Revisiting a commonly presented image...

  • 436 Replies
  • 86363 Views
*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #90 on: January 23, 2018, 08:19:43 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?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #91 on: January 23, 2018, 08:29:26 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.

"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.

" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion

How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 08:31:36 AM by John Davis »

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #92 on: January 23, 2018, 08:31:26 AM »
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have.

I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.

The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.

Or trolling. I forgot trolling.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 928
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #93 on: January 23, 2018, 08:32:21 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.

"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion

How do you reconcile these facts with your method?

If it were a distortion, then why would the distortion be only in the left half of the image?

Follow-up question: what about all the other images and videos?
Nullius in Verba

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #94 on: January 23, 2018, 08:36:25 AM »
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have.

I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.

The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.

Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
"The method used to take this photo and manipulate it both are in opposition to the facts we are using it to supposedly prove. But you have to be [insults here] to say otherwise or I forgot: [insutls here]"

Round earth science folks!

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.

"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion

How do you reconcile these facts with your method?

If it were a distortion, then why would the distortion be only in the left half of the image?

Follow-up question: what about all the other images and videos?
It could be cropped or a particularity of the editing used or the lens. It could be a particularity of the weather, or any number of other variables that were not properly eliminated as causes.

As experts will tell you, it is almost impossible to see curvature even if the earth were round. I would hazard these photos are not taken for the cause of 'proving the earth is round' and are there for other reasons, and as such these independent variables were ignored.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #95 on: January 23, 2018, 08:46:09 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.

Were not discussing the curve in the horizon John, I'm trying to get you to discuss the curve in the transmission line that is almost perpendicular to the horizon.   Specifically the water stains on the concrete pillings.  Stop avoiding it.


Quote
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.

No it means that the camera was not held perfectly level with horizon, about one degree in fact.  I fix that so my vertical lines would be truly vertical.

Quote
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion.

I did not skew  the image, I rotated the canvas.  If you are holding a picture in your hands and you tilt the picture one degree does that make the picture invalid?  Try again.

Quote
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?

See above.

Now about those water marks...

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #96 on: January 23, 2018, 08:50:53 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.

Were not discussing the curve in the horizon John, I'm trying to get you to discuss the curve in the transmission line that is almost perpendicular to the horizon.   Specifically the water stains on the concrete pillings.  Stop avoiding it.
Did I mention the horizon?
Quote

Quote
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.

No it means that the camera was not held perfectly level with horizon, about one degree in fact.  I fix that so my vertical lines would be truly vertical.
This manipulation does not necessarily provide an accurate image. Unless it does and you can tell me why?
Quote
Quote
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion.

I did not skew  the image, I rotated the canvas.  If you are holding a picture in your hands and you tilt the picture one degree does that make the picture invalid?  Try again.
I've never tried holding a digital photograph. However, if the camera was not level, there would still be distortion. The fact you had to rotate it already hints the photo was bunk in the first place, before the invalidating manipulations. How did you go about 'rotating' it?
Quote
Quote
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?

See above.

Now about those water marks...
I'm not seeing any watermarks on that image. I may be misunderstanding the intent of your question here.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 928
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #97 on: January 23, 2018, 08:53:37 AM »
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have.

I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.

The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.

Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
"The method used to take this photo and manipulate it both are in opposition to the facts we are using it to supposedly prove. But you have to be [insults here] to say otherwise or I forgot: [insutls here]"

Round earth science folks!

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.

"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize.
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion

How do you reconcile these facts with your method?

If it were a distortion, then why would the distortion be only in the left half of the image?

Follow-up question: what about all the other images and videos?
It could be cropped or a particularity of the editing used or the lens. It could be a particularity of the weather, or any number of other variables that were not properly eliminated as causes.

As experts will tell you, it is almost impossible to see curvature even if the earth were round. I would hazard these photos are not taken for the cause of 'proving the earth is round' and are there for other reasons, and as such these independent variables were ignored.

Are you suggesting that photos or videos that demonstrate the curvature of the Earth should be disregarded unless they were made with that specific intent?
Nullius in Verba

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #98 on: January 23, 2018, 09:02:07 AM »
I'm suggesting that scientific evidence should attempt to eliminate independent variables that could poison the results. I am also suggesting that photos that are not made with the specific intent of demonstrating the curvature of the Earth tend not to do this. This particular photo we can easily say hasn't - as it is not even shot levelly.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #99 on: January 23, 2018, 09:09:14 AM »
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.[/quote]
Can you or can you not fucking read?

