Revisiting a commonly presented image...

  • 436 Replies
  • 97283 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 23217
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #120 on: January 24, 2018, 10:17:16 PM »
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?
Not sure about him, but it makes sense to me.
A sharp horizon that is not the physical edge of Earth is clear evidence that Earth is round.
The fact that is moves as you do, remaining a distance away which is based upon your height is more evidence Earth is round.

If you wish to disagree, please explain how a flat surface produces a horizon, considering the horizon is an edge (as evidenced by things disappearing behind it, and being unable to resolve past it).

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #121 on: January 25, 2018, 07:51:31 AM »
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.


Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #122 on: January 25, 2018, 08:21:14 AM »
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.


Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
I don't think you understand what "render" means.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #123 on: January 25, 2018, 09:13:19 AM »
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?

And yet the horizon  isn't distorted.
And let's not forget the towers themselves!



All perfectly straight, the only curve in the image is the bridge.

Lackey is grasping at straws.  I'm sure he now regrets starting this epic self-pwnage.

I


He kicked his own ass!!

Rumour is he's a highly paid undercover shill.

Regarding the lens distortion. I tried a correction, and the pillars cannot be made to appear straight by correcting for lens distortion. The shape of the curve is different, so now it has a weird shape when I tried to correct it. Guess what? It didn't need to be corrected.



A man true to his word...

You guys are great! I’ll come ack when you need more help. For now, I’ll continute to spectate.

It's  almost as if you anticipated the use of the distortion card.  Uncanny.  ;)

Could the software you used create such a curve from a  similar photo of a shorter bridge with no apparent  curve?

.

Yes, barrel distortion seems to be a recurring theme! It needs math to understand, which FE-ers cannot do (or choose not to). I found a similar photo which I believe had no barrel distortion and then applied it, and no, you can't create this shape with barrel distortion. Image credit to the Marathon, FL website.

No distortion:


Added:


Removed:



Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #124 on: January 25, 2018, 12:21:25 PM »
I don't think you understand what "render" means.
Render = provide or offer or give.

Go back to the corner, making sure that pork chop is tied firmly to your neck this time and play nicely with the dog...
« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 02:47:08 AM by totallackey »

*

JackBlack

  • 23217
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #125 on: January 25, 2018, 02:00:54 PM »
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?
Do you mean the photo he added the lines and points to?
If so, yes. Do you have a reason to think it is wrong?
Do you think the red line isn't straight?/

How about you try explaining how lens distortion magically selectively distorts the image to only make the towers appear to curve to follow the curvature of Earth, with no other distortion.

What kind of lens produces this distortion?

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #126 on: January 26, 2018, 02:16:16 AM »
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.


Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?

Well, the person who provided the original image is a known liar and degenerate but I will be happy to discuss any and all aspects of the image once you man up and address  the issues about lens distortion you have been avoiding.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #127 on: January 26, 2018, 02:55:03 AM »
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.  Busy with that letter?

As promised I took a look at the original picture posted.
The camera wasn't exactly level so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal.   I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.


Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.

While your at it can you address the issues concerning the curved and disappearing water stains?
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?

Yes.
Okay.

And this post of yours:

You are counting poles PAST THE HORIZON to calculate distance to the horizon.

Maybe this will help...



You should be using the 22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').

 relative to the original image I presented is also accurate, correct?

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #128 on: January 26, 2018, 04:59:35 PM »
We must also take into account water's tendency to cause refraction

Why is this removed from Bedford experiment, and when Wallace added it back the experiment showed curvature?

as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.

If horizon raises to eye level and hides bottom parts of those poles,
then we should see bottom of poles when we lay down on the ground, so our eye level doesn't raise horizon.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #129 on: January 28, 2018, 04:41:42 AM »
You want us to believe this image you rendered with your marvelous red and yellow lines as accurate, correct?


ANSWER =  Yes.

19 poles to the horizon.

