below the camera stays the same distance and the focal length changes:



The picture can be found on a site teaching and explaining photography.  Do you think the site is run by the conspiracy?

http://expertphotography.com/understand-focal-length-4-easy-steps/

You can continue to wallow in ignorance and ignore and dismiss any evidence as lies that say you are wrong about something.  You can also just admit that when different focal lengths and distances are used it can make things in pictures appear to have different spatial relations.

Right. This works when the objects being photographed are separate from each other. The same is true in the case of the Dolly Zooming explanation. But this is NOT what was seen in the globe photos, is it? The pictures on the globe itself changed, while the globe remained fixed. That's what happened. Look again at the pictures. You cannot do that with your fancy zooms. In other words, if you can change the size of the pictures on the can while keeping the can at the very same size then you've done what the globe pics have done. Good luck.

Even if you could, you'd be utilizing trickery that the globe photographer never used. Once again, according to the author of the picture NO ZOOM WAS USED. That's what the description says. That's what I'm going by.

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 10:21:53 AM

Quote from: Woody on August 10, 2016, 04:42:04 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 04:08:12 PM

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

It is so hard to tell here.  I have seen people deny something is true when it is so easy to verify .  I would like to think Deserted is trolling at this point.  Him first questioning it is valid IMHO.  Then he was offered some very compelling evidence, I think the best was the examples of the dolly zoom.

One more time, Woody...
No zooming was used. The first photo was taken, then the photographer stepped back and took the second photo, then back further and took the third. That's what the description says. No tricks were used. Why can't you guys accept it the way it's written?

Classic fallacy.

I quote the picture
"Three phtos of the same globe taken from different distances. North America seems a different size in each image becaue you can see more of the globe as you get further away."

As you've read it again, I hope you notice your fault.
In case you do not, let me explain it:
The text does not mention zoom was used. But since the distance has changed but the sphere itself stays the same size, the pictures taken were either cropped or diffrenet focal lenghts were used. Its called a logical conclusion.

To doublecheck it you can take a look at the background and will notice it has changed too (as with dolly-zooming).

Nice try...

The willful ignorance of FErs never ceases to astound me.

Quote from: frenat on August 10, 2016, 11:28:03 AM

Meanwhile in the real world everyone else realized it was the same globe and to make it appear the same size different levels of zoom were used.

No, zoom wasn't used. Read the description again.

Did I say it was in the description?  No I said everyone realized it was used.  So it was left out of the description.  So what?  The fact remains that everyone except one person knew it was used, that it would have to be used.  You're making a big deal out of nothing.

Quote from: Woody on August 11, 2016, 10:51:39 AM

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 10:21:53 AM

Quote from: Woody on August 10, 2016, 04:42:04 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 04:08:12 PM

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

It is so hard to tell here.  I have seen people deny something is true when it is so easy to verify .  I would like to think Deserted is trolling at this point.  Him first questioning it is valid IMHO.  Then he was offered some very compelling evidence, I think the best was the examples of the dolly zoom.

One more time, Woody...
No zooming was used. The first photo was taken, then the photographer stepped back and took the second photo, then back further and took the third. That's what the description says. No tricks were used. Why can't you guys accept it the way it's written?

Here is what can explain those pictures taken.

1. The photographer zoomed in while further back.  Notice the examples of dolly zoom everything seemed to change size around them and they remained the same apparent size.

2. The pictures were cropped and resized.  This would likely been done if zoom was not used.  It was done to make the globes the same size in each picture.

3.  The person made three globes and two  for the the pics showing Australia to fool people.

Now consider amateur enthusiast and professionals know about and use this effect when filming and taking pictures.  Are they making it up and part of the conspiracy?  That is a lot of people.

When a conspiracy starts getting to the size there are about as many people in on it as there are people who are not is it really a secrete or conspiracy anymore? 

