Revisiting a commonly presented image...

  • 436 Replies
  • 86360 Views
*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2018, 03:04:45 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.



Perspective is clearly visible, the towers shrink as does the distance between them.

What can NOT be explained by perspective is the water line on the towers.
Notice how they disappear right at the horizon yet you still see the white base of the towers?

Are you claiming water part of the conspiracy now?

Btw this power line was installed before nasa was founded so you can forget the they built it to make the earth look curved theory.

Now about that letter. ..

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2018, 03:41:58 PM »
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.
Your four miles seems to be wrong.

I did the math just with the 38 distinguishable pylons (claimed by JackBlack).

38 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

38 x 950 = 36,100 feet.

36,100/5280 = 6.8 miles
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 03:43:52 PM by totallackey »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2018, 03:44:27 PM »
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 RE-tard comments are right there in your post.
The horizon varies depending upon how high you are.
Objects disappearing depend upon how high they are.
It isn't a magic case of once something is 3 miles away it disappears.

According to https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ then for a distance of 7 miles, with a viewer height of 6 feet, only 11 feet are hidden. Accounting for standard atmospheric refraction, only 8 feet are hidden.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2018, 04:26:07 PM »
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.
Your four miles seems to be wrong.

I did the math just with the38 distinguishable pylons [/u](claimed by JackBlack).

38 stanchions spaced 950 feet apart

38 x 950 = 36,100 feet.

36,100/5280 = 6.8 miles

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').

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2018, 05:24:19 PM »
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?
Your "three mile horizon" is for the camera 6 feet above the water but in that Google Street-view photo the camera is obviously much more than 6 feet above the water.

A camera 32 feet feet above the water would make the horizon about 7 miles away.
That looks about right when you consider that the I10 is above a railway line and the railway line is 7 to 10 ft above lake level.

Like to try again?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2018, 05:59:09 PM »
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2018, 06:29:43 PM »
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.
They don't? Look again at 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 many video and details.

Maybe you could come back with some proof of the flat earth that science would validate and we can talk more.
I have yet to see it - and I have looked at your 142 "evidences", seen much of William Carpenters "100 proofs that the Earth is not a Globe" and Eric Dubay's 200 proofs.

The only thing against debunking those is the sheer tedium and repetition involved - its more a proof by exhaustion, Argumentum Ad Infinitum.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2018, 07:30:59 PM »
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.

Let's look deeper...

Here is a dot place on key points as far away as I could resolve them.



Not exactly the straight lines of perspective  that you would expect if the earth were flat.



Now I can't place more dots with certainly but we can extend the those lines to a vanishing point.



When can we expect that letter?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2018, 09:12:02 PM »
You guys are great! I’ll come ack when you need more help. For now, I’ll continute to spectate.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2018, 09:26:39 PM »
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 09:30:13 PM by John Davis »

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2018, 09:29:18 PM »
So, I can notate in my journal how I changed my belief - how much cable did they buy?!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2018, 10:46:29 PM »
The peaks of the towers don't align evenly. This makes it an unsuitable choice for a study to determine shape of the earth. Come ack with something science would validate and we can talk more.
Science isn't the issue here, the FEers are.
Science has already validated the shape of Earth. Guess what? It's round. The problem is the FEers are in denial, so you are provided simple everyday things which can be used to show it is round, like this.

Also, science doesn't need it perfectly aligned.
We can see that there are some minor variations in the height of each one, but that is quite small when you have so many. If Earth was flat you would expect these to follow straight lines, they don't.

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.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #42 on: January 21, 2018, 04:14:16 AM »
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.


NOW you're getting it!

Too bad about all your wasted time though, THAT has to sting a bit!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #43 on: January 21, 2018, 04:21:53 AM »
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').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #44 on: January 21, 2018, 04:29:48 AM »
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').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.

You can CLEARLY see the towers curve over the horizon.

This proves you dead wrong. Period.

The Earth is NOT flat, and you are an obvious idiot.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2018, 04:30:09 AM »
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.
What on earth are you raving on about! You don't take defeat well, do you?

If those photos are not evidence of curved water, I suggest you trade in your seeing-eye-dog - see, I'm learning ridicule from the Master,

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #46 on: January 21, 2018, 04:30:50 AM »
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?
Your "three mile horizon" is for the camera 6 feet above the water but in that Google Street-view photo the camera is obviously much more than 6 feet above the water.

A camera 32 feet feet above the water would make the horizon about 7 miles away.
That looks about right when you consider that the I10 is above a railway line and the railway line is 7 to 10 ft above lake level.

Like to try again?
The photo you presented, remember that?

Not referencing the I 10 photo.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 05:00:51 AM by totallackey »

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #47 on: January 21, 2018, 04:34:57 AM »
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').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.

You can CLEARLY see the towers curve over the horizon.

This proves you dead wrong. Period.

The Earth is NOT flat, and you are an obvious idiot.
That is simply an effect of the zoom lense.

Go back to your corner and have a biscuit.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #48 on: January 21, 2018, 04:38:55 AM »
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').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.
Incorrect! I thought I spelt this out for you before, but I guess your tine mind can take it in.

