"People" (i.e. roundies) who doubt atmospheric obscuration

Thank you to you and your colleague's for your replys it would seem you put a lot of time in.

You can't expect people to believe that an image that is the same size can have different size continents.

Logic would dictate that as the images are the same size they where taken from similar distances

Amazing! Simply amazing.

I wonder what a zoom lens does? Or an old-school photo enlarger and its modern-day equivalent, the digital image resize function?

so such a variation in the continnet size is not possible.

Since the premise is wrong, the conclusion is moot.

Of course, you could actually investigate this for yourself, but you won't because you might learn a new fact and have to admit, at least to yourself, that you were wrong. We can't have that, now, can we?

Quote from: rabinoz on May 30, 2017, 07:23:33 PM

I agree completely that "atmospheric obscuration" is real.

Well, thanks for agreeing with me, and polluting my wonderful thread with your relentless autism. You're a credit to your continent.

Of course, I agree, so sorry for trying to answer Resistance.is.Futile's derailing attempt.
And I will agree that distances of more than a few hundred kilometres are not possible.

But I totally disagree the distances that visibility is limited to only a few kilometres (or miles).

Many of these photos are posted by flat earthers as "evidence of lack of curvature".
There are numerous photos available over distances over 1 hundred kilometres.
For example:
Also many flat earthers claim "atmospheric obscuration" is the cause of the sun and moon "disappearing", which is, of course, total rubbish.

That Beyond Horizons website is excellent, and really does dismiss the suggestion atmospheric obscuration limits visibility to only a number of kms.

This view from Mallorca to the pyrenees is extraordinary.

https://beyondhorizons.eu/2014/12/14/mallorca-pyrenees-muga-307-km/


Of note, Barcelona is in between the line of sight of the photographer and the pyrenees, but not visible because being at sea level it is below the curvature of the earth at the calculated distance of around 200km (even from the photographers height of over 1000m!). Also of note with all the lines of site on the website, the photographers have had to climb to high viewing points and rely on refraction to view high mountains in the distance - the only way it is possible to see distant objects without the curvature of the earth intervening. There are no long distance photos from sea level for this very reason - because of curvature, not atmospheric obscuration.

Here's another excellent one from Penyagolosa at 1813m high to the highest peak of Mallorca at 1436, a distance of 272km. The curvature of the earth is preventing the base of the Mallorcan peak from being visualised.

https://beyondhorizons.eu/2014/12/04/penyagolosa-puig-major-mallorca/

You can't expect people to believe that an image that is the same size can have different size continents.

Logic would dictate that as the images are the same size they where taken from similar distances so such a variation in the continnet size is not possible.

Well then I am afraid that your logic is totally wrong and on this matter Resistance.is.Futile.
Look at these photos and read again and again this bit:

The size of an image means nothing at all.
The size (fraction of photo size) on the original photo depends entirely on the lens focal length and film/sensor size.
Then the image can be cropped and printed any size at all - that has exactly the same effect  "digital zoom".
Look at these two photos, taken from quite different distances: Very different distances, but the same image size because they were taken at very different focal lengths.
And you will note that the size of the "bar code" forms a much larger part of the image in the "near photo".
Just imagine if that "bar code" was a rectangular continent. Nexzus nade the following post to illustrate that same thing: Conduct an experiment to prove that Earth is Flat « Reply #59.
And Woody posted this: Conduct an experiment to prove that Earth is Flat « Reply #19 containing this picture, comparing the relative size of USA on a desk Globe:Can you now see how the size and even shape of continents can change as the viewing distance is changed.

The main point to realise is that as the camera gets closer to the spherical object the relative spacing of the objects on the side of the sphere and those around the edges changes quite dramatically.

Here is another attempt to portray the effect of distance on photographs of a sphere:

I simply do not know how else to explain it. If you don't get it, I guess you don't get it, but it is a fact of photography.

Regarding the video
I'm just a normal average person and you expect me to believe that light can bend round fifty thousand feet of curvature.

You can't expect the masses to believe this anymore.

Show exactly the part you mean with your "bend round fifty thousand feet of curvature" because many flat earthers have a very distorted view of what curvature means.

There is a site, Beyond Horizons, refraction, Marseille – Canigó, 263 Kms, that specialises in extreme distance views.
Guess what, many of their photos are taken under conditions of extreme refraction as they explain on their site.
I already posted one of their photos on this thread in, Flat Earth General / Re: "People" (i.e. roundies) who doubt atmospheric obscuration

Its 2017 we allegedly landed on the moon nearly fifty years ago and we have no 360 degree videos of the Globe, Sun and Planets ect.