If you do something similar as I described and keep the apparent size of the object about the same size you will see the apparent size of stuff around change.  I will point this out again. Many, many people know about this effect and take advantage of it.

Below the camera stays the same distance and the focal length changes:



The picture can be found on a site teaching and explaining photography.  Do you think the site is run by the conspiracy?

http://expertphotography.com/understand-focal-length-4-easy-steps/

You can continue to wallow in ignorance and ignore and dismiss any evidence as lies that say you are wrong about something.  You can also just admit that when different focal lengths and distances are used it can make things in pictures appear to have different spatial relations.

Right. This works when the objects being photographed are separate from each other. The same is true in the case of the Dolly Zooming explanation. But this is NOT what was seen in the globe photos, is it? The pictures on the globe itself changed, while the globe remained fixed. That's what happened. Look again at the pictures. You cannot do that with your fancy zooms. In other words, if you can change the size of the pictures on the can while keeping the can at the very same size then you've done what the globe pics have done. Good luck.

Look closely at the first can and you can see differences in how far around the side of the can you can see in each picture.  Yet the label on the can is not separate from itself.  you are wrong.

Even if you could, you'd be utilizing trickery that the globe photographer never used. Once again, according to the author of the picture NO ZOOM WAS USED. That's what the description says. That's what I'm going by.

Wrong.  The description does NOT say no zoom was used.  It just doesn't mention the zoom.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 01:04:21 PM

Quote from: Woody on August 11, 2016, 10:51:39 AM

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 10:21:53 AM

Quote from: Woody on August 10, 2016, 04:42:04 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 04:08:12 PM

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

It is so hard to tell here.  I have seen people deny something is true when it is so easy to verify .  I would like to think Deserted is trolling at this point.  Him first questioning it is valid IMHO.  Then he was offered some very compelling evidence, I think the best was the examples of the dolly zoom.

One more time, Woody...
No zooming was used. The first photo was taken, then the photographer stepped back and took the second photo, then back further and took the third. That's what the description says. No tricks were used. Why can't you guys accept it the way it's written?

Here is what can explain those pictures taken.

1. The photographer zoomed in while further back.  Notice the examples of dolly zoom everything seemed to change size around them and they remained the same apparent size.

2. The pictures were cropped and resized.  This would likely been done if zoom was not used.  It was done to make the globes the same size in each picture.

3.  The person made three globes and two  for the the pics showing Australia to fool people.

Now consider amateur enthusiast and professionals know about and use this effect when filming and taking pictures.  Are they making it up and part of the conspiracy?  That is a lot of people.

When a conspiracy starts getting to the size there are about as many people in on it as there are people who are not is it really a secrete or conspiracy anymore? 

If you do something similar as I described and keep the apparent size of the object about the same size you will see the apparent size of stuff around change.  I will point this out again. Many, many people know about this effect and take advantage of it.

Below the camera stays the same distance and the focal length changes:



The picture can be found on a site teaching and explaining photography.  Do you think the site is run by the conspiracy?

http://expertphotography.com/understand-focal-length-4-easy-steps/

You can continue to wallow in ignorance and ignore and dismiss any evidence as lies that say you are wrong about something.  You can also just admit that when different focal lengths and distances are used it can make things in pictures appear to have different spatial relations.

Right. This works when the objects being photographed are separate from each other. The same is true in the case of the Dolly Zooming explanation. But this is NOT what was seen in the globe photos, is it? The pictures on the globe itself changed, while the globe remained fixed. That's what happened. Look again at the pictures. You cannot do that with your fancy zooms. In other words, if you can change the size of the pictures on the can while keeping the can at the very same size then you've done what the globe pics have done. Good luck.

Look closely at the first can and you can see differences in how far around the side of the can you can see in each picture.  Yet the label on the can is not separate from itself.  you are wrong.

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 01:04:21 PM

Even if you could, you'd be utilizing trickery that the globe photographer never used. Once again, according to the author of the picture NO ZOOM WAS USED. That's what the description says. That's what I'm going by.

