Revisiting a commonly presented image...

  • 436 Replies
  • 24272 Views
Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« on: January 19, 2018, 12:44:17 PM »
Lately, this image:

Has been presented quite a bit in support of RE.

Time to discuss this particular image and a couple questions follow:

RE-tards, what is the measured distance of the photographer from the subject matter at hand?

What is the measured distance between each tower in the image?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 01:06:59 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.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2018, 02:01:17 PM »
We must also take into account water's tendency to cause refraction, as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
Quote
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.

A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76. False or prevailing perspective would bring the lines A, B, and C, D, to the same point H; but the true or natural perspective



brings the line A, B, to the point W, because there and there only does A, W, E, become the same angle as C, H, E. It must be the same angle or it is not the vanishing point.

The law represented in the above diagram is the "law of nature." It may be seen in every layer of a long wall; in every hedge and bank of the roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects run parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary perspective is ever to be seen in nature.

...

In accordance with the above law of natural perspective, the following illustrations are important as representing actually observed phenomena. In a long row of lamps, standing on horizontal ground, the pedestals, if short, gradually diminish until at a distance of a few hundred yards they seem to disappear, and the upper and thinner parts of the lamp posts appear to touch the ground, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 77.


 Fig. 77.
Fig. 77.


Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38478
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2018, 03:41:44 PM »
John, what part of refraction or "Rowbotham's Law" predicts the apparent curvature visible in that photograph?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 22664
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2018, 05:06:14 PM »
John, what part of refraction or "Rowbotham's Law" predicts the apparent curvature visible in that photograph?
Didn't you look carefully at Rowbotham's diagrams and see the curve that he so thoughtfully drew in?

Look at these



It looks to me as though Rowbotham has drawn a piecewise-linear approximation to the curve of the Globe.
If not, just what hides the trunks of the trees or the bases of the lamp-posts?
Does light behave differently ;D below the "line-of-sight" than above?  ;D Hogwash!

That fits well with Soundly's powerline videos and photos:

Lake Pontchartrain Transmission Lines Nikon P900
The powerlines are shown on Google Earth, so anyone can easily find out exactly where they are.
Look up the YouTube channel Soundly, YouTube for details.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2018, 07:56:07 PM »
as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.
You mean conman row boats lies to pretend Earth doesn't curve?

The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point.
No, that is how perspective works.
It doesn't matter how far the lines are distant from your eyes. Perspective has no preferential direction.

You aren't trying to see an object from your eye-height. You are merely trying to resolve a shape.

before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.
Nope. The vanishing point is infinitely far away. Not where the angle is one arcminute.


A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76.
You mean an example of where the curvature of Earth obstructs the view.

See, the problem with his BS is requires first assuming Earth is flat, then using the observation which clearly show a curve to pretend perspective does something that it does not.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2018, 11:36:43 PM »
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
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 #6 on: January 20, 2018, 02:55:33 AM »
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
I can see at least 38 separate ones, but it is hard to tell exactly how many as it starts blurring together at the end.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2018, 04:49:01 AM »
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
I can see at least 38 separate ones, but it is hard to tell exactly how many as it starts blurring together at the end.
Okay, 38.

Care to provide any answer to the following questions:

What is the measured distance of the photographer from the subject matter at hand?

What is the measured distance between each tower in the image?
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 #8 on: January 20, 2018, 08:52:22 AM »
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
That image is much better!

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6hhGV5Y1PB2

Open in maps and you can see "street" view


You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2018, 10:09:50 AM »
as well as Rowbotham's Law of Nature.
You mean conman row boats lies to pretend Earth doesn't curve?
Row boats are not sentient and cannot lie.
Quote
See, the problem with his BS is requires first assuming Earth is flat, then using the observation which clearly show a curve to pretend perspective does something that it does not.
We don't assume the earth is flat. We know it is flat through zetetic and neozetetic inquiry. To properly address your other points I need to know your opinion on Being. Does a phenemona itself have being, and what constitutes this being? What about observed entities? What is the relationship between this tie, and how can we view a true being and know that a phenemona is accurately representing it?
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2018, 10:29:53 AM »
That image is much better!

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
Source?
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
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2018, 10:36:25 AM »
I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38478
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2018, 10:46:34 AM »
I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.
You do understand that in the context of a round earth, straight and level are not the same thing, don't you?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2018, 11:43:44 AM »
No, but I understand what you are trying to say. This was not my point; they are not even level to an altitude. Why would they be? That would be gross over-engineering.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2018, 12:41:04 PM »
I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.
Underground???
The bottom of the lake is irrelevant, in fact it's best describes as when the muddy water gets thick enough to hold up your anchor.  It's 10 to 20 feet of muck.
Power lines, and anything else that doesn't float, are built using friction pilings.  Concrete and steel "posts" that are 100+ feet hammered into the mud until friction is sufficient to hold up the load.  Only the top matters.
No, but I understand what you are trying to say. This was not my point; they are not even level to an altitude. Why would they be? That would be gross over-engineering.
If you actually took the time to learn a little bit about surveying  you would realize just how stupid your comment is and how delusional your flat earth claims are.