You can't take a 360° video of the whole globe from a rapidly moving satellite. The ISS does give 360° videos, but of only parts of the earth.
The geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the earth, so show 24 hour views, but each takes images of a bit less that one hemisphere.
There is 360° 24 hour coverage if you view the US, European, Russian and Japanese weather satellites.

There is at least one "satellite" that does take 24 hour "video" of the earth. It only takes one image every hour.
The photographs are all there and claiming "we have no 360 degree videos of the Globe, Sun and Planet" is simply untrue.
There are plenty of photographs out there. Asking for them all as videos is just ridiculous, the videos would be days long.
Besides, who is going waste time on telescopes just to please you.? When do you look on NASA and astronomy sites for this sort of thing.

I can't help it you will believe what is there. Here are some: DSCOVR: EPIC, Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera.

And here is one segment where the moon is passing between the DSCOVR and the earth. Of course, we have flat earthers claiming that they are so smart and finding all sorts of objections, but when those objections are examined they are just showing pure ignorance.

But, I can't help it if you won't accept what is there, but at least stop complaining. You claim it is all faked anyway.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on June 01, 2017, 11:00:17 AM

You can't expect people to believe that an image that is the same size can have different size continents.

Logic would dictate that as the images are the same size they where taken from similar distances so such a variation in the continnet size is not possible.

Well then I am afraid that your logic is totally wrong and on this matter Resistance.is.Futile.
Look at these photos and read again and again this bit:

The size of an image means nothing at all.
The size (fraction of photo size) on the original photo depends entirely on the lens focal length and film/sensor size.
Then the image can be cropped and printed any size at all - that has exactly the same effect  "digital zoom".
Look at these two photos, taken from quite different distances:

Ball and Bar Code - near, 24 mm focal length (x1 zoom)

Ball and Bar Code - far, 480 mm focal length (x20 zoom)

Very different distances, but the same image size because they were taken at very different focal lengths.
And you will note that the size of the "bar code" forms a much larger part of the image in the "near photo".
Just imagine if that "bar code" was a rectangular continent. Nexzus nade the following post to illustrate that same thing: Conduct an experiment to prove that Earth is Flat « Reply #59.
And Woody posted this: Conduct an experiment to prove that Earth is Flat « Reply #19 containing this picture, comparing the relative size of USA on a desk Globe:

Can you now see how the size and even shape of continents can change as the viewing distance is changed.

The main point to realise is that as the camera gets closer to the spherical object the relative spacing of the objects on the side of the sphere and those around the edges changes quite dramatically.

Here is another attempt to portray the effect of distance on photographs of a sphere:

I simply do not know how else to explain it. If you don't get it, I guess you don't get it, but it is a fact of photography.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

Regarding the video
I'm just a normal average person and you expect me to believe that light can bend round fifty thousand feet of curvature.

You can't expect the masses to believe this anymore.

Show exactly the part you mean with your "bend round fifty thousand feet of curvature" because many flat earthers have a very distorted view of what curvature means.


There is a site, Beyond Horizons, refraction, Marseille – Canigó, 263 Kms, that specialises in extreme distance views.
Guess what, many of their photos are taken under conditions of extreme refraction as they explain on their site.
I already posted one of their photos on this thread in, Flat Earth General / Re: "People" (i.e. roundies) who doubt atmospheric obscuration

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

Its 2017 we allegedly landed on the moon nearly fifty years ago and we have no 360 degree videos of the Globe, Sun and Planets ect.

You can't take a 360° video of the whole globe from a rapidly moving satellite. The ISS does give 360° videos, but of only parts of the earth.
The geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the earth, so show 24 hour views, but each takes images of a bit less that one hemisphere.
There is 360° 24 hour coverage if you view the US, European, Russian and Japanese weather satellites.

There is at least one "satellite" that does take 24 hour "video" of the earth. It only takes one image every hour.
The photographs are all there and claiming "we have no 360 degree videos of the Globe, Sun and Planet" is simply untrue.
There are plenty of photographs out there. Asking for them all as videos is just ridiculous, the videos would be days long.
Besides, who is going waste time on telescopes just to please you.? When do you look on NASA and astronomy sites for this sort of thing.

I can't help it you will believe what is there. Here are some: DSCOVR: EPIC, Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera.

And here is one segment where the moon is passing between the DSCOVR and the earth.

EPIC View of Moon Transiting the Earth, NASA.gov Video

Of course, we have flat earthers claiming that they are so smart and finding all sorts of objections, but when those objections are examined they are just showing pure ignorance.

But, I can't help it if you won't accept what is there, but at least stop complaining. You claim it is all faked anyway.

there
ðɛː,ðə/Submit
adverb
1.
in, at, or to that place or position.
"we went to Paris and stayed there ten days"

That's exactly it your expecting the sceptics to believe this theory on something they have never seen and never will see.