Okay.

And this post of yours:

...22 towers TO the horizon not all that are visible.

22 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

22 x 950 = 20,900 feet.

20,900/5280 = 3.96 miles

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
Repeating, you want the community to accept both as accurate?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 08:38:46 AM by totallackey »

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #130 on: January 28, 2018, 08:59:48 AM »
What part of this do you not understand?

I will be happy to discuss any and all aspects of the image once you man up and address  the issues about lens distortion you have been avoiding.



You had enough information to make this claim about lens distortion...

Quote
  It is most definitely lense distortion

Defend your claim.


You had enough information to make this claim about support pilings...
Quote

No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane

Now explain why the pilings drop out of view after the horizon but the towers they support are still visible.

If you had enough information to make the claims in the first place, then you have enough information to defend them.

Or were you just talking out your ass as usual?

Man up and answer the questions that other members have asked you about your claims.

AFTER you answer those questions I will be happy to answer any questions you have.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #131 on: January 28, 2018, 09:15:43 AM »
What part of this do you not understand?

I will be happy to discuss any and all aspects of the image once you man up and address  the issues about lens distortion you have been avoiding.



You had enough information to make this claim about lens distortion...

Quote
  It is most definitely lense distortion

Defend your claim.
When the truth about a matter is so obvious, it needs no further defense.

It is lense distortion.

You had enough information to make this claim about support pilings...
Quote

No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane

Now explain why the pilings drop out of view after the horizon but the towers they support are still visible.

If you had enough information to make the claims in the first place, then you have enough information to defend them.

Or were you just talking out your ass as usual?

Man up and answer the questions that other members have asked you about your claims.

AFTER you answer those questions I will be happy to answer any questions you have.
Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.

Questions are answered.

Now, do you expect the community to accept both photos as accurate?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 09:19:46 AM by totallackey »

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #132 on: January 28, 2018, 09:50:48 AM »
Typical flatter.
In their delusional minds repeating an unsubstantiated claim is proof of said claim.
You were asked specific questions about your claim, such as how does a lens  cause curvature in the powerline and yet leave ALL straight lines in the image straight.  What is the name of such a lens,  etc.
Simply repeating your claim is not answering those questions about your claim.

But a nice try with your foolishness about the  atmosphere. The  problem is that the atmosphere doesn't magically change thickness at 10' only past the horizon. 

Try again.

Now what is your proof that "It is most definitely lense distortion"?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #133 on: January 28, 2018, 11:48:33 AM »
I can't explain why it shows the curve or not without having answers to my previous questions. Let's start with accounting for barrel distortion, which IIRC Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.
Barrel distortion is negligible with this picture.  This is a high magnification shot.

Quote
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
No, it will not in this case.

Quote
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion
He rotated it slightly.  Do you even understand photoshop?

Quote
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?
I would say he understands photography and photoshop more than you.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #134 on: January 28, 2018, 11:59:06 AM »
Typical flatter.
In their delusional minds repeating an unsubstantiated claim is proof of said claim.
You were asked specific questions about your claim, such as how does a lens  cause curvature in the powerline and yet leave ALL straight lines in the image straight.  What is the name of such a lens,  etc.
Simply repeating your claim is not answering those questions about your claim.

But a nice try with your foolishness about the  atmosphere. The  problem is that the atmosphere doesn't magically change thickness at 10' only past the horizon. 

Try again.

Now what is your proof that "It is most definitely lense distortion"?
Here is my proof:

Start with the second photo of yours:

You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?

What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?

You are going to write me in reply that a boat, if introduced in a reshoot of the scene, was photographed sailing in a direct parallel line to the towers, would be found to be EIGHT FEET ABOVE the observer at 19 stanchions away...
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 12:24:47 PM by totallackey »

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #135 on: January 28, 2018, 12:20:59 PM »
More patting on the back, uttering "GOOD JOB!"
About to be shot down in flames...

