GoPro: Experiment Results

I find this thread amusing. REers are all happy making their little claims, but none of them did as I did, put their money where their mouth is, and tested it.

I have no reason to retest it. Countless other people have and they all show Earth is round.
Why should I waste my money to just do what other have already done?

You are the paranoid nutter that thinks it is all fake. You are the one that needs to be convinced, not me.
As such, me doing it is entirely pointless, you will just dismiss it as fake as well.

If you don't believe a camera hitting the ground at terminal velocity will shatter everything of use in it, test it.

Do you know how sturdy those SD cards are?
Even the cameras themselves can be quite study and survive quite a fall.

For example:


Or are you going to say it hasn't reached terminal velocity?

(the reason for the strange banding is how quickly it is rotating).

So again, why should I go buy a go-pro, take it up nice and high and let it fall, risking losing it (due to inability to find it), just to prove you wrong when others have already done it for me and you are just as likely to dismiss me as you are to dismiss them?

If you believe it's possible to get good, detailed high-speed footage with a waterproof case, test it.

Again, people already have, but why do you need high-speed footage?

If you believe you have any reasonable amount of control of the camera once it starts flying, test it.

That depends upon what kind of set up you have.
As I can get quite powerful telemetry sets (up to 80 km range), I think I would have a good shot of controlling it.

If you believe there is any way to slow the descent of the camera a reasonable amount in a way that reliably functions despite the tremendous strain it will all be under, test it.

Again, plenty of people have already done this.

It's amazing how REers love to cry that FEers should put their claims to the test, and they spout gopro footage so often, but have they ever tried to do what they insist is such an easy, accessible experiment?

Again, we have no reason to. Plenty of people have already done it for us. It would just be a waste of our time and money as you would just dismiss it.

Claim it works all you want. I tested it. You didn't.

And your failures don't prove it is impossible, just that you are incompetent.
Although there is another possibility, you tested it and it worked fine and your footage showed Earth to be round so you needed some excuse to pretend it didn't work.

I find this thread amusing. REers are all happy making their little claims, but none of them did as I did, put their money where their mouth is, and tested it.

If you don't believe a camera hitting the ground at terminal velocity will shatter everything of use in it, test it.
If you believe it's possible to get good, detailed high-speed footage with a waterproof case, test it.
If you believe you have any reasonable amount of control of the camera once it starts flying, test it.
If you believe there is any way to slow the descent of the camera a reasonable amount in a way that reliably functions despite the tremendous strain it will all be under, test it.

It's amazing how REers love to cry that FEers should put their claims to the test, and they spout gopro footage so often, but have they ever tried to do what they insist is such an easy, accessible experiment?
Claim it works all you want. I tested it. You didn't.

You tested it and failed, At least you tried.

Many others have tried it and succeeded:

And there are plenty more, but the trouble is that most do use goPro cameras, with the well-known pin-cushion distortion.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">High Altitude Balloon in 1080 HD, 120,000 ft, robert orcutt

There's no shame in failing. But, claiming that simply because you failed, it is impossible shows you up for what you are.

Never-the-less few of these videos are convincing proof either way.
If you can catch a frame at the centre of the image there should be some indication of curvature, but even at 30,000 m there is not a lot.

I've been meaning to try this for quite a while now.

https://www.highaltitudescience.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions

This explains how to do it.

Actually, it's not pincushion it's barrel distortion.  Pincushion would make the horizon look concave as it moves away from the center of the frame.  Barrel distortion give you that fisheye effect.  Which brings up a good point.

The videos are digital and the amount of barrel distortion is known and consistent from the frame vertical/horizontal center line outward.  This can easily be corrected in post processing.  Gopro studio has a setting to remove this effect.  Anyone sending up a gopro can get an un-distorted view across nearly the entire FOV.  The proof everyone is looking for can be done.

A group of RE and FE believers should do a weather balloon project together.  Completely transparent and nobody can claim anyone is lying...in theory.

Mike

If you believe there is any way to slow the descent of the camera a reasonable amount in a way that reliably functions despite the tremendous strain it will all be under, test it.

I thought that you said that you used a parachute to aid descent.

The set-up was simple. One large balloon filled with helium, one camera, one tracker, and a parachute to aid descent.

That's right, you did.  Maybe you should have tested your parachute recovery system before counting on it to save your camera.

By the way, what is this "tremendous strain" that you're talking about?  Are the aether currents really that nasty at high altitude?

One more thing.  You might want to have someone video document your experiments so that we have an easier time believing that you actually tried them.

He admitted to parachute failure on the so called first attempt. 
No clarification if it deployed on subsequent tries.
His second try supposedly landed in a lake.  Even the original GoPro was waterproof to 30M.  It should be fine, just needs retrieving.  Although he didn't go into detail about what "tracker" he was using.
 
