Revisiting a commonly presented image...

  • 436 Replies
  • 24170 Views
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #60 on: January 22, 2018, 06:05:33 AM »
OK, Mr Smart Aleck, if you think my estimate of 32 feet is wrong, you tell me the height of that camera above the water level = Allow me to feign ignorance and skipp over the post by NAZA which states the photographer is standing 10 feet above the water line.
FTFY.
I could estimate it more accurately by scaling from the height of the towers, but frankly, I can't be bothered wasting my time on you! =  I have never been concerned about finding the truth anyway...I am only concerned about making sure I reach my daily post quota...
FTFY.
Here a little video

How to End Flat Earth in 2.5 minutes
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #61 on: January 22, 2018, 06:54:26 AM »
Let me introduce a second line of power poles to further obfuscate my contributions to the thread in an effort to make it seem like I know what I am writing about...
No...

Ain't gonna happen cupcake...

As I thought, your answer is:

C.  I cannot answer this question on the grounds that it proves me wrong, dumb, or both.


Must suck to be you.
You start a thread hoping to disprove damning evidence against a flat earth and it blew up in your face.
John Davis has to resort to a poor attempt at humor to save face and he can't answer two simple questions.

All you've proven is that you're too stupid to grasp basic math or too disingenuous to admit a mistake.  I'm okay with either one, and frankly neither is surprising.
At least John was smart enough to put his shovel down.

Would you like to attempt  to answer the questions that he is avoiding?   There's plenty of dirt left in the hole.

Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?

« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 07:25:13 AM by NAZA »

*

Mikey T.

  • 2399
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #62 on: January 22, 2018, 07:38:16 AM »
Why does this look pretty close to what I personally witnessed at Lake Pontchartrain on multiple occasions.  I lost count of how much money I spent to cross the lake bridge going South, it's free going North.

https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #63 on: January 22, 2018, 08:31:10 AM »

Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?


All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Period.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 848
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #64 on: January 22, 2018, 09:21:11 AM »

Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?


All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Period.
No it isn't.
Nullius in Verba

*

54N

  • 173
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #65 on: January 22, 2018, 11:17:24 AM »
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Lens (note correct spelling)  distortion can distort a picture..  It can't actually change what's in the picture.
A lens can't make something in the picture (ie: the bottom of the distant poles) disappear behind something else in the picture (ie: the water).

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #66 on: January 22, 2018, 01:05:47 PM »
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.
BS.
Explain what lens magically causes this distortion.
Explain how this also magically makes it happen to the human eye.

Also, address the issues raised with your BS regarding the horizon.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2088
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #67 on: January 22, 2018, 01:52:05 PM »
Flat Earth is burning in embers, get over it...

Grow up, and move on to chemtrails, whatever!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2018, 02:25:09 PM »

Why are the water stains curved in this image and why do they stop after the horizon even though the tops of the pilings are still visible?


All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Period.
No it isn't.
Yes. It is.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #69 on: January 22, 2018, 02:28:32 PM »
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Lens (note correct spelling)
"Lense is accepted as an alternative spelling by Webster's Third New International Dictionary..." -   https://www.google.com/search?q=lense&oq=lense&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3488j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8distortion
can distort a picture..  It can't actually change what's in the picture.
Correct.
A lens can't make something in the picture (ie: the bottom of the distant poles) disappear behind something else in the picture (ie: the water).
Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 04:02:13 PM by totallackey »
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2088
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #70 on: January 22, 2018, 02:35:21 PM »
Wouldn't "lense distortion" also distort the line of the horizon?
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

54N

  • 173
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #71 on: January 22, 2018, 06:16:02 PM »
All of the supposed "curvature," you see reflected in this picture is a result of lense distortion.

Lens (note correct spelling)
"Lense is accepted as an alternative spelling by Webster's Third New International Dictionary..." -   https://www.google.com/search?q=lense&oq=lense&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3488j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8distortion
can distort a picture..  It can't actually change what's in the picture.
Correct.
A lens can't make something in the picture (ie: the bottom of the distant poles) disappear behind something else in the picture (ie: the water).
Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
1:   Fuck Webster's ...  I'm British and Speak English not Americanese.     ;)
https://writingexplained.org/lens-or-lense

2:  The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing behind the water in that picture!

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #72 on: January 22, 2018, 07:14:28 PM »

I am talking about the peaks of the towers. They do not align, as one would assume if they were basing their construction off the edge of the water, to each other in a polynomial fashion. The tips of each tower, relative to the previous, have a wide margin of error. When this error is aggregate over the entire structure, there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature and refraction.


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?

*

rabinoz

  • 22590
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #73 on: January 22, 2018, 07:18:58 PM »
Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
Would you like the name of a good optometrist, ophthmalogist or maybe a Seeing-eye-Dog?