LMMFAO!!!

?

ER22

  • 393
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #136 on: January 28, 2018, 12:51:38 PM »
We don't assume the earth is flat.
Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
...
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0

Plenty of evidence.
That's hilarious.

You use a previous post of YOURS to back up YOUR present argument.
That's hilarious.

One thing I agree with you on though.
There is no curvature to the horizon.

If you have a 360 deg view of the horizon,
And spin while looking at the horizon,
Your eyes arrive back at the point they started.

No curvature, whether it is a flat or spherical earth.
It's a bogus argument and you know it.
Show me a Flat Earth map that works.

*

JackBlack

  • 23217
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #137 on: January 28, 2018, 01:03:21 PM »
19 poles to the horizon.
Where did he say that?

You seem to completely fail to understand what that image is showing.

When the truth about a matter is so obvious, it needs no further defense.
Yes, because people don't question it.
As people are questioning it, your "truth" is clearly not so obvious and thus does need further defense.
Additionally, if it was so obvious, you would easily be able to defend it, yet all you can do is assert it.
This makes the truth of the matter quite obvious, you are just baselessly asserting crap.

Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.
That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.

You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?
What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?
Not sure exactly what you are asking, but it seems to be based upon more ignorance of how Earth and the curve works.

Above is relative to where on Earth you are.
Ignoring mountains and the like the Earth drops lower than you in all directions.
However, if you use a point some distance away as a reference, Earth drops in all directions from that point, making you lower, not higher.

Why would it be 3 miles?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #138 on: January 28, 2018, 01:26:55 PM »
19 poles to the horizon.
Where did he say that?

You seem to completely fail to understand what that image is showing.
Here:

I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.


Now that we have some reference points please explain why this image does not show the curve of the earth.
When the truth about a matter is so obvious, it needs no further defense.
Yes, because people don't question it.
As people are questioning it,...
Sorry Jack, I question your humanity...
Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.
That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.
Atmoplane is more dense at sea level.
You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?
What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?
Not sure exactly what you are asking, but it seems to be based upon more ignorance of how Earth and the curve works.

Above is relative to where on Earth you are.
Ignoring mountains and the like the Earth drops lower than you in all directions.
However, if you use a point some distance away as a reference, Earth drops in all directions from that point, making you lower, not higher.

Why would it be 3 miles?
If you are not sure what it is I am asking then I believe you need to re-read the question and the supporting statements and objections. Then counter. I will post it here again:

Here is my proof:

Start with the second photo of yours:

You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?

What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?

Are you are going to write me in reply that a boat, if introduced in a reshoot of the scene, was photographed sailing in a direct parallel line to the towers, would be found to be EIGHT FEET ABOVE the observer at 19 stanchions away...???
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 10:47:56 AM by totallackey »

*

JackBlack

  • 23217
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #139 on: January 28, 2018, 01:45:13 PM »
Here:

  I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
So nowhere.
Got it.

Unless you can point out how that indicates there are 19 towers to the horizon.
Just a note, "as far as I could resolved[sic] them" doesn't mean the horizon is there, nor does it mean the ones prior to it doesn't count.

Sorry Jack, I question your humanity...
Really? That is the best you can do?
Reject people as not being human rather than defend your baseless claim?

Your complete inability to defend it shows it just a baseless assertion.

Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.
That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.
Atmoplane is more dense at sea level.
That does not address my issue.

Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?

If you are not sure what it is I am asking then I believe you need to re-read the question and the supporting statements and objections. Then counter. I will post it here again:
I don't, as they don't help clarify it.
Where are you pulling the 3 miles from?
Where are you pulling 8 feet from?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #140 on: January 28, 2018, 02:07:16 PM »
Here:

I placed a vertical line at the horizon  and at first completely visible tower.  I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
I plotted points at the the tops as far as I could resolved them, but image too poor to accurately place them the entire distance.
I used the point where the horizontal bar meets the upright triangle as they were more visible and it leaves the very tops clear for your inspection.
So nowhere. Got it.
Nope, you don't.