I still maintain he did not do the experiment.  He has never shown a penchant for doing any, and this one would be more pricey.  GoPros are not cheap.  And it requires him to go outside.

He admitted to parachute failure on the so called first attempt.

That's why he should have tested the parachute system beforehand.

I still maintain he did not do the experiment.  He has never shown a penchant for doing any, and this one would be more pricey.  GoPros are not cheap.  And it requires him to go outside.

Don't worry, I have little doubt that he's making it all up too.

He admitted to parachute failure on the so called first attempt. 
No clarification if it deployed on subsequent tries.
His second try supposedly landed in a lake.  Even the original GoPro was waterproof to 30M.  It should be fine, just needs retrieving.  Although he didn't go into detail about what "tracker" he was using.
 
I still maintain he did not do the experiment.  He has never shown a penchant for doing any, and this one would be more pricey.  GoPros are not cheap.  And it requires him to go outside.

I doubt he did it either.  This whole thing is just a joke to him

Yep, this never happened. Mikey is spot on. This is just a comedy write-up and, while initially funny, is becoming more and more pathetic the more JR attempts to sure up his ruse.

Full marks though for the "I'm getting sued"  story though, that one earned a few guffaws from me! A bridge too far to be sure, but still a good one.

As another pointed out, if you actually did any of what you claim, you would have some pictures & documentation of your setups. Don't worry though, you're in good company: Scepti has also made many fanciful claims such as building an Ice Dome model with "real growths and waterfalls" and attempting to bluff his way out of claims he sent the pictures of his contraption to a member on this site who, of course, never received any such pictures.

I guess it's just a nice little reminder that FE'ers really do live in a pretend, made-up world.

Who lives in the New England area?  Maybe we should get RE & FE believers together and and put up a weather balloon.  Both sides would have to be in agreement how the experiment is done.  We test the barrel distortion of the camera test the correction software to ensure we are getting accurate results. 

Any takers?

Mike

Who lives in the New England area?  Maybe we should get RE & FE believers together and and put up a weather balloon.  Both sides would have to be in agreement how the experiment is done.  We test the barrel distortion of the camera test the correction software to ensure we are getting accurate results. 

Any takers?

Mike

I would prefer to not try to correct for the barrel distortion and instead rotate/move the camera. If you have part of the horizon remain fixed (i.e. a point) and rotate about that the distortion should change the curve, unless it is in the middle.
So if you were to get a curved horizon with it appearing like a round Earth, for that to be due to barrel distortion, when it rotates 180 degrees, it should appear concave.

Quote from: MicroBeta on June 24, 2017, 05:54:31 PM

Who lives in the New England area?  Maybe we should get RE & FE believers together and and put up a weather balloon.  Both sides would have to be in agreement how the experiment is done.  We test the barrel distortion of the camera test the correction software to ensure we are getting accurate results. 

Any takers?

Mike

I would prefer to not try to correct for the barrel distortion and instead rotate/move the camera. If you have part of the horizon remain fixed (i.e. a point) and rotate about that the distortion should change the curve, unless it is in the middle.
So if you were to get a curved horizon with it appearing like a round Earth, for that to be due to barrel distortion, when it rotates 180 degrees, it should appear concave.

The gopro studio software has a setting to correct for the fisheye effect so why not use it?  BTW, the testing would be to prove to everyone that you get an undistorted picture and therefore an accurate representation. 

The high altitude gopro video on youtube does show the the concave line as the horizon moves to the bottom of the view.  However, I'm not sure what showing the concave horizon that would prove.  I kinda think it would just create more questions and doubt than answers. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)

Since the software will correct for the fisheye effect we don’t have to worry about rotating the camera.  As long as everyone involved can agree the software correctly compensates for the distortion then we'll have definitive proof one way or the other.

Additionally, I have a film cameras with a standard wide angle lens without the spherical aberration of a gopro.  I checked and you can still get 35mm and 8mm film.

Mike

The gopro studio software has a setting to correct for the fisheye effect so why not use it?  BTW, the testing would be to prove to everyone that you get an undistorted picture and therefore an accurate representation.

Does it cater for the particular camera in question, or does it try to use the photo to correct itself?

I have seen some pictures/video where they apply a "correction" but it uses the photo and that just distorts it the other way.

Quote from: MicroBeta on June 25, 2017, 04:49:59 AM

The gopro studio software has a setting to correct for the fisheye effect so why not use it?  BTW, the testing would be to prove to everyone that you get an undistorted picture and therefore an accurate representation.

Does it cater for the particular camera in question, or does it try to use the photo to correct itself?

I have seen some pictures/video where they apply a "correction" but it uses the photo and that just distorts it the other way.

The software recognizes the particular GoPro Model when it connects with my PC.  Then it enables the software features.  It knows the sensor size, resolution, etc. for the camera.