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #74 on: January 22, 2018, 07:49:32 PM »
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

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #75 on: January 23, 2018, 04:08:48 AM »
1:   Fuck Webster's ...  I'm British and Speak English not Americanese.     ;)
https://writingexplained.org/lens-or-lense
Ah, the Brits...

Hey, do you know the difference between an intelligent Brit and a unicorn?

Nothing, as they are both fictional.
2:  The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 04:26:45 AM by totallackey »
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #76 on: January 23, 2018, 04:11:10 AM »
Good thing the bottom of the poles are not disappearing behind the water in that picture!
Would you like the name of a good optometrist, ophthmalogist or maybe a Seeing-eye-Dog?
Would you like the name of a qualified AA sponsor?
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #77 on: January 23, 2018, 04:13:40 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.

If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.

Did you experience some form of blunt force trauma to the head prior to making this post/picture?
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

rabinoz

  • 22590
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #78 on: January 23, 2018, 04:32:08 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.

If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.
NAZA never claimed that "the red line you he superimposed on that picture is the horizon line", so your posts is meaningless.

Had he posted it superimposed on the horizon, it would have obliterated the horizon and then you would have complained about that!

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #79 on: January 23, 2018, 05:20:40 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.

If you are claiming the red line you superimposed on that picture is the horizon line, there is no question you need help in some form or fashion.

Did you experience some form of blunt force trauma to the head prior to making this post/picture?

No Forest, I placed the line BELOW the horizon so others could see that the horizon is NOT DISTORTED.
Just like the lines NEXT to the towers prove that the towers are NOT DISTORTED.
In other words, your silly lie about  lense(sic) distortion  has been proven wrong. 
Now how about wiping all that egg off of your face and try again?
I love it when a Flatter shoots himself in the foot, but unlike you most flee after doing so.  You seem to have an endless supply of ammo and enjoy the pain.
Not to mention the logic of starting a thread with a picture that proves the planet a sphere in the first place.
Now hobble back to that keyboard and give us some more!

You're the best argument for a spherical earth I've seen.  This thread should be a sticky.

*

54N

  • 173
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #80 on: January 23, 2018, 05:31:29 AM »
2:  The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.

1:  Spelling correction accepted..  Fair cop!   :)
2:  Where do you think they are then?     I can't see them and I think they're behind the water, over the horizon.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #81 on: January 23, 2018, 06:09:47 AM »
No Forest, I placed the line BELOW the horizon so others could see that the horizon is NOT DISTORTED.
Except several people who have also looked at the photo and state without equivocation or mental reservation that not only do the towers nearer the horizon begin to appear more distorted the closer they are to the horizon line, the horizon also displays distortion and is not really a crisp, clear sharp line.
Just like the lines NEXT to the towers prove that the towers are NOT DISTORTED.
Yeah, not there but the ones closer to the horizon line are.
In other words, your silly lie about  lense(sic) distortion  has been proven wrong.
Lense is not a spelling error, doofus...and it is lense distortion.
Now how about wiping all that egg off of your face and try again?
You are wearing the egg, making all these baseless claims.

And your act of superimposing lines on the picture?

Demonstrates top -notch skills learned in kindergarten. But serves no useful purpose...
I love it when a Flatter shoots himself in the foot, but unlike you most flee after doing so.  You seem to have an endless supply of ammo and enjoy the pain.
Perhaps the reason maybe I have not shot myself, "in the foot."
Not to mention the logic of starting a thread with a picture that proves the planet a sphere in the first place.
Ask any fellow RE-tard and even they will tell you the Earth is TOO BIG to make an informed decision about the shape based on visual evidence obtained at ground level.

So this photo proves nothing!
Now hobble back to that keyboard and give us some more!

You're the best argument for a spherical earth I've seen.  This thread should be a sticky.
I am not hobbling (at least due to you and other RE-tards).
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #82 on: January 23, 2018, 06:23:17 AM »
2:  The bottom of the distant poles are indeed disapperaing [sic] behind the water in that picture!
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.

1:  Spelling correction accepted..  Fair cop!   :)
2:  Where do you think they are then?     I can't see them and I think they're behind the water, over the horizon.

Kinda like the concrete    base of the larger tower next to the powerline?



Forest will probably claim that they didn't use pilings for that tower.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #83 on: January 23, 2018, 06:26:30 AM »
2:  Where do you think they are then?     I can't see them and I think they're behind the water, over the horizon.
Too far away to be seen due to dense atmoplane.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #84 on: January 23, 2018, 07:06:15 AM »
So Forrest your evidence is "Other people say it's distorted near the horizon"



Chamber another round and try again.

Let's examine what the powerline would look life if the earth were flat. 
Here are perspective lines extended from the first 3 towers...


You've proven that math isn't your cup of tea but maybe you could Google up some info on your magical lens that distorts an image by making the powerline curve while leaving EVERY straight line in the image perfectly straight?