I placed a vertical line at the horizon...

Unless you can point out how that indicates there are 19 towers to the horizon.
Just a note, "as far as I could resolved[sic] them" doesn't mean the horizon is there, nor does it mean the ones prior to it doesn't count.
You are correct Jack.

It does indicate 19 points however within the field of the picture.

And what do you suppose the 19 points within the picture are presented to the audience for?

Evidence of curvature, correct?

And how high do those points continually rise above the self-admittedly "level," red line?

They cannot possibly represent more than the eight foot dip to the horizon by an observer at height of ten feet above see level, as the points referenced at the top commence a downward slope prior to point 19!

So, whether or not the 19 points is to the horizon or not, I DNGAS!
Atmoplane becomes less dense as altitude rises.
That would result in a gradient accross the towers.
Instead all above the water line is clearly visible, with the pylons absent.
Atmoplane is more dense at sea level.
That does not address my issue.

Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?
Yes.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/
If you are not sure what it is I am asking then I believe you need to re-read the question and the supporting statements and objections. Then counter. I will post it here again:
I don't, as they don't help clarify it.
Where are you pulling the 3 miles from?
Where are you pulling 8 feet from?
I suggest you read more slowly or you have someone read it to you:
Here is my proof:

Start with the second photo of yours:

You expect the community to believe the Earth rises over eight feet to a point over the ten foot height of the observer within three miles?

What does this do with your precious "dip angle" to the horizon?

You are going to write me in reply that a boat, if introduced in a reshoot of the scene, was photographed sailing in a direct parallel line to the towers, would be found to be EIGHT FEET ABOVE the observer at 19 stanchions away...?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 03:19:45 PM by totallackey »

*

JackBlack

  • 23217
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #141 on: January 28, 2018, 02:21:57 PM »
Nope, you don't.
I placed a vertical line at the horizon...

Pretty sure I do.
Saying he placed a vertical line at the horizon doesn't indicate there are 19 towers to the horizon.

You are correct Jack.
It does indicate 19 points however within the field of the picture.
Yes, not to the horizon.
So how do you conclude that there are 19 points to the horizon?

And what do you suppose the 19 points within the picture are presented to the audience for?
Evidence of curvature, correct?
Yes, as was already indicating.

And how high do those points continually rise above the self-admittedly "level," yellow line?
No, not a self-level yellow line.
Above a red line connecting the first tower with enough visible to the last tower.
There is no indication that this line is level.
The tops of the towers are roughly level, following the curve of Earth; this line would only be level at one point as it doesn't follow the curve of Earth.

They cannot possibly represent more than the eight foot dip to the horizon by an observer at height of ten feet above see level, as the points referenced at the top commence a downward slope prior to point 19!
Again, where are you getting these numbers from?
Why 8 feet?
If it isn't going all the way to the horizon, why would it be to the horizon?

Again, there is still some distance to that tower.

So, whether or not the 19 points is to the horizon or not, I DNGAS!
But that changes if it should be the 8 feet to the horizon (although I still don't know where you are pulling 8 feet from) for these 19 towers, or a smaller drop based upon the distance to the 19th tower.

Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?
Yes.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/
That doesn't back you up.
If there was such a density step it would be clearly measurable and produce significant effects.
Science has indicated that the density of air is a smooth gradient, as you would expect, no magic steps.

I suggest you read more slowly or you have someone read it to you:
I suggest you address the actual questions raised rather than just repeating the same nonsense.
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE NUMBERS FROM?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #142 on: January 28, 2018, 03:40:41 PM »
Nope, you don't.
I placed a vertical line at the horizon...

Pretty sure I do.
Saying he placed a vertical line at the horizon doesn't indicate there are 19 towers to the horizon.
So are the steadily rising (then subtly lowering) of the 19 points he places at the top of the towers purposeful obfuscation of the issue?