ðɛː,ðə/Submit
adverb
1.
in, at, or to that place or position.
"we went to Paris and stayed there ten days"

That's exactly it your expecting the sceptics to believe this theory on something they have never seen and never will see.

Just like oxygen. Can't see it. Never will. A chemistry teacher once showed me a glass jar he was claiming was full of oxygen. It was empty! Then he told me the "molecules" were too small to see. Yeah, nice try. Moron. I'm not that gullible. I'm a skeptic. Oxygen doesnt exist.

I'm glad the smart humans in our history never took such a moronic stance. We'd all still be living in caves.

there
ðɛː,ðə/Submit
adverb
1.
in, at, or to that place or position.
"we went to Paris and stayed there ten days"

That's exactly it your expecting the sceptics to believe this theory on something they have never seen and never will see.

What on earth are you talking about?

You ask some questions about the differing size of continents in photographs of the globe and I take the time to carefully explain it.
You claim that there have been no 24 hour videos of the rotation earth and I gives examples of what is there.

Then you come up with a stupid meaningless reply. You are so biassed the you do not want to learn anything.

You accept electromagnetic radiation, yet you cannot see much of it or feel most of it.
Sure you will say that your TV works or your internet works, but how do you know that is from electromagnetic radiation.

You probably use GPS for navigation and people that know far more than you explain that GPS is implemented using satellites, yet you in your (lack of) wisdom refuse to believe it, why?
You possibly have satellite TV (I don't) and it is explained by people that know far more than you that "satellite TV" uses satellites (who'd have thought), yet you in your (lack of) wisdom refuse to believe it, why?
The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, but you won't believe that is due to the earth's rotation, why?

I know why you will not believe these things, no matter what the evidence. It doesn't fit your ideas on the shape of the earth as taught by YouTube videos.

There really is little hope for some people, they think they know everything!
It was Oscar Wilde that wrote, "I am not young enough to know everything"
And Einstein that wrote,  "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on June 02, 2017, 02:05:47 PM

ðɛː,ðə/Submit
adverb
1.
in, at, or to that place or position.
"we went to Paris and stayed there ten days"

That's exactly it your expecting the sceptics to believe this theory on something they have never seen and never will see.

Just like oxygen. Can't see it. Never will. A chemistry teacher once showed me a glass jar he was claiming was full of oxygen. It was empty! Then he told me the "molecules" were too small to see. Yeah, nice try. Moron. I'm not that gullible. I'm a skeptic. Oxygen doesnt exist.

I'm glad the smart humans in our history never took such a moronic stance. We'd all still be living in caves.

  So You Claim This Science Is Not a Religion But When I don't believe your words you insult me and call me a moron
Like all religious people they get angry when people don't share their faith they can't accept people won't believe even though they have explained in detail.
Thank you for making my mind up and for that matter anyone that doesn't belong to your religious cult who has been reading this  thread.

So smart people believe in something they will never see ? if you say so.



@Rab  these are your words
But, I can't help it if you won't accept what is there, but at least stop complaining.

there
ðɛː,ðə/Submit
adverb
1.
in, at, or to that place or position.
"we went to Paris and stayed there ten days"
I have not been "there" you have not been "there"

You want me to accept something both you and me have never seen and never will see its not my fault I'm not religious.

Why are you scientific fundalmentalists so bothered if the skeptics believe your scripture or not ?

Answer = Because you are religious

with this sort of religious attitude it is no wonder the amount of sceptics grows everyday.
 

How dumb can one person be?
Wow, I'm impressed.

How dumb can one person be?
Wow, I'm impressed.

More insults

Yawn......

Quote from: User324 on June 03, 2017, 01:14:02 AM

How dumb can one person be?
Wow, I'm impressed.

More insults

Yawn......

Still, this one single post made more sense then everything you wrote so far. Deal with it.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on June 02, 2017, 02:05:47 PM

ðɛː,ðə/Submit
adverb
1.
in, at, or to that place or position.
"we went to Paris and stayed there ten days"

That's exactly it your expecting the sceptics to believe this theory on something they have never seen and never will see.

Just like oxygen. Can't see it. Never will. A chemistry teacher once showed me a glass jar he was claiming was full of oxygen. It was empty! Then he told me the "molecules" were too small to see. Yeah, nice try. Moron. I'm not that gullible. I'm a skeptic. Oxygen doesnt exist.

I'm glad the smart humans in our history never took such a moronic stance. We'd all still be living in caves.

Yep, your teacher was wrong. It was most likely filled with mostly nitrogen, followed by some oxygen, s little bit if carbon dioxide and trace amounts of other gases.

