Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe

  • 55 Replies
  • 7682 Views

*

nickrulercreator

  • 244
  • It's round. That much is true
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2018, 04:36:59 PM »
I don't see how this disproves a round Earth. The bottom support structure in your photo appears to be cut off by the horizon. As for the closer oil platforms, you can see more of the support structures.
he puts his penis in the mouth of the other one and FORCIBLY GIVES HER A BLOWJOB OF TRUTH and then his penis ERRUPTS IN AN EXPLOSION IF TRUTH and she is INSTANTLY DECAPITATED

Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2018, 05:12:22 PM »
Contrary to the thread title, that's a nice illustration of the way distant objects disappear behind the horizon from the bottom up because of the curvature of the earth.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2018, 06:35:23 PM »
What the fork?

You calculate that about 67 feet should be hidden.

You show that about 60 feet is hidden.

Is there a problem?

*

N30

  • 590
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2018, 12:10:47 AM »
I do not see 60 feet hidden at all.

And the other oil platforms do not show the expected amount hidden if Earths curve existed either.
Maybe I will get a more powerful camera lens and go back sometime to show how much can really be seen.

Now, what really bakes my noodle is that buoy.
Every buoy is documented and that one is marked as 10 miles away , but I can clearly see the bottom.
Oh also, google decided to delete platform Eureka from its satellite images.... strange no?

Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2018, 01:03:39 AM »


While yours is obviously fake, take your pick from any of these on offer!
https://www.space.com/34-image-day.html

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2018, 03:17:46 AM »
Here's the problem. The red lines in the following photo are the identical number of pixels long according to MS Paint:

“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2018, 06:26:31 AM »
Here's the problem. The red lines in the following photo are the identical number of pixels long according to MS Paint:



That problem has its roots here:



The 200x200 dimensions  are incorrect. The op used the height of the movable crane not the derrick.
 
The different angles of the 2 pics make comparisons of height to width ratios inaccurate.

In the closeup you are looking up at the rig and in the distant shot it is basically an elevation.
In the closeup the crane appears taller than the derrick but in reality it isn't.  The cranes are just closer.

If you're going to compare the 2 images you need to keep "measurements" from the closeup to a single plane, ie the front of the platform.  It's also best to use ratios as you can't get actual measurements from the closeup view because perspective plays a part.



One third of the platform is the legs.



My compliments to the OP for at least doing an actual experiment, a rarity here.

However, you forgot to include refraction in your calculations.  The amount hidden with refraction considered is 54.5 feet.

Can you post your original image for us to look at?

Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2018, 09:29:38 AM »
How do you calculate 54.5feet?

Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2018, 09:44:59 AM »
Contrary to the thread title, that's a nice illustration of the way distant objects disappear behind the horizon from the bottom up because of the curvature of the earth.
I love it when flat earthers post visual evidence of a curved surface. 

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2018, 09:50:22 AM »
How do you calculate 54.5feet?

Distance = 13 Miles (68640 Feet), View Height = 6 Feet (72 Inches) Radius = 3959 Miles (20903520 Feet)


Results ignoring refraction

Horizon = 3 Miles (15838 Feet)

Bulge = 28.17 Feet (338.09 Inches)

Drop = 112.7 Feet (1352.35 Inches)

Hidden= 66.69 Feet (800.26 Inches)

Horizon Dip = 0.043 Degrees, (0.0008 Radians)


With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)

Refracted Horizon = 3.24 Miles (17107 Feet)

Refracted Drop= 96.6 Feet (1159.15 Inches)

Refracted Hidden= 54.45 Feet (653.36 Inches)

Refracted Dip = 0.040 Degrees, (0.0007 Radians)


https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2018, 10:31:50 AM »
Contrary to the thread title, that's a nice illustration of the way distant objects disappear behind the horizon from the bottom up because of the curvature of the earth.
I love it when flat earthers post visual evidence of a curved surface.

They do make it so easy sometimes that I wonder if they are undercover NASA shill auditors.
Just in case...

Here's a pic of Elly and Ellen


It's from a different angle but it's good for comparison.




?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2018, 01:10:39 PM »
Here's the problem. The red lines in the following photo are the identical number of pixels long according to MS Paint:



That problem has its roots here:



The 200x200 dimensions  are incorrect. The op used the height of the movable crane not the derrick.
 
The different angles of the 2 pics make comparisons of height to width ratios inaccurate.

In the closeup you are looking up at the rig and in the distant shot it is basically an elevation.
In the closeup the crane appears taller than the derrick but in reality it isn't.  The cranes are just closer.