So yes, the post processing is hardware specific; not generic.

Mike

I am in North Eastern South Canada and would be happy to participate.

I'm in Imperial Beach, California, and would also enjoy sending up a toy camera on your dime.

Can somebody please explain to me why the earth appears to have a negative radius in the photos taken from the video?

https://ibb.co/bsECPk
https://ibb.co/gWue4k
https://ibb.co/jEY6jk
https://ibb.co/cRNMH5


Can somebody also explain to my why we are able to see the Moon so close to the sun.

https://ibb.co/nihz4k

And finally the most important thing, the sun is much further away from the Moon. So the Moon is in front of the sun. It like a flash light shinning on my back in a very dark room. Would the front of me be shining the flash light’s light, or just the back side of me?

The same applies to this photo.

Why is it that the dark side of the Moon compared to the angle of the sun light, having white light. It can’t be a reflection of the sun’s rays, since the back side to us is being light shin at.

Can somebody please explain to me why the earth appears to have a negative radius in the photos taken from the video?

https://ibb.co/bsECPk
https://ibb.co/gWue4k
https://ibb.co/jEY6jk
https://ibb.co/cRNMH5

Are you saying camera distortion isn't real?  You Flattards claim that for every curve you see.

Can somebody also explain to my why we are able to see the Moon so close to the sun.

https://ibb.co/nihz4k

Are you saying there is no Sun glare in that picture?  Are you claiming you ccan calculate the distance to the Sun with no reference points?

And finally the most important thing, the sun is much further away from the Moon. So the Moon is in front of the sun. It like a flash light shinning on my back in a very dark room. Would the front of me be shining the flash light’s light, or just the back side of me?

The same applies to this photo.

Why is it that the dark side of the Moon compared to the angle of the sun light, having white light. It can’t be a reflection of the sun’s rays, since the back side to us is being light shin at.

Are you saying that the Earth doesn't reflect light?


There, a jroa style rebuttal, but more accurate.

Can somebody please explain to me why the earth appears to have a negative radius in the photos taken from the video?

https://ibb.co/bsECPk
https://ibb.co/gWue4k
https://ibb.co/jEY6jk
https://ibb.co/cRNMH5

Well, in the first one, it may be the lens distortion.
However I think a bigger issue is the rapid rotation of the camera combined with the rolling shutter causing distortions.
Basically, it is taking a slightly different picture in the different parts of the frames resulting in an a distorted end photo. In some cases it appears to curve like an S.

Can somebody also explain to my why we are able to see the Moon so close to the sun.

https://ibb.co/nihz4k

We can't. That is a reflection off the lens.

Oh my, he was referring the the lens flare in the Sun near the Moon photo. 
Hey, trollboy...err, inflatearth, dial back the intentional stupidity a bit, you have lowered the believability  of your troll persona too much.

Well, in the first one, it may be the lens distortion.

Yes do to the fish eye lens, so how can we be curtain that the same effect does not make the earth appear to be a sphere.

We can't. That is a reflection off the lens.

I don’t think so, it’s the Moon, because it is in two separate photos with the same location and dimension.

Quote

Well, in the first one, it may be the lens distortion.

Yes do to the fish eye lens, so how can we be curtain that the same effect does not make the earth appear to be a sphere.

By examining several photos instead of just one. By examining this footage we can see Earth in several orientation and several locations. The simplest is with this or other similar footage where it is almost flipped, e.g. passing through the centre of the FOV, with Earth on one side in one photo and the opposite side in another.
The distortion should be the same if the horizon was a straight line. But instead we see it curve away.
In fact, the only time (barring rolling shutter distortion) that we see Earth appear bent the wrong way, is when it is entirely to one side (i.e the terminator and Earth are to the same side of the FOV).

Quote

We can't. That is a reflection off the lens.

I don’t think so, it’s the Moon, because it is in two separate photos with the same location and dimension.

I do think so. It is in a few separate stills with completely different locations.

Can somebody also explain to my why we are able to see the Moon so close to the sun.

https://ibb.co/nihz4k

the Moon is not in that pic.  That is a lens flare.

the Moon is not in that pic.  That is a lens flare.

Actually it is the Moon, and you are trying to bullshit your way into not answering the question because of your blind trust in the heliocentric hypothesis and the hypothesis of Evolution.

If you would have done some real investigation, you would find that form Florida on January 2, 2016 at 12:42 pm you can see both the sun and the moon.

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=2&month=1&year=2016&hour=12&min=42&sec=0&n=3246&ntxt=Lakeland&earth=0

But like I said, you are trying to explain what you don’t understand and when all fails, you dismiss it as a lens flair or some other crap like light refraction. Do you remember me now, well I am back …

So after you check out this link, and have confirmed that it is the Moon and not the lens flair, why don’t you try to bullshit your way out of why is the side Moon that is facing us and has its back to the sun white, when it should be black since it does not see the light…

Have a nice day!!!