Regardless, at this point in time, I no longer care...
You are correct Jack.
It does indicate 19 points however within the field of the picture.
Yes, not to the horizon.
So how do you conclude that there are 19 points to the horizon?
See above...and like I wrote there, it is no longer an issue.
And what do you suppose the 19 points within the picture are presented to the audience for?
Evidence of curvature, correct?
Yes, as was already indicating.
Good...
And how high do those points continually rise above the self-admittedly "level," yellow EDITED: red line?
No, not a self-level yellow EDITED red line.
Above a red line connecting the first tower with enough visible to the last tower.
There is no indication that this line is level.
Then take that up with NAZA:
...I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
A line of perspective on a flat surface = LEVEL!!!
The tops of the towers are roughly level, following the curve of Earth; this line would only be level at one point as it doesn't follow the curve of Earth.
They cannot possibly represent more than the eight foot dip to the horizon by an observer at height of ten feet above see level, as the points referenced at the top commence a downward slope prior to point 19!
Again, where are you getting these numbers from?
Why 8 feet?
If it isn't going all the way to the horizon, why would it be to the horizon?

Again, there is still some distance to that tower.

So, whether or not the 19 points is to the horizon or not, I DNGAS!
But that changes if it should be the 8 feet to the horizon (although I still don't know where you are pulling 8 feet from) for these 19 towers, or a smaller drop based upon the distance to the 19th tower.
I suggest you read more slowly or you have someone read it to you:
I suggest you address the actual questions raised rather than just repeating the same nonsense.
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE NUMBERS FROM?
Google is your friend for the numbers.

10 feet is the claim made by NAZA for the height of the observer in the photos.
Are you claiming the atmosphere has one density at sea level, which it keeps until it magically jumps to another density which it keeps?
Yes.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-is-the-air-less-dense-higher-up-you-go.320644/
That doesn't back you up.
If there was such a density step it would be clearly measurable and produce significant effects.
Science has indicated that the density of air is a smooth gradient...
Science has never made such a statement regarding air density or clarity...if science ever claimed such, that claim would fly directly in the face of fog or smog or whatever other junk disappears as one rises in altitude...
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 04:44:37 PM by totallackey »

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #143 on: January 28, 2018, 06:31:57 PM »
Since no one has any real argument that debunks the picture showing curvature, I guess we can wrap this up.

Another globe Earth victory.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #144 on: January 29, 2018, 05:11:32 AM »
Since no one has any real argument that debunks the picture showing curvature, I guess we can wrap this up.

Another globe Earth victory.
No, the picture does NOT show curvature.

It shows the lengths disingenuous RE-tards will go to in order to present a case.

1) He places a line he purports to be level across the waist line of the towers, then plots 19 dots at the shoulder points of the towers, supposedly increasing in curvature over the waist line of the towers!!!

2) Anyone with a shrimp (hats off to the bayou creator of this fantasy image and explanation) for a brain knows towers are not manufactured this way and every other photo of these towers in a line distinctly shows that construction of the towers is identical as far as height, shape, and dimensions.

3) NAZA states the observer is in a boat at a ten foot level for observation and shooting the photo:

Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').

There is no way a person standing at a ten foot observing level on the Earth, facing any direction (even if it is a sphere), will experience an eight feet wall of "curved water" prior to the horizon line, or other construction raised an additional eight feet IN HIS LINE OF SIGHT DUE TO A SPHERICAL EARTH.

The line of sight to the horizon, according to RE-TARD MATH, is dropping from OBSERVATION POINT to horizon...

So, these photos are due to lense distortion.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 11:00:21 AM by totallackey »

*

JackBlack

  • 23217
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #145 on: January 29, 2018, 01:41:21 PM »
So are the steadily rising (then subtly lowering) of the 19 points he places at the top of the towers purposeful obfuscation of the issue?
Who says they are rising then lowering?
Until they become too difficult to resolve, they follow the same points in the tower, unless you are going to complain that they aren't pixel perfect.