The fact of the matter, regardless of your fucking incessant whining about the matter, is this: Earth bound visual evidence is not proof one way or the other of a flat or spherical earth.

That is just a fact of life you will need to accept.

Once you accept that, perhaps you will not be so sensitive when someone calls you a RE-tard.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 09:11:22 AM by totallackey »

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #100 on: January 23, 2018, 09:37:41 AM »
Good morning John!  Glad to see you back.
Thank you!

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #101 on: January 23, 2018, 10:18:53 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.

Were not discussing the curve in the horizon John, I'm trying to get you to discuss the curve in the transmission line that is almost perpendicular to the horizon.   Specifically the water stains on the concrete pillings.  Stop avoiding it.
Did I mention the horizon?

Yes you did.
  Lynch says is extremely difficult to avoid when looking for curvature in the horizon.

You even quoted yourself saying it.

Quote
Quote
"The camera wasn't exactly level": This would cause barrel distortion you realize. This is also why many folks claim to see curvature at the beach - an impossibility even if the earth were some silly bowling ball hurled and spinning down a cosmic drain.

Quote
No it means that the camera was not held perfectly level with horizon, about one degree in fact.  I fix that so my vertical lines would be truly vertical.
This manipulation does not necessarily provide an accurate image. Unless it does and you can tell me why?

Sure, because I did nothing to the image, I only rotated the canvas the image was pasted on.
If you straighten a picture hanging on the wall does that alter the picture itself?


Quote
Quote
Quote
" so I tilted image so horizon was horizontal. " This would not produce a faithful to reality distortion.

I did not skew  the image, I rotated the canvas.  If you are holding a picture in your hands and you tilt the picture one degree does that make the picture invalid?  Try again.
I've never tried holding a digital photograph. However, if the camera was not level, there would still be distortion. The fact you had to rotate it already hints the photo was bunk in the first place, before the invalidating manipulations. How did you go about 'rotating' it?


I pasted the original image onto a blank layer, then I created a new layer and placed a horizontal line on it near the horizon to compare them.
As you can see there was very  little difference:


.
I then rotated the entire first layer parallel to horizontal line then deleted layer 2.

Quote
  The fact you had to rotate it already hints the photo was bunk in the first place, before the invalidating manipulations.

So the power line is curved because the camera was slightly tilted?
Do you know how stupid that is?
Using your logic if the camera was tilted from landscape to portrait it would make the line curve 90°. 

Now, how about one not altered in any way?



Sure looks like a curve to me.

Quote
Quote
Quote
How do you reconcile these facts with your justification of method?

See above.

Now about those water marks...
I'm not seeing any watermarks on that image. I may be misunderstanding the intent of your question here.

You know very well I am taking about this image:



Why are the water stains curved and why do they disappear right after the horizon.

While you are at it maybe you can explain why the concrete base of the large tower is missing.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #102 on: January 23, 2018, 10:41:49 AM »
Common JD. Even you know that you are just trying to muddy the waters. Your best defence would have been photoshop. But Soindly took care of that by live streaming the video of his taking that picture. Also anyone can go there and check it out and apparently, a lot of people have.

I would have expected a conspiracy as defence. Or even some magical science created for the purpose. Something about Euclidean or proto Euclidean or something like that.

The best thing would have been not to bring up that image in the first place.  John is smarter than that.
I'm surprised he hasn't tried Universal Electromaticatmoplanicperfaction but the day is young.


Quote
The picture simply proves a curvature. Only the blind, the deluded, the deceptive and their ilk will say otherwise. Leaving fleeing as the only resort.

Or trolling. I forgot trolling.
Pretty much sums it up.

If I thought John was actually interested in the truth I'd invite him down to see for himself.
He lives only a few hours away and it is even closer for me.
I know exactly where the power line meets the North Shore and there is a boat landing just a few minutes away.
I have a boat and the surveying  instruments required to prove to himself that the earth is curved.  We could even invite SCG and she could make  sandwiches while the men work. A recreation of the shyster ' s experiment would be very easy there.
Pity he's only interested in attention and not the truth, I'd love to see SCG in a bikini.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #103 on: January 23, 2018, 10:53:33 AM »
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.
Can you or can you not fucking read?

The fact of the matter, regardless of your fucking incessant whining about the matter, is this: Earth bound visual evidence is not proof one way or the other of a flat or spherical earth.

That is just a fact of life you will need to accept.

Once you accept that, perhaps you will not be so sensitive when someone calls you a RE-tard.
[/quote]

Translation:

Now that my thread about an image has backfired, images don't count.

Typical flatter.  Exceptionally stupid, but but that's par for this course.