Wrong.  The description does NOT say no zoom was used.  It just doesn't mention the zoom.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Did you see any change in size of the pictures on the can? I didn't. Your point is completely irrelevant. Are you following the train of thought?

I'm actually not sure whether you're retarded or trolling.

Right. This works when the objects being photographed are separate from each other. The same is true in the case of the Dolly Zooming explanation. But this is NOT what was seen in the globe photos, is it? The pictures on the globe itself changed, while the globe remained fixed. That's what happened. Look again at the pictures. You cannot do that with your fancy zooms. In other words, if you can change the size of the pictures on the can while keeping the can at the very same size then you've done what the globe pics have done. Good luck.

Even if you could, you'd be utilizing trickery that the globe photographer never used. Once again, according to the author of the picture NO ZOOM WAS USED. That's what the description says. That's what I'm going by.

Look at the first picture at the top left and the can closest to the camera.

Then look at the picture on the bottom right and the same can.

Do you notice the difference in appearance?

The bowl pictured on the label appears to be different size when comparing the photos.

Do you notice that you can see more of the surface area of the can in the bottom left picture compared to the top right picture?


What the photos of the cans demonstrates, just like the other photos I posted is:

When we can see more of  an object stuff on that object appears smaller.

When we see less of the object the stuff on that object appears bigger.

Are the photos of the cans faked?

Quote from: frenat on August 11, 2016, 01:33:39 PM

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 01:04:21 PM

Quote from: Woody on August 11, 2016, 10:51:39 AM

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 10:21:53 AM

Quote from: Woody on August 10, 2016, 04:42:04 PM

Quote from: TheRealBillNye on August 10, 2016, 04:08:12 PM

Deserted are you trolling or just thick headded?

It is so hard to tell here.  I have seen people deny something is true when it is so easy to verify .  I would like to think Deserted is trolling at this point.  Him first questioning it is valid IMHO.  Then he was offered some very compelling evidence, I think the best was the examples of the dolly zoom.

One more time, Woody...
No zooming was used. The first photo was taken, then the photographer stepped back and took the second photo, then back further and took the third. That's what the description says. No tricks were used. Why can't you guys accept it the way it's written?

Here is what can explain those pictures taken.

1. The photographer zoomed in while further back.  Notice the examples of dolly zoom everything seemed to change size around them and they remained the same apparent size.

2. The pictures were cropped and resized.  This would likely been done if zoom was not used.  It was done to make the globes the same size in each picture.

3.  The person made three globes and two  for the the pics showing Australia to fool people.

Now consider amateur enthusiast and professionals know about and use this effect when filming and taking pictures.  Are they making it up and part of the conspiracy?  That is a lot of people.

When a conspiracy starts getting to the size there are about as many people in on it as there are people who are not is it really a secrete or conspiracy anymore? 

If you do something similar as I described and keep the apparent size of the object about the same size you will see the apparent size of stuff around change.  I will point this out again. Many, many people know about this effect and take advantage of it.

Below the camera stays the same distance and the focal length changes:



The picture can be found on a site teaching and explaining photography.  Do you think the site is run by the conspiracy?

http://expertphotography.com/understand-focal-length-4-easy-steps/

You can continue to wallow in ignorance and ignore and dismiss any evidence as lies that say you are wrong about something.  You can also just admit that when different focal lengths and distances are used it can make things in pictures appear to have different spatial relations.

Right. This works when the objects being photographed are separate from each other. The same is true in the case of the Dolly Zooming explanation. But this is NOT what was seen in the globe photos, is it? The pictures on the globe itself changed, while the globe remained fixed. That's what happened. Look again at the pictures. You cannot do that with your fancy zooms. In other words, if you can change the size of the pictures on the can while keeping the can at the very same size then you've done what the globe pics have done. Good luck.