Regardless, at this point in time, I no longer care...
Of course you don't; you have been shown to be wrong and have no justification for any of your claims.
Caring would require you to admit that.

Then take that up with NAZA:
...I placed a reference line (red)  to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
A line of perspective on a flat surface = LEVEL!!!
No, =FLAT!!!
Do you understand the difference between flat and level?

You can have objects on a hill with a smooth gradient and draw a line of perspective.
You can have objects which decrease in height in a linear manner and a draw a line of perspective.
That does not require it to be level, just straight or flat.

It is a straight line.
The towers don't need to rise up above you.
From the perspective of the camera, the line is pointing downwards and the towers go downwards. Not much at first, but significantly more near the end.

Google is your friend for the numbers.
So you have no basis and are just making up the numbers?

10 feet is the claim made by NAZA for the height of the observer in the photos.
Yes, that is one number out of the 3 you have.

Science has never made such a statement regarding air density or clarity
Yes it has, quite frequently.

For example, the numerous results you can easily find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Altitude
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_195.html
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosmet.html

It is a smooth gradient, not a magic step.
This is what you would expect based upon gravity, where the air pressure increases closer to the surface of Earth as it is being compressed by the air above.

What science has never claimed is that there is magic step in the density of air.

No, the picture does NOT show curvature.
Yes it does. You are yet to provide an alternative.

It shows the lengths disingenuous RE-tards will go to in order to present a case.
Nope. But it does show the lengths you will go in order to pretend there is no case, making up strawman after strawman, baselessly asserting and then refusing to back it up and so on.

1) He places a line he purports to be level across the waist line of the towers, then plots 19 dots at the shoulder points of the towers, supposedly increasing in curvature over the waist line of the towers!!!
No he didn't.
He placed a line connecting the first and last tower.
This would only be level if Earth was flat.
If Earth is round it would only be level at one point, around the middle of the line.
Before that point (i.e. closer to the camera) it would be pointing downwards. After that point it would be pointing upwards.

Stop lying about what the line is.

2) Anyone with a shrimp (hats off to the bayou creator of this fantasy image and explanation) for a brain knows towers are not manufactured this way and every other photo of these towers in a line distinctly shows that construction of the towers is identical as far as height, shape, and dimensions.
Which just goes to show the curve observed in the photo is not due to the construction of the towers, that the tops of the towers should follow Earth and thus the curve is the curve of Earth.

There is no way a person standing at a ten foot observing level on the Earth, facing any direction (even if it is a sphere), will experience an eight feet wall of "curved water" prior to the horizon line, or other construction raised an additional eight feet IN HIS LINE OF SIGHT DUE TO A SPHERICAL EARTH.
To the horizon, you are correct.
I also wouldn't call it a wall of water.
The horizon is a smooth curve of water (in this case) following the curvature of Earth.
You can easily see it. The exact "height" will depend upon how you are trying to measure the height.

The line of sight to the horizon, according to RE-TARD MATH, is dropping from OBSERVATION POINT to horizon...
No, according to rational people math.
Is is the retards (that are FEers) that don't seem to understand.
You are measuring the "height" in completely insane ways.

The curvature of Earth obstructs the vision of objects beyond the horizon starting from the bottom up.

But the horizon is below you. It doesn't magically rise up, and you are the only one pretending it does.

Would you have referred him to draw a line connecting the first few towers in a straight line to show a clear drop instead?

Is this one better for you:

The magenta line is still not perfectly level. In fact it points slightly downwards. I used the first three towers to get the line.
Yet you can clearly see the towers curve away from this line, showing they get lower and lower,  as you would expect on a round Earth.
The red line IS NOT LEVEL!!! (at least not all the way alone)
It would be if Earth was flat, but that would also mean all the red dots would be on that line.