It also seems that he learned how to quote someone the same place that he learned math.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #104 on: January 23, 2018, 11:31:08 AM »
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
So you think they just magically vanish then?

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?
There is no indication he is claiming anything of the sort rather than providing it as a reference.
If you think the apparent curvature in that picture is just a result of lens distortion you need help.

Lense is not a spelling error, doofus...and it is lense distortion.
That has been shown to be a blatant lie.
It is not lens distortion. If it was far more would be distorted.

Demonstrates top -notch skills learned in kindergarten. But serves no useful purpose...
Nope, it demonstrates that lens distortion is not making the towers appear to follow a curved line.

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.
Sure, retards like you might say that, but intelligence people will not.
They will tell you it superficially appearing "flat" from ground level is not enough to conclude it is flat.
They will tell you several bits of visual evidence which can be obtained at ground level which can be used to make an informed decision about the shape of Earth.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #105 on: January 23, 2018, 11:42:09 AM »
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.
Are you ever able to make an honest comment?
We have seen no such thing.

There are plenty of instances where there is no significant difference between the lengths required for a flat and round earth, but I am yet to find a single instance where a length doesn't match that expected for a round earth.

So, now, lets talk about that lens huh? So this camera, including the human eye, doesn't experience barrel distortion?
No, not magical barrel distortion which just makes distant objects appear to curve over 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?
That was already explained to you.

How do you account for refraction?
Refraction makes objects appear higher than they are, the further away they are.
We aren't trying to measure things perfectly, just show evidence of the curvature of Earth.
Refraction can't explain away that curve.

It could be cropped or a particularity of the editing used or the lens. It could be a particularity of the weather, or any number of other variables that were not properly eliminated as causes.
No, it couldn't.
The editing would require deliberate manipulation to produce the apparent curve.
Lenses produce the most significant distortion at the edge, not the centre so there would be vastly more curves if that is the case.
Weather doesn't magically make things appear lower.

It is quite clear you are grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend your delusions are correct.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #106 on: January 23, 2018, 01:36:25 PM »

It is quite clear you are grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend your delusions are correct.

You should trademark that.

The Flat Earth Society:   Grasping at whatever straws we can to pretend our delusions are correct.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #107 on: January 23, 2018, 02:23:57 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


He kicked his own ass!!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #108 on: January 23, 2018, 02:32:49 PM »
Please note they are not disappearing (please note correct spelling) behind water.
So you think they just magically vanish then?
No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane.
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?
There is no indication he is claiming anything of the sort rather than providing it as a reference.[/quote]
Reference to what?

According to him, it is referencing the horizon.
If you think the apparent curvature in that picture is just a result of lens distortion you need help.
Nope...

It is most definitely lense distortion.
That has been shown to be a blatant lie.
It is not lens distortion. If it was far more would be distorted.
Cue unsubstantiated, baseless, "NO U!"

Nope, it demonstrates that lens distortion is not making the towers appear to follow a curved line.
A line superimposed after the fact on top of a picture would not serve or bolster your statement

Sure, retards like you might say that, but intelligence people will not.
Of course they wouldn't!

Intelligence people do not engage in speaking the truth.

They are spooks, specifically trained to obfuscate, equivocate, and withhold accurate information.
They will tell you it superficially appearing "flat" from ground level is not enough to conclude it is flat or a sphere.
FTFY.

You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #109 on: January 23, 2018, 02:58:37 PM »
No, they become less distinguishable due to the dense atmoplane.
Yet we can magically distinguish the towers?

Reference to what?
A reference to a straight line.

According to him, it is referencing the horizon.
It is to allow you to compare the horizon to a straight line, without obstructing the horizon.

It is most definitely lense distortion.
Explain how. I have explained how we know it isn't due to lens distortion.

Cue unsubstantiated, baseless, "NO U!"
Yeah, I figured you would pull some shit like that as you are completely unable to defend your claims, so you just repeatedly assert them and say everyone else is lying.

A line superimposed after the fact on top of a picture would not serve or bolster your statement
Sure it would. These lines show that the towers are not distorted due a lens. This shows that the curve is due to the lens.

Intelligence people do not engage in speaking the truth.
Perhaps I should have said intelligent, honest people.
Is this an admission that you are intelligent but are intentionally lying?

Intelligent honest people would not say the crap you are saying.

FTFY.
No, you didn't fuck it for me, you fucked it for yourself because you are unable to honestly and rationally defend your position, so you need to lie about what others say.

You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.
Yes you can as I have explained in numerous threads.
In fact, this thread has one such demonstration.