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 848
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #85 on: January 23, 2018, 07:12:42 AM »
Bendy light! It must be caused by bendy light!  :o
Nullius in Verba

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #86 on: January 23, 2018, 07:31:57 AM »
So Forrest your evidence is "Other people say it's distorted near the horizon"



Chamber another round and try again.

Let's examine what the powerline would look life if the earth were flat. 
Here are perspective lines extended from the first 3 towers...


You've proven that math isn't your cup of tea but maybe you could Google up some info on your magical lens that distorts an image by making the powerline curve while leaving EVERY straight line in the image perfectly straight?
As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...

What, are you going to write, "Expert Etch-a-Sketch Designer," as part of your qualifications within your signature?

Might as well go purchase Spirograph and superimpose that crap on top of the picture for all it is worth...

One more fucking time and for the record...

You are a RE-tard.

Accept that.

Ask any other RE-tard: "Hey, fellow RE-tard! Can a person tell from Earth-bound visual evidence whether or not the Earth is flat?"

The answer will be: "No, a person cannot claim proof of the shape of the Earth based on Earth-bound visual evidence because the Earth is too big."

Of course, that argument will be utilized to its fullest extent by RE-tards when an FE proponent  states, "The Earth is flat. Look out your window."

The fact fucked-faced forgetful and hypocritical RE-tards choose to ignore that argument in instances like this only indicates the urgent need for these RE-tards to perform cranial rectalotomies as expeditiously as possible.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 07:42:37 AM by totallackey »
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15658
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #87 on: January 23, 2018, 08:07:17 AM »
And it's also the reason there are no Flatters at sea.
Yeah, that's why they imploy 'plane' sailing!



So, I can notate in my journal how I changed my belief - how much cable did they buy?!
Who cares?
That doesn't magically make Earth flat.
Well, we've seen in the past with the transatlantic cable that the length of the cable does not match up with a round earth - as well as other large structures with cable. I'd love to know that this cable length is indeed predicted by a flat earth. Of course, you'd know this if you knew enough about our beliefs to argue against them.


So, now, lets talk about that lens huh? So this camera, including the human eye, doesn't experience barrel distortion? How did the photographer ensure his picture was level to the horizon?

How do you account for the error in the peaks of the towers that would aggregate the further out we go from the source of the picture?

How do you account for refraction?

Quantum Ab Hoc

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #88 on: January 23, 2018, 08:11:09 AM »
So Forrest your evidence is "Other people say it's distorted near the horizon"



Chamber another round and try again.

Let's examine what the powerline would look life if the earth were flat. 
Here are perspective lines extended from the first 3 towers...


You've proven that math isn't your cup of tea but maybe you could Google up some info on your magical lens that distorts an image by making the powerline curve while leaving EVERY straight line in the image perfectly straight?
As soon as you stop acting like you have any kind of fucking idea whether or not the lines you placed on the image are valid or not...

What, are you going to write, "Expert Etch-a-Sketch Designer," as part of your qualifications within your signature?

Might as well go purchase Spirograph and superimpose that crap on top of the picture for all it is worth...

One more fucking time and for the record...

You are a RE-tard.

Accept that.

Ask any other RE-tard: "Hey, fellow RE-tard! Can a person tell from Earth-bound visual evidence whether or not the Earth is flat?"

The answer will be: "No, a person cannot claim proof of the shape of the Earth based on Earth-bound visual evidence because the Earth is too big."

Of course, that argument will be utilized to its fullest extent by RE-tards when an FE proponent  states, "The Earth is flat. Look out your window."

The fact fucked-faced forgetful and hypocritical RE-tards choose to ignore that argument in instances like this only indicates the urgent need for these RE-tards to perform cranial rectalotomies as expeditiously as possible.

Translation :
All my arguments for a flat earth have been shot down and the only thing I have left is name calling and feet stomping.

Must suck to be you.

A recap so far
John Davis:

The bottom could be uneven.  Proven irrelevant.

Derail thread.

The tops aren't perfect.   Explained by spacing with images.

Wisely flees tread.

Forrest:

Simple math is beyond my mental capabilities.

Avoid issue of water marks.

Show ignorance of how optics work.

Call people poopyheads.

All we need now is for the third stooge to hop up and claim victory for the flat earth.


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15658
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #89 on: January 23, 2018, 08:15:02 AM »
Translation :
All my arguments for a flat round earth have been shot down and the only thing I have left is name calling and feet stomping.

Must suck to be you me.

A recap so far
John Davis:

The bottom could be uneven.  Proven irrelevant.

Derail thread.

The tops aren't perfect.   Explained by spacing with images.

Wisely flees tread.

Not sure about the Forrest bits, but I'm sure its as stellar as your take on my presence in the thread. Its really nice of you to summarize the discussion here for other globularists that might have difficulty reading it. In the future, you should strive towards accuracy rather than whatever it is you were trying to do. Though honestly, it looks like you are just trying to call us poopieheads.
Quantum Ab Hoc