If you're going to compare the 2 images you need to keep "measurements" from the closeup to a single plane, ie the front of the platform.  It's also best to use ratios as you can't get actual measurements from the closeup view because perspective plays a part.



One third of the platform is the legs.



My compliments to the OP for at least doing an actual experiment, a rarity here.

However, you forgot to include refraction in your calculations.  The amount hidden with refraction considered is 54.5 feet.

Can you post your original image for us to look at?

Thanks. I was hoping someone would explain that.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2018, 05:44:20 PM »
No, "THE BUOY ALONE" does not "PROVE THAT EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE"!
One example proves nothing, not when there are so many possible explanations ranging from proof of the actual camera height above water to anomalous refraction, which is not at all uncommon over water. The following are extreme cases, but just show what can happen.
Neither does anyone doubt that we sometimes see quite large ships well above the water nor sailing boats flying.



The Red Ship Rides above the Ocean!
   



And how do you like a :o "flying boat"?  :o
   
even back when everyone
 ;D knew that the earth was a Globe. ;D

This is a drawing, but of a sighting that
may have led to the Flying Dutchman myth
So because of all the variables involved,
I don't like the visibility of distant objects as "proof" either way, but there are plenty of counter examples to your so-called proof:
Something is certainly hiding a large part or Toronto in the folowing photos!

Toronto as seen across lake Ontario from Olcott Beach, NY; evening 18th July EST, by Ad Meskens
Now those buildings are 66.7 km away, well past the visible horizon and much of the lower parts are hidden.
As near as I can gather the photo was taken from near "Olcott Beach Carousel Park" about 9 m above water level at Lat/Long 43°19'54.48"N  78°41'15.36"W.

And from a bit closer to the water:

Toronto as seen across Lake Ontario from Olcott Beach, NY; evening 12th July EST.
Something is hiding half of Toronto!
Photo taken 2 to 3 m above water level by Ad Meskens
And as I live in that area (Ontario Canada) I can assure that the picture of Toronto is correct.
Everyone who does not believe that I invite to come to Ontario and take a look for yourself.

And I have a whole series taken at various distances from Chicago across Lake Michigan.
Have a look in this post: Flat Earth General / Re: Long Time listener first time caller « Message by rabinoz on December 05, 2017, 02:29:34 PM ».
And plenty more where they come from!

Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2018, 06:21:49 PM »


That's not a strong argument. Why do you think the circled buoy is the one you say it is? How tall would it need to be if it's at nearly the same distance as the platform? Are you disputing that it's a Waverider Buoy?

And where are the legs of the platform?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2018, 07:22:44 PM »


That is not buoy 46253.



It would be FAR out of the  field of view of your image.
It's a closer buoy.

Strike two.

*

N30

  • 590
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2018, 06:46:31 PM »
Field of View? I thought it was the "curve" of Earth?

Here's a 75 mm shot I took in the same position.

The other one I featured in the compilation image is a 300 mm photo.


*

N30

  • 590
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2018, 08:19:43 PM »
Wheres the army of shills to refute this thread?
Awww, they just do not know how to deal with cold hard evidence.
Keep trying though, you silly shilly shills!
Even though its obvious that the Earth is flat, I know they will fight until the bitter end.

Use you common sense, Earth is not a globe, all will realize the truth eventually.
Pass the time until then by laughing at the ridiculous insults and nonsense that will follow this comment.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2018, 08:21:50 PM »
Field of View? I thought it was the "curve" of Earth?

Here's a 75 mm shot I took in the same position.

The other one I featured in the compilation image is a 300 mm photo.



Your new image does not change the fact that the buoy in the images is not # 46253



Strike three.



*

N30

  • 590
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2018, 08:28:46 PM »
Lol You are digging yourself further into a hole

Either of those buoys should not be visible at all.

Earth is not a globe.

Strike out.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2018, 08:39:20 PM »
Lol You are digging yourself further into a hole

Either of those buoys should not be visible at all.

Earth is not a globe.

Strike out.

So you admit that it isn't buoy 46253.
 Were you intentionally lying or just mistaken?

*

N30

  • 590
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2018, 08:51:48 PM »
Oh man, you are really making yourself look foolish, but you can always make another account, right shill?

Please, explain where I "admitted" that it was not the buoy I posted from the National Data Buoy Center?

Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2018, 09:06:27 PM »
Lol You are digging yourself further into a hole

Either of those buoys should not be visible at all.

Earth is not a globe.

Strike out.
Please explain the path of the sun and measured distances.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #24 on: March 09, 2018, 09:20:54 PM »
Oh man, you are really making yourself look foolish, but you can always make another account, right shill?

Please, explain where I "admitted" that it was not the buoy I posted from the National Data Buoy Center?