These towers following a curved line is one such visual observation which can be used to determine that Earth is curved.

What you can't do is say this 1m long stretch of water appears flat so Earth must be flat, because over that distance you cannot tell the difference between flat and following the curvature of Earth.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #110 on: January 23, 2018, 07:59:24 PM »
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.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #111 on: January 23, 2018, 09:54:42 PM »
You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.
You really are the master of inconsistency!
Again, the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below.
So "objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below"
but "the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below".

But firstly, please explain exactly why,
"You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone."

So how about you prove that the earth is flat using only "ground based visual observations alone".

If you can't, we must just assume that the earth is a Globe, as that shape has been accepted for millennia and fits all our ground based observations.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #112 on: January 24, 2018, 10:13:33 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?

.

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #113 on: January 24, 2018, 12:51:45 PM »
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?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #114 on: January 24, 2018, 01:34:18 PM »
You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone.
You really are the master of inconsistency!
Not hardly...
Again, the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below.
So "objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below"
but "the position of objects above the Earth have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth below".

But firstly, please explain exactly why,
"You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone."
Because, as you RE-tards like to point out, the Earth is too big.

I say, the Earth is flat because it looks flat, you come back and say the Earth would look flat because it is a huge sphere...
So how about you prove that the earth is flat using only "ground based visual observations alone".
How about you shove that word, "prove," where the sun don't shine...
If you can't, we must just assume that the earth is a Globe, as that shape has been accepted for millennia and fits all our ground based observations.
Bullshit.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2018, 02:19:11 PM by totallackey »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #115 on: January 24, 2018, 02:13:09 PM »
Because, as you RE-tards like to point out, the Earth is too big.
That does not preclude all Earth based observations of things on Earth showing that Earth is not round.
It means some don't work, specially the ones where you cannot distinguish between flat and round, like trying to measure the curvature of a 1m long stretch of water.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #116 on: January 24, 2018, 02:17:34 PM »
But firstly, please explain exactly why,
"You cannot make any determination concerning the shape of the Earth from ground based visual observations alone."
Because, as you RE-tards like to point out, the Earth is too big.

I say, the Earth is flat because it looks flat, you come back and say the Earth would look flat because it is a huge sphere...
Yes, the earth looks flat to a casual observer, but there are many ways of observing the curve from even a low level.

One such method is to see the curve where the distance is exaggerated by foreshortening, such as:
  • Looking at ships, mountains, the sun and moon and buildings getting hidden behind "something".
    There are numerous examples of this on YouTube, some good and some not so good.

  • Looking along a row of objects the same height above water level, with the distant ones again getting hidden behind "something".
    Here we have the numerous Lake Pontchartrain power-line and bridge videos of the YouTuber Soundly and many wind-turbine videos from others.

Then there is the measurement of the dip angle to the horizon that has been presented numerous times, as in:

Horizon not at eye level in an Airplane, fiveredpears
better enlarged to full screen.
             

Flat Earth Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level, Rhetoric&Discourse

And while the horizon does look flat, there is another clue:
          The horizon from a low level is sharp and well defined, as in the left photo
          but the flat earth "horizon" would be determined by the limited visibility through the air and might be expected to be more like the photo on the right:

The sharp sea-air boundary is evidence of a near horizon.
     
Fuzzy Horizon from High Altitude

Yes, there are plenty of clues, if you are prepared to look.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #117 on: January 24, 2018, 03:05:56 PM »
And while the horizon does look flat, there is another clue:
          The horizon from a low level is sharp and well defined, as in the left photo
          but the flat earth "horizon" would be determined by the limited visibility through the air and might be expected to be more like the photo on the right:

The sharp sea-air boundary is evidence of a near horizon.
     
Fuzzy Horizon from High Altitude
[/center]

Yes, there are plenty of clues, if you are prepared to look.
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?

Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #118 on: January 24, 2018, 03:20:12 PM »
And while the horizon does look flat, there is another clue:
          The horizon from a low level is sharp and well defined, as in the left photo
          but the flat earth "horizon" would be determined by the limited visibility through the air and might be expected to be more like the photo on the right:

The sharp sea-air boundary is evidence of a near horizon.
     
Fuzzy Horizon from High Altitude
[/center]

Yes, there are plenty of clues, if you are prepared to look.
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?
It does make sense.  There is no evidence that proves the earth is not round.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting a commonly presented image...
« Reply #119 on: January 24, 2018, 04:06:30 PM »
Oh boy, do you really believe this makes sense to you?
Yes, what's your problem?