I'll make it simple for you.

You start at tower one, at X distance above sea level.
You shoot a level line to tower two to determine its height.
From tower two, not tower one, you shoot a level line to tower three.
From three to four, from four to five, etc.

This is NOT over-engineering, it is the simplest way to do it shy of measuring up from the water.  Which of course is infeasible because of waves.  It automatically insures that the curve of the earth is followed and all will be the same height. 
If the earth were flat all points could be shot from tower one but in reality that doesn't work.
This is why there are no surveyors who believe your BS and also why you accuse them of being dishonest members of the  grand conspiracy.

No, but I understand what you are trying to say. This was not my point; they are not even level to an altitude. Why would they be? That would be gross over-engineering.

Well now we can say that you've seen the curve of the earth. 

I expect your resignation letter will be posted soon in the announcement forum?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2018, 12:43:16 PM »
They are not level to an altitude given even the close towers. In otherwords, they are not laid evenly, even assuming a supposed curvature to the world. How am I to assume the further away towers don't also suffer from this error, and aggregate it? You can clearly see dips between adjacent towers that are not reflected over the entirety of the surface, or even the next tower in line.

Curvature cannot be seen at these distances, even if the earth was round. This leads us to alternate hypotheses. Now, may I ask, do you feel it might be colder the further you travel away from land?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 12:45:59 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2018, 12:50:25 PM »
We don't assume the earth is flat.
Yes you do. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it is flat.
Also, did you notice that I said far more than just that?
Your BS "law of nature" is based upon ignoring the curvature of Earth and pretending the results from it is some magic law of nature, which magically makes the bottom of objects get cut off first.

We know it is flat through zetetic and neozetetic inquiry.
No you don't.
You have been completely unable to provide any evidence, zetetic or otherwise, which shows it to be flat.
All rational analysis (including zetetic methods) indicates it is round.

To properly address your other points I need to know your opinion on Being.
Why?
Perspective can be boiled down to a simple math problem.

Even con-man row boat's claims make no sense if there was some magic law of perspective.

It wouldn't cause objects to disappear from the bottom up. It would actually cause them to disappear from the height of your eye-line, outwards.

I'd also like to know how we know this isn't a dip underground. We already see the towers are not level.
No, we see that they are not in a straight line. That does not mean they aren't level.
As for why it wouldn't be a dip underground, that would be because they are travelling over water.
There will likely be slight discrepancies in height, but not enough to produce that curve.
Why would they suddenly switch what towers they are using or start having the towers below water level?


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2018, 12:55:56 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
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2018, 12:56:57 PM »
It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2018, 12:57:57 PM »
Quote
Why would they suddenly switch what towers they are using or start having the towers below water level?
Lots of day to day reasons come to mind. It is irrelevant, as they clearly aren't standing level. You see dips and dodges in the peaks of the structure.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2018, 12:58:51 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
Southern GPS issues?  Angles of the sun prove a round earth.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2018, 01:00:12 PM »
It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Who else?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2018, 01:03:44 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
Southern GPS issues?  Angles of the sun prove a round earth.
Angles of the sun are actually one of the older, and disconnected proves of the flat Earth. Both discovered by Rowbotham and Taoists, as well as any free thinking man, they are nothing but proof that the Earth is not a Globe unless presupposed.

It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Who else?
It has been oft cited and oft reviewed in the flat earth community. I don't know what to tell you other than 'shake a stick towards flat earth literature' and it will come up.

Really.

Most books from Dubat to Rowbotham mention it.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2018, 01:04:09 PM »
They are not level to an altitude given even the close towers. In otherwords, they are not laid evenly, even assuming a supposed curvature to the world. How am I to assume the further away towers don't also suffer from this error, and aggregate it? You can clearly see dips between adjacent towers that are not reflected over the entirety of the surface, or even the next tower in line.

Curvature cannot be seen at these distances, even if the earth was round. This leads us to alternate hypotheses. Now, may I ask, do you feel it might be colder the further you travel away from land?

If you are talking about 2 towers being spaced wider than the norm this is for boat channels.  If memory serves me correctly there are 3 channels.  I'm more familiar with the north shore so I can't say for that's not 2 or 4 or more.

Btw, why do you use perspective in instances where it is patently  false yet refuse to consider forced perspective making the curve look more exaggerated exactly as it should?