Quote from: Zammo on June 02, 2017, 03:33:01 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on June 02, 2017, 02:05:47 PM

ðɛː,ðə/Submit
adverb
1.
in, at, or to that place or position.
"we went to Paris and stayed there ten days"

That's exactly it your expecting the sceptics to believe this theory on something they have never seen and never will see.

Just like oxygen. Can't see it. Never will. A chemistry teacher once showed me a glass jar he was claiming was full of oxygen. It was empty! Then he told me the "molecules" were too small to see. Yeah, nice try. Moron. I'm not that gullible. I'm a skeptic. Oxygen doesnt exist.

I'm glad the smart humans in our history never took such a moronic stance. We'd all still be living in caves.

Yep, your teacher was wrong. It was most likely filled with mostly nitrogen, followed by some oxygen, s little bit if carbon dioxide and trace amounts of other gases.

He claimed to have filled the jar with pure oxygen from a cyclinder, displacing the air! What hocus pocus! 😉

Quote from: Shifter on June 03, 2017, 06:55:29 AM

Yep, your teacher was wrong. It was most likely filled with mostly nitrogen, followed by some oxygen, s little bit if carbon dioxide and trace amounts of other gases.

He claimed to have filled the jar with pure oxygen from a cyclinder, displacing the air! What hocus pocus! 😉

Dafaq man? Now that is some new crazy shit right there!

Quote from: Zammo on June 03, 2017, 03:37:46 PM

Quote from: Shifter on June 03, 2017, 06:55:29 AM

Yep, your teacher was wrong. It was most likely filled with mostly nitrogen, followed by some oxygen, s little bit if carbon dioxide and trace amounts of other gases.

He claimed to have filled the jar with pure oxygen from a cyclinder, displacing the air! What hocus pocus! 😉

Dafaq man? Now that is some new crazy shit right there!

😂😂😂

So how far do you think we can see through the atmosphere? Shall I (re)post my pictures of seeing the Fairweather mountains from 150+ miles away?

rabinoz, if you are posting an image that demonstrates refraction's "distortive" effects of the sun, why do you so obstinately doubt FET's claim that sunsets are due to refraction, all the while so zealously defending RET and also claiming FEers to be religious, lol? You're the most twisted REer I've had the privilege I've had to laugh at.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 01, 2017, 02:48:17 PM

rabinoz, if you are posting an image that demonstrates refraction's "distortive" effects of the sun, why do you so obstinately doubt FET's claim that sunsets are due to refraction, all the while so zealously defending RET and also claiming FEers to be religious, lol? You're the most twisted REer I've had the privilege I've had to laugh at.

That's easy! Real-world refraction makes celestial objects look higher than they actually are, but only a little bit - about 1/2° at most. Air that becomes less dense as altitude increases is known to cause this.

"Flat-earth refraction" would have to be much greater - about 17°, based on most of the assertions we see here - to make the sun appear to set, and would have to be in the opposite direction, making objects appear lower than they actually are. There is no known cause for light to be bent in the direction or by the amount needed.

Damn, futile!

How do you get through a normal day without someone reminding you to wipe your ass?

You are fucking STUPID.

My ISS tracker app shows it will be visible to me at 9:10 pm tomorrow. I expect it to be spot on accurate, just like every other time I've ventured outside to watch.

Just humor yourself, download the app and try it. It's free,

What are you afraid of?

Quote from: rabinoz on June 01, 2017, 02:48:17 PM

rabinoz, if you are posting an image that demonstrates refraction's "distortive" effects of the sun, why do you so obstinately doubt FET's claim that sunsets are due to refraction, all the while so zealously defending RET and also claiming FEers to be religious, lol? You're the most twisted REer I've had the privilege I've had to laugh at.

For the simple reason that the refraction caused by the atmosphere at the horizon is usually about 0.6° and it makes the sun appear higher not lower.

The flat earth explanation of sunset being caused by refraction needs around 20° the other way!

Any further questions Mr Totally Illogical Smart Aleck?

By the way, worked out what ad hominem means yet?

Seems like a nothing thread,  the Rayleigh scattering limits visibility about 300 km give or take in clean air.   That scattering is what make the sky blue, and gives rise to the blue haze you see when looking at distant objects.

This argument was hammered out ages ago on this very forum,  and the flat earth theorists were unable to explain why the horizon,  when viewed on a clear day from ground level is seen as a sharp line,  no fuzzy haze that flat earth theory would have predicted.   Ergo, the flat earth theory fails yet another simple observation that everyone can experience directly.

The sharp horizon line cannot be explained by flat earthers.

The sharp horizon line cannot be explained by flat earthers.

...  crickets ...