Quote

the Moon is not in that pic.  That is a lens flare.

Actually it is the Moon, and you are trying to bullshit your way into not answering the question because of your blind trust in the heliocentric hypothesis and the hypothesis of Evolution.

If you would have done some real investigation, you would find that form Florida on January 2, 2016 at 12:42 pm you can see both the sun and the moon.

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=2&month=1&year=2016&hour=12&min=42&sec=0&n=3246&ntxt=Lakeland&earth=0

But like I said, you are trying to explain what you don’t understand and when all fails, you dismiss it as a lens flair or some other crap like light refraction. Do you remember me now, well I am back …

So after you check out this link, and have confirmed that it is the Moon and not the lens flair, why don’t you try to bullshit your way out of why is the side Moon that is facing us and has its back to the sun white, when it should be black since it does not see the light…

Have a nice day!!!

You COULD see both in the sky from there at the time but not with that narrow field of view.  The pic YOU posted showed an internal lens reflection.  That you can't tell that just by looking at it speaks VOLUMES.

You COULD see both in the sky from there at the time but not with that narrow field of view.  The pic YOU posted showed an internal lens reflection.  That you can't tell that just by looking at it speaks VOLUMES.

You are wrong, it is the Moon and you know it.

Quote

You COULD see both in the sky from there at the time but not with that narrow field of view.  The pic YOU posted showed an internal lens reflection.  That you can't tell that just by looking at it speaks VOLUMES.

You are wrong, it is the Moon and you know it.

Nope.  I KNOW it is an internal lens relfection.  it looks like one. There is a secondary reflection on the same axis and they are both on the same axis through the center of the image with the sun EXACTLY how a lens reflection would appear.  Your link showing the Moon would be visible also shows it would be farther from the Sun.  You debunked yourself and now appear to be trolling.

Quote

You COULD see both in the sky from there at the time but not with that narrow field of view.  The pic YOU posted showed an internal lens reflection.  That you can't tell that just by looking at it speaks VOLUMES.

You are wrong, it is the Moon and you know it.

It's really not the moon.  There certainly are times when you can see both sun and moon in the sky, but they never appear like in the photo.
Sorry.

Nope.  I KNOW it is an internal lens relfection.  it looks like one. There is a secondary reflection on the same axis and they are both on the same axis through the center of the image with the sun EXACTLY how a lens reflection would appear.

Oh really, then I guess that the moon is a bitcoin, because in the video it looks like one

https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=KibC7-xCGnI

You don’t know what it is, you are making false assumption because it does not fit in to your narrative…

Your link showing the Moon would be visible also shows it would be farther from the Sun.

According to a spherical Earth, but not to a flat earth. It proves my point!!!

You debunked yourself and now appear to be trolling.

Wrong, I have proved my point. You did not even bother to check if the Moon could be seen at that date and time and assumed to be something that it is not.

Quote

Nope.  I KNOW it is an internal lens relfection.  it looks like one. There is a secondary reflection on the same axis and they are both on the same axis through the center of the image with the sun EXACTLY how a lens reflection would appear.

Oh really, then I guess that the moon is a bitcoin, because in the video it looks like one

https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=KibC7-xCGnI

You don’t know what it is, you are making false assumption because it does not fit in to your narrative…

Quote

Your link showing the Moon would be visible also shows it would be farther from the Sun.

According to a spherical Earth, but not to a flat earth. It proves my point!!!

Quote

You debunked yourself and now appear to be trolling.

Wrong, I have proved my point. You did not even bother to check if the Moon could be seen at that date and time and assumed to be something that it is not.

Have you ever seen a sun moon combination like that?  Ever?

Quote

Nope.  I KNOW it is an internal lens relfection.  it looks like one. There is a secondary reflection on the same axis and they are both on the same axis through the center of the image with the sun EXACTLY how a lens reflection would appear.

Oh really, then I guess that the moon is a bitcoin, because in the video it looks like one

https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=KibC7-xCGnI

You don’t know what it is, you are making false assumption because it does not fit in to your narrative…

No.  in the video it looks like a reflection for the various reasons I already mentioned.

Quote

Your link showing the Moon would be visible also shows it would be farther from the Sun.

According to a spherical Earth, but not to a flat earth. It proves my point!!!

It does nothing of the sort.  Thanks for showing you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

You debunked yourself and now appear to be trolling.

Wrong, I have proved my point. You did not even bother to check if the Moon could be seen at that date and time and assumed to be something that it is not.

I didn't need to check as IT IS CLEARLY A LENSFLARE.  but thanks for the confirmation you are indeed trolling.  You really aren't very good at it, you know that?