You claimed that the buoy in the pic is 46253.
I show that is impossible,  it is located too far away, and it is a closer buoy.
You say EITHER buoy should not be visible meaning the two we are talking about, the closer buoy and 46253, should not be visible. The one in the pic and the one I showed to be out of the pic.

Do you still want to claim the the buoy in the pic is 46253?

Post the original image from you 300mm shot and a Google link from where you took it.
You ignored my first request.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2018, 09:31:11 PM »
Wheres the army of shills to refute this thread?
Awww, they just do not know how to deal with cold hard evidence.
Keep trying though, you silly shilly shills!
Even though its obvious that the Earth is flat, I know they will fight until the bitter end.

Use you common sense, Earth is not a globe, all will realize the truth eventually.
Pass the time until then by laughing at the ridiculous insults and nonsense that will follow this comment.
"One swallow does not a summer make, nor one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy."
Aristotle (384 BCE – 322 BCE)
Likewise you are naive in the extreme to think that one example over a short distance is significant evidence as to the shape of the earth.
Less than 3 minutes of arc refraction wold make your buoy visible and that is by no means uncommon. Try much bigger distances!

There are numerous examples of this:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By the way, under normal conditions much of Chicago can certainly be hidden by the curve on Lake Michigan.
Take a look at Chicago As Seen From Around South Lake Michigan Posted on June 13, 2014 by Matthew Wolf.
Here's the "Joshua Nowicki 'superior mirage' from the Chicago skyline" and a few others taken under different condidtions.

Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from
Grand Mere State Park
   

Chicago from New Buffalo,
MI (40 miles from skyline)


Chicago from Michigan City,
IN (33 miles from skyline) - the lake ate 1/2 the sun too!
   

Chicago from Burns Harbor, IN (26 miles from skyline)

It certainly seems that apart from the first one, the closer you get, the more you can see.

Chicago from Whiting, IN (15 miles from skyline)
   

Chicago from Harold Washington Park, IL
(6 miles from skyline)
Somehow it seems that the closer you get, the less is hidden! Maybe that lake really is curved.
Then ships seem to disappear too!
Quote from: huwp, metabunk
Ships beyond the horizon - Earth curvature demonstration
I remembered being told stories at school about the early days of telescopes, where people would see ships through telescopes far out at sea that would appear to be sinking (as only the masts would be visible), only for them to later arrive in to harbour safe and sound. So photos of large ships out at sea would seem to make an easy demonstration of earth curvature: after a bit of searching I dug up this image (one of a sequence taken by me in 2006 in Perth, Western Australia, looking west out over the Pacific Ocean. I was mostly shooting the sunset, but I thought at the time that the ship made for an interesting demonstration of the same effect). It's particularly clear as the ship is silhouetted against the light:


This is an original-size crop of the part showing the ship:



The photo was taken at 210mm focal length on an APS-C sensor camera (Pentax *istD-L), so the entire image covers a horizontal angle of view of 6.5 degrees (field of view calculator: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm).

The parts of the ship that are visible above the horizon take up about 9% of the width of the full image (233 pixels out of 3008), so covers an angle of roughly 0.6 degrees from the viewpoint.

I'm not sure how to estimate the size of the ship to work out how far away it is. Happy for input here. It seems to have only a single crane, so is probably a mid-size cargo ship, maybe something like these:



Which would put it around 125m long, with the visible mast close to the bow. If so and the ship is travelling perpendicular to direction of view, this would place it about 12km away. I was standing by the water's edge, so my viewpoint is about 2m above water level; my horizon would then be about 5km away with the ship 7km further behind that. At 7km beyond the horizon, about 4m of height would be out of view, which might just be just enough to hide the hull of a heavily laden ship.

If the ship is longer, it would be further away and so more height would be hidden. If the ship is 150m long, it would be 14km away (9km beyond the horizon) with ~6m of height hidden. If 175m long: 16.5km away (11.5 beyond the horizon) with ~10m hidden. If it isn't travelling perpendicular to line of sight, it would be closer. Thoughts?

From: Ships beyond the horizon - Earth curvature demonstration And

Proof the earth is round - Explain this flat earth people. NewsNewZealand

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2018, 12:01:56 AM »
Let's examine N30's claim that this is buoy 46253.



Here are the 3 rigs and buoy 46253 with lines of site back to the camera position.



The angular distance between buoy 46253 and Eureka is more than 3 times the distance between Eureka and Edith. It's 3.6 to be more precise.

It is even out of the field of view of the wider angle shot.



But N30 lies and says that this is buoy 46253



It is not, but what is that buoy floating on the horizon between the camera and the rig?
Perhaps it's a navigation buoy and not a NOAA buoy?