So, these photos are due to lense distortion.
No they aren't.
You have been shown that lens distortion cannot result in this image due to the numerous straight lines in the image.
If you wish to disagree you will need to provide evidence.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #146 on: January 29, 2018, 08:28:49 PM »

Independent observer standing at any height above point zero (point zero could occupy any radian on the sphere) can look in any direction and will not see any evidence of "upward curvature," then"downward curvature."

All of the towers in the picture (except for the last) are built to the same specs (height, width, etc.)

A person standing at one end of the towers would not see any evidence of the towers arcing upward then sloping downward.

That is impossible on a spherical surface.

They tell you clearly what the drop is on a sphere the size of the Earth.

Only an AI bot arguing with an FE would try to convince an FE that evidence of curvature could be depicted at ground level in a photo, when it cannot.

If it is flat or a sphere, you can look at the chart above and place radian point at 0 and take a look 360 degrees around you. Depending on your height, will be the typical distance to the horizon (6 foot = 3 miles, 10 foot = 4 miles).

What you will not see (no matter your height) between you and the horizon is a curve of water or a string of towers with the tops arcing upwards and then down to the horizon.

Just won't happen.

*

JackBlack

  • 23217
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #147 on: January 29, 2018, 09:56:08 PM »
Independent observer standing at any height above point zero (point zero could occupy any radian on the sphere) can look in any direction and will not see any evidence of "upward curvature," then"downward curvature."
So far the only person suggesting any magic "upwards curvature" is you.

All of the towers in the picture (except for the last) are built to the same specs (height, width, etc.)
A person standing at one end of the towers would not see any evidence of the towers arcing upward then sloping downward.
That is impossible on a spherical surface.
That's right. Instead they see the towers arcing down, following the curve of Earth line in that photo.

Only an AI bot arguing with an FE would try to convince an FE that evidence of curvature could be depicted at ground level in a photo, when it cannot.
Except it can easily be depicted in a photo, as this photo clearly shows.

Now care to address what is actually being said rather than your pathetic strawman?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #148 on: January 30, 2018, 02:43:44 AM »
So far the only person suggesting any magic "upwards curvature" is you.
Incorrect.

The dots at the tops of the towers were placed at the tops of the towers to present the illusion of an upward rising arc. Those dots at the tops of the towers are increasing distance over the height of the red line.

All of the towers in the picture (except for the last) are built to the same specs (height, width, etc.)
A person standing at one end of the towers would not see any evidence of the towers arcing upward then sloping downward.
That is impossible on a spherical surface.
That's right. Instead they see the towers arcing down, following the curve of Earth line in that photo.[/quote]
Incorrect.

Only an AI bot arguing with an FE would try to convince an FE that evidence of curvature could be depicted at ground level in a photo, when it cannot.
Except it can easily be depicted in a photo, as this photo clearly shows.

Now care to address what is actually being said rather than your pathetic strawman?
[/quote]
Like I wrote earlier, you are being disingenuous, dishonest, and I am placing all AI bots on ignore from this post forward.


*

JackBlack

  • 23217
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #149 on: January 30, 2018, 02:57:03 AM »
So far the only person suggesting any magic "upwards curvature" is you.
Incorrect.

The dots at the tops of the towers were placed at the tops of the towers to present the illusion of an upward rising arc. Those dots at the tops of the towers are increasing distance over the height of the red line.
Nope, I'm correct. Here you are again suggesting it, yet no one else does.
The dots at the top of the towers were placed to show they are not in a straight line.
Yes, their position above the red line increases, but the red line goes down more than they go up relative to it, meaning the towers still go down.

Like I wrote earlier, you are being disingenuous, dishonest, and I am placing all AI bots on ignore from this post forward.
i.e. you have been shown to be a blatant liar and are now coming up with whatever BS you can to justify your delusions of grandeur.