Look closely at the first can and you can see differences in how far around the side of the can you can see in each picture.  Yet the label on the can is not separate from itself.  you are wrong.

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 01:04:21 PM

Even if you could, you'd be utilizing trickery that the globe photographer never used. Once again, according to the author of the picture NO ZOOM WAS USED. That's what the description says. That's what I'm going by.

Wrong.  The description does NOT say no zoom was used.  It just doesn't mention the zoom.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Did you see any change in size of the pictures on the can? I didn't. Your point is completely irrelevant. Are you following the train of thought?

Are you?  you claimed the gobe pics were faked because the description neglected to say anything about zooming (though everyone knew it was) and that it couldn't show different proportions on the land masses.  You claimed "This works when the objects being photographed are separate from each other."  Looking at the first can only shows this not to be the case.  You are wrong. 

Quote from: deserted on August 11, 2016, 01:04:21 PM

Right. This works when the objects being photographed are separate from each other. The same is true in the case of the Dolly Zooming explanation. But this is NOT what was seen in the globe photos, is it? The pictures on the globe itself changed, while the globe remained fixed. That's what happened. Look again at the pictures. You cannot do that with your fancy zooms. In other words, if you can change the size of the pictures on the can while keeping the can at the very same size then you've done what the globe pics have done. Good luck.

Even if you could, you'd be utilizing trickery that the globe photographer never used. Once again, according to the author of the picture NO ZOOM WAS USED. That's what the description says. That's what I'm going by.

Look at the first picture at the top left and the can closest to the camera.

Then look at the picture on the bottom right and the same can.

Do you notice the difference in appearance?

The bowl pictured on the label appears to be different size when comparing the photos.

Do you notice that you can see more of the surface area of the can in the bottom left picture compared to the top right picture?


What the photos of the cans demonstrates, just like the other photos I posted is:

When we can see more of  an object stuff on that object appears smaller.

When we see less of the object the stuff on that object appears bigger.

Are the photos of the cans faked?

Woody,
The bowl in picture #4 looks exactly the same size as the bowl in picture #2 - which in turn looks exactly the same size as the bowl in picture #1. Therefore, the bowl in pic #1 is the same exact size as the bowl in #4.

Show me a photo where the zoom would retain the size of the can, but (significantly) change the size of the bowl. I say significantly because the landmasses on the globe pics were significantly different, as anyone can see.

And no, I don't see any difference in surface area between the two cans. The angle just looks a hair different, though I wouldn't swear to it.

Woody,
The bowl in picture #4 looks exactly the same size as the bowl in picture #2 - which in turn looks exactly the same size as the bowl in picture #1. Therefore, the bowl in pic #1 is the same exact size as the bowl in #4.

Show me a photo where the zoom would retain the size of the can, but (significantly) change the size of the bowl. I say significantly because the landmasses on the globe pics were significantly different, as anyone can see.

And no, I don't see any difference in surface area between the two cans. The angle just looks a hair different, though I wouldn't swear to it.

Here is a pictures of a person taken at different distances with different focal lengths.





Take a look at her nose and which pictures you can see the sun glasses in.

I am really having a tough time figuring out if you are trolling or resisting the evidence because it challenges your world view.

Think about it this way.  It is neither evidence for or against the shape of the Earth.  Do you really think the evil geniuses at NASA would not consider something widely known to be true when releasing photos of Earth?  If we did not see apparent changes in size of landmasses taken by different cameras with different focal lengths at different distances it would  indicate something fishy is going.

NASA did not makeup perspective and focal lengths making things appear different.  It is just something that happens as the result of how our minds process information.

The only thing I suggest now is look up and study focal length.  If you believe the information made available is provided by the conspiracy and professional and amateur photographers are in on it I guess that is one world view someone can have. Seems silly to me since it can be verified so easily if someone is not trying to preserve their world view.