How far is that channel along the line of site from the camera?



How far is the horizon from an elevation of 6'?



So it is NOT buoy 46253 and is most likely a navigation buoy closer to land.

You have been ejected from the game.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2018, 04:02:48 AM »
 ;) Just for the record. ;)
Quote
213 - SAN PEDRO SOUTH, CA   ( NDBC 46253)
Station Summary   
  • Current status: operational
  • Most recent location: 33 34' 33" (N), 118 10' 52" (W)  [change lat/lon format]
  • Instrument description: Datawell directional buoy (Mark 3)
  • Most recent water depth:  66 (m)  [change units]
  • Measured parameters: wave energy, wave direction,sea temperature
  • Approximate location: 9.5nm due south of Long Beach Harbor
  • Nautical chart: 18746

From: Station Info, NDBC 46253 213 - SAN PEDRO SOUTH, CA
Now look up
Quote
Datawell directional buoy (Mark 3)
Wave motion sensor based on a stabilised platform, accelerometers, and magnetic compass
measures wave height for wave periods of 1.6 to 30 seconds, accuracy 0.5 % of measured value
measures wave direction
measures water temperature
GPS for buoy monitoring and tracking through HF link
internal logger
LED flash antenna
Intelligent Test Box (only available for 90 cm buoys)
0.9 m (0.7 m) diameter spherical hull of AISI 316
optional Cunifer hull, warranted not to corrode
3.5 years (1.2 years) battery life
optional HF transmitter range 50 km over sea
optional Argos module for ocean wide coverage and unlimited range
optional Iridium Internet module for ocean wide two-way communication, full spectra every 30 minutes
optional Iridium SBD module module for ocean wide two-way communication.
optional GSM-SMS module for data transmission via the GSM network
optional GSM-Internet module for data transmission via the GSM network
optional Solar Panel system
optional radar reflectors
optional hull painting

From: Datawell BV, Directional Waverider MkIII
        
And that does look very much like the yellow wave-rider buoy in
Quote
Station 46253 - San Pedro South, CA (213)
Information submitted by Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Waverider Buoy
33.576 N 118.181 W (33°34'33" N 118°10'53" W)

Site elevation: sea level
Sea temp depth: 0.46 m below water line
Water depth: 66 m
Latest NWS Marine Forecast
Search And Rescue (SAR) Data
Meteorological Observations from Nearby Stations and Ships  Image indicating link to RSS feed of recent meteorological observations near station 46253
Regional HF Radar Surface Current Observations

From: National Data Buoy Center, Station 46253 - San Pedro South, CA (213)
        
Yet have this

Here N30 clearly states "No yellow 'wave rider' buoy exists in the Catalina Channel" and gives the location of NDBC 46253 but NDBC 46253 most certainly is a "yellow 'wave rider' buoy".
Therefore the buoy shown in the photo next to the oil platform is not NDBC 46253.
So who knows what buoy it is and how far away it is. It looks more like a navigational beacon to me.

It would seem that an unidentified beacon at an unknown location and an unknown distance proves nothing!
The beacon might be the one NAZA shows in here, Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe « Reply #26 on: Today at 06:01:56 PM »

PS See Mr N30, I "ignore any counterarguments"!

*

N30

  • 590
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2018, 05:32:40 AM »
Oh Rabby, you are so deluded. You seem to think because things can be blocked by water and particulates in the air that it means the Earth is curved.

I have other photos where more of the oil rig is blocked in the same position, and obviously sometimes it is not.

It does not meant the Earth is curved.

And I have been all around the Catalina channel waters, there is no yellow buoy.

Why don't you do something useful for once, and go out there and find it for me and provide an original photograph proving your claim!

Naza, you keep asking for my original photos, and I am posting them. There is not "google" link from where I took them because it came from my camera.

Also, Naza, you keep claiming it simply must be another closer buoy but you lack any evidence of that other than you word.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Photographic Evidence That Earth Is Not A Globe
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2018, 06:39:17 AM »


Naza, you keep asking for my original photos, and I am posting them. There is not "google" link from where I took them because it came from my camera.

Also, Naza, you keep claiming it simply must be another closer buoy but you lack any evidence of that other than you word.

Can you read?

Post the original image from you 300mm shot and a Google link from where you took it.


You have NOT posted the original 300mm image, only your silly collages.

You have NOT provided a link to Where you took the image.
For example...
https://goo.gl/maps/HiMbSpbQZ3H2
Is that where you took the images?

And I don't have to prove where the buoy is or what buoy it is to prove that you are a liar and it is NOT buoy 46253.

Now why don't you quit stalling and post the info that has now been requested three times.