The distance to the horizon depends on the height of the observer.
The horizon would be about 3 miles away for an observer 6 feet above the water.
The horizon would be about 7 miles away for an observer 32 feet above the water.

So try that out with your FE-tard math.

The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #49 on: January 21, 2018, 04:41:05 AM »
Oh, yeah... It's an optical distortion from telephoto lens..

Right.

Try again, Mr. lacking
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #50 on: January 21, 2018, 04:44:47 AM »
Go back to your corner and have a biscuit.
Lackey want a cracker?

PS In case to hadn't heard, the earth is a Globe and has since there was anything living on it. here's it's first colour protrail:
55 years ago today (1959),
the 1st color photo of Earth from space
was taken from a Thor missile - 1 Dec 2014.


From: Ron Baalke, Space Explorer
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Asteroid 6524 Baalke.
Hope you like it!

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #51 on: January 21, 2018, 04:55:21 AM »
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.
AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."

Okay.

The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 05:04:12 AM by totallackey »

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #52 on: January 21, 2018, 05:05:11 AM »
Quote from: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 04:26:07 PM
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.
AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."

Okay.

The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
[/quote]

It's alright, Mr Lacking...

People sometimes have to admit defeat.

It's just YOUR turn right now!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #53 on: January 21, 2018, 05:12:37 AM »
Quote from: NAZA on January 20, 2018, 04:26:07 PM
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.
AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."

Okay.

The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.

It's alright, Mr Lacking...

People sometimes have to admit defeat.

It's just YOUR turn right now!
[/quote]
Not hardly.

You'se guys don't even have your numbers straight. for cryin out loud...

LOL!

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #54 on: January 21, 2018, 05:29:28 AM »
You can't even use the quote feature correctly, for crying out loud!

Another victory for RE!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #55 on: January 21, 2018, 12:05:16 PM »
That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.
No, it means you can see ones which are further than the horizon.
You would expect to.
Like I said before, objects don't just magically disappear when they reach the horizon, they begin to be obscured from the bottom up.

According to math based upon reality (i.e. RE math) there is nothing wrong with that.

That is simply an effect of the zoom lense.
No it isn't. Zoom lenses do not make things going off into the distance appear to curve.

The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
You mean your tactic of grasping at whatever BS you can to pretend your FE delusions are correct; while ignoring refutations of your claims with you just repeating the same BS.
That wont work on us, or any rational people.

How about you try honesty with honest rational arguments, oh wait, you want to show Earth is flat and you cant use honest rational arguments for that.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #56 on: January 21, 2018, 12:36:34 PM »
You really nailed those peaks. Good job on that job. Really puts the Flat Earth Idea to shame. Shit never-mind about all this. Better go home and forget about it. The weight of your evidence is far too much for me to carry. This is just wild how accurate it is! Holy shit. You've convinced me. Science is totally the way to go.

Why are you obsessed with the peaks yet ignore the 800 pounds gorilla  in the room, the rest of the tower?  Spoiler: I know the answer.
I explained to you that that the towers are all not space evenly and I explained the reason why this is.  I even posted a image that illustrates this:

I will be happy to provide ammo for your other foot and highlight the poorer OP image that actually shows the top of all towers after this afternoon's hunt.

Now, I've once again addressed your comments would you please respond in kind and address the other 90% of the towers.
Let's get down to earth and start at the bottom, the high water stains on the concrete pilings.


1. Why are the water stains curved?

Has water now joined with light and air in conspiring to make the earth look round?

2.  Why do the water stains disappear after the horizon yet the tops of the pilings are still visible?

You owe your supporters answers before you post your letter.


*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #57 on: January 21, 2018, 12:58:10 PM »
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').
No.

I can see the stanchions also past your point indicated on the photo.

That means I can see individual stanchions to an horizon seven miles out.

According to RE-tard math, not possible.
Are you just playing dumb  to avoid admitting that you are wrong or can you possibly be that stupid?
I'll give you another chance since you're such a nice and charming guy with this analogy.

You are standing in a field looking down a fence that as 37 posts spaced 10' apart.

There is another fence that runs perpendicular to fence one and intersections fence one at post 22.  Post 22 is shared by both fences.

The question arises how far away is fence two (the horizon)?

I'll even make it multiple choice to help you.

How far away is fence two(the horizon)

A.  There are 22 posts to fence two(the horizon) therfore 22 x 10' = 220'

B.  There are 22 posts to fence two(the horizon) and there are 15 posts past fence two(the horizon) therefore 37 x 10' = 370'

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


My advice is to stop digging.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 01:03:57 PM by NAZA »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #58 on: January 21, 2018, 06:57:34 PM »
Just what is expected for someone standing in a boat (about 10').
The camera taking that photo is certainly more than 6 feet above the water and probably closer to that 32 feet.
AKA, "I have no freaking clue and hopefully most will not notice..."
Okay.
The tactic did not work this time but maybe next time.
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.

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!
Here a little video

How to End Flat Earth in 2.5 minutes

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #59 on: January 22, 2018, 05:59:01 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...