Edit

[Quote ]Now, may I ask, do you feel it might be colder the further you travel away from land?[/quote]

It's South Louisiana John it's hot everywhere!
I see your point, but it's not a factor unless your talking dead of winter.  It's a shallow lake and it stays pretty warm.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 01:19:55 PM by NAZA »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2018, 01:07:22 PM »
Are you telling me that perspective does not apply to bodies observed over a long enough period, as exemplified by the original photograph?

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.

Do you feel you can see curvature of the earth over these distances if the Earth was a Globe?

Why so?
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2018, 01:15:28 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
Southern GPS issues?  Angles of the sun prove a round earth.
Angles of the sun are actually one of the older, and disconnected proves of the flat Earth. Both discovered by Rowbotham and Taoists, as well as any free thinking man, they are nothing but proof that the Earth is not a Globe unless presupposed.

It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Who else?
It has been oft cited and oft reviewed in the flat earth community. I don't know what to tell you other than 'shake a stick towards flat earth literature' and it will come up.

Really.

Most books from Dubat to Rowbotham mention it.
Not when measured from more than 2 locations.

Please provide details from current surveyors.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2018, 01:19:54 PM »
Here is plenty of evidence to convince any rational free thinking man:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67919.0
As I said the last time you brought this up, none of that is evidence that Earth is flat.
It is a compilation of lies (such as "There is no law of optics that would allow a body to appear flat if it was indeed round.", which completely ignores how optics actually works), nonsensical claims (such as "Water has been determined experimentally to be level. If the earth was round, and spun, water would not be level.", which completely ignores what level means) and the closest you get to "evidence" is being unable to distinguish between being curved and flat (such as "Find the curve! You can't.").

So no, there is no evidence at all which would convince an honest, rational person that Earth is flat. But there is plenty to convince them it is round.

You have also indicated you don't even want to debate those points.

It has already been shown by Rowbotham et al that structures of this sort do not take into account the curvature of the earth with regards to their cables. Do you have refutation for that?
Why would I need to refute it?
How did conman row boat show these structures don't take into account the curve?
More importantly, what would you expect the curve to do such that it would need to be taken into account.

Angles of the sun are actually one of the older, and disconnected proves of the flat Earth.
No it isn't. The angles of the sun have never been a proof of a flat Earth.
However they are still a current proof of Earth being round.

The best you get regarding a flat Earth is a few measurements producing a widely inaccurate height of the sun which varies dramatically.
However you can get a fairly accurate calculation of the circumference of Earth from multiple observations.

there is nothing that says this curvature wouldn't present naturally given the Law of Nature
Sure there is, the fact that the "Law of Nature" is just blatant lies to try and hide the curve by pretending nature is magic.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2018, 02:05:29 PM »
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
That image is much better!

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6hhGV5Y1PB2

Open in maps and you can see "street" view


You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2


If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?

What happened to the three mile horizon?

Where is the RE-tard math?
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 #28 on: January 20, 2018, 02:31:21 PM »
Thank you for the clearer image Geoff!

I appreciate it!

Does anyone count more than 35 stanchions before they fade from view?
That image is much better!

I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Google maps shows this to about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.
The towers are space 950' apart btw, I measured 10, 20, 30 all averaged 950'.
The image seems to be taken from about 1000' from the first tower in the straight line, where it splits.
https://goo.gl/maps/W6hhGV5Y1PB2

Open in maps and you can see "street" view


You can also see this view from I10 if your brave/foolish enough to stop in the emergency lane. 

https://goo.gl/maps/qugHEQh3D7E2


If you do the math with your 950' between pylons, it is roughly 7 miles prior to "disappearance," correct?

What happened to the three mile horizon?


Well Forest  you need to do the math with the number of towers to the horizon (not total visible) if you want to calculate distance to the horizon .

Or you could just read my first  post.

Quote
    I count 37 distinguishable pylons and 22 pylons to a line drawn across the horizon.

Do you need help with the math or would you just rather read my first post?
Quote
  about 4 miles, about right for someone standing in a boat.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2018, 02:46:52 PM »
Are you telling me that perspective does not apply to bodies observed over a long enough period, as exemplified by the original photograph?

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.

Do you feel you can see curvature of the earth over these distances if the Earth was a Globe?

Why so?

Because that curve has been getting in the way of me and my destination for 5 decades.  I suffered the trauma of my brother's ridicule for calling it a hill the first time I noticed it.   ;)

When you see a giant oil rig offshore rise up from the horizon just a few miles away it leaves no doubt.  Especially at dusk/dawn when you can  only see the navigation lights on the derick while the much brighter and larger rig is hidden behind the horizon.

You can call that the curve or an effect of the curve it's the same thing.
It also means sphere or cylinder and that can be answered by looking left or right.   :)

And it's also the reason there are no Flatters at sea.