Really seems those involved in the conspiracy are starting to outnumber those that are not.
Every space agency,  Geodetic surveyors, governments, some airline and ship crews, communication companies, cartographers, amateur and professional astronomers, the majority of scientist involved in the vast field of earth science, some engineers, sat-tv installers, Ham radio operators, people at universities and colleges, people that have sailed their own boats across the ocean in the southern hemisphere, air traffic controllers, most who own their own plane and fly it places, programmers even for open source GPS applications and the people who use them and understand programming and math, and the list can go on. 

Now we are to include photographers and cinematographers to the list.

Guys, stop this madness.

Why would you even try to convince him. If he was interested in the truth, he could pick his smarphone and just test it.

Since he doesn't he isn't interested to learn how photography and perspective works, and therefore every answer to him is wasted time.

So easy

This has to be among the stupidest arguments ever.  The whole objection to the three globes photo is "they didn't SAY they zoomed, so I'll assume they DIDN't zoom, which therefore makes this fake".  For the FE True Believers in the room (if there really is such a thing): THIS level of "argument" is why we round earth folks think you flat earth folks are all just trolls.  You have to know that deserted does in fact understand how zoom lenses work, but is playing dumb for the sake of continuing to reject the explanation.  I don't think deserted is actually that dumb; nothing in their vocabulary, grammar, or sentence structure would lead me to such a conclusion. 

Nice try...

Look, no-one is trying to fool you. All those globe photo examples are genuine.

Look at these photos. All the photos are unretouched apart from reducing the size (for Photobucket). The near photos were taken at 24 mm focal length (x1 zoom) and the far photos on 480 mm focal length (x20 zoom).



Do you see how in all cases the pattern on the object is a much larger proportion of the total size of the object when the object is closer? In each case, I have put the percent of the object width taken up by the image.

The effect only applies to 3D objects, so not your computer screen, and is very real. It is caused by less of the whole object being visible when close to the object (this is easily seen on the "Edgell can" and the "John West can), so the pattern (country if you like) takes up a bigger proportion of the image.

Actually, it is the other way around.

I tend to believe this whole issue is misunderstood from the very beginning, and that's why we're not getting anywhere.
This all began when Origamiscienceguy posted the above photo of earth from space. The second I looked at it, I knew something wasn't right - as anyone can see. The landmass is seriously disproportionate in relation to the size of the earth itself. Anyone can see this. So I called him on it. In response, I was shown the photo of the three globes. The explanation for the disproportionate size of the landmasses was to be excused (using the three-globe pic) by arguing that when someone is taking pictures from different distances, the landmasses will appear different sizes in proportion to the earth as a whole. This is why the three globe picture was offered as an explanation. Zoom tricks have nothing to do with the discussion. We're not trying to explain how the three-globe pic was accomplished. That has absolutely nothing to do the point. Nothing. Once again, the three-globe pic was used to try and prove that varying distances will make the landmass appear disproportionate. And this is true. It will change the size of the landmasses - but the size of the earth itself will also change with varying distances (again, provided all that is done is changing the distance).

One more time, this discussion has nothing to do with "How can we produce the three-globe image?" That image was only used to try and prove that DIFFERENT DISTANCES WILL DISTORT THE SIZE OF THE LANDMASS.
Enough with the "zoom" explanations...

when someone is taking pictures from different distances, the landmasses will appear different sizes in proportion to the earth as a whole. This is why the three globe picture was offered as an explanation.

Yes, there you go, you got it!

prove that varying distances will make the landmass appear disproportionate. And this is true.

Yeah, nice mate, you understood it!

It will change the size of the landmasses - but the size of the earth itself will also change with varying distances (again, provided all that is done is changing the distance).

Ah damn, you're still dumb as hell   

That image was only used to try and prove that DIFFERENT DISTANCES WILL DISTORT THE SIZE OF THE LANDMASS.

Yes, it was used to prove that and it did, in fact, prove that.

Oh for fucks sakes