Those search engines / a little flat earth evidence

meh

bumping this so we have some visuals up front.

I'm not sure how search engines at large work (no one does), but specific to YouTube:

"Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube

Friday, January 25, 2019

We’ll continue that work this year, including taking a closer look at how we can reduce the spread of content that comes close to—but doesn’t quite cross the line of—violating our Community Guidelines. To that end, we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11."

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-to-improve.html

As for the video, debunked a while back. Observer elevation height incorrect (should be more around 15', not 3') and going up in altitude reveals more of the islands:

Is this what you believe, that the tripod is 15 feet high?

Quote from: Stash on April 13, 2019, 01:44:37 AM

As for the video, debunked a while back. Observer elevation height incorrect (should be more around 15', not 3') and going up in altitude reveals more of the islands:

Is this what you believe, that the tripod is 15 feet high?

Why would you suggest that? Read this again:

I'd find your "Flat Earth 31.63 miles..Undeniable Proof" a lot more convincing if they started out the right measurements.

Flat Earth 31.63 miles..Undeniable Proof at 0:45 sec.
I find it hard to accept that the camera height is 'APPROX. 3 FT". The tripod is at least that high and it is a quite signigicant height above water level.

Surely whoever made the video knew that the CAMERA HEIGHT WAS NOT APPROX 3 FT above sea-level!

If it's not dishonesty it's certainly inexcusable ignorance and that's  why I said I wasn't going to waste time with it.

But any photo taken low over water is suspect if there is the likelihood of the water being colder than the air just above it.

Quote from: Stash on April 13, 2019, 01:44:37 AM

I'm not sure how search engines at large work (no one does), but specific to YouTube:

"Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube

Friday, January 25, 2019

We’ll continue that work this year, including taking a closer look at how we can reduce the spread of content that comes close to—but doesn’t quite cross the line of—violating our Community Guidelines. To that end, we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11."

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-to-improve.html

As for the video, debunked a while back. Observer elevation height incorrect (should be more around 15', not 3') and going up in altitude reveals more of the islands:

Is this what you believe, that the tripod is 15 feet high?

Where did the Oil Rigs go, they disappeared from the 500'+ shot on top versus the shoreline shot below.

I'm not sure. What about the tripod?

I'm not sure. What about the tripod?

What about it? The more concerning thing from an FE perspective is where did the approximately 230'+ high Oil platform/derrick run off to? It vanished at the lower level near-shoreline observation.

Quote from: faded mike on January 13, 2020, 05:56:12 PM

I'm not sure. What about the tripod?

What about it? The more concerning thing from an FE perspective is where did the approximately 230'+ high Oil platform/derrick run off to? It vanished at the lower level near-shoreline observation.

Have you verified what your talking about, or are you speculating?

And yes, i think the camera may be able to telephoto itself through the visual opening....?

And yes, i think the camera may be able to telephoto itself through the visual opening....?

The camera may be able to what now?  The words here do not fall in an order I recognize.  Could you explain what you mean?

And yes, i think the camera may be able to telephoto itself through the visual opening....?

Where did the Oil Rig go? It disappeared from the 500'+ shot on top versus the shoreline shot below.



Seems like we should see, on a flat earth, that oil platform right in the middle of the lower shot. It's gone missing at 230'+ above the water.

Faded did this in the map thread.
and deleted his last post.

Faded did this in the map thread.
and deleted his last post.

Yeah, it's completely unclear what his point is with any of these threads.

Faded, make a point, make it clear, and stick to it.

Flat Earth General
For the discussion of any FE topics unrelated to Flat Earth Theory. FE conspiracy topics belong here.

Unconvinced, reread the thread if you wanna know, i was responding to one of stash's earlier posts.

https://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-pick-up-grammar-mistakes-jerks-scientists-find

yes
i'm not cool

https://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-pick-up-grammar-mistakes-jerks-scientists-find

Yes,
I'm not cool.

FTFY
        Signed, The Jerk .

haha, rab.

but seriously
is faded mad because he was called out on his BS?
you're welcome to your OPINION that the earth is flat and conventional science and wisdom is suspect.
what's the problem here?

hm

What's the point of this thread?

- Search engines are anti-conspiracy theory evil?
- As an alternative science thinker, one needs to search better, harder...help me to do so?
- Rando FE video found via evil anti-conspiracy theory search engines 5 pages deep shows something...?

"Blah blah blah"
"blah blah blah blu bluh blah blah"

"Blah blah blah"
"blah blah blah blu bluh blah blah"

Thanks for proving my point: There is no point to your thread.

Now whos the asshole?

Is this what you believe, that the tripod is 15 feet high?

While I can't speak for stash, I can certainly say it isn't 3 feet.
The tripod alone is likely to be significantly more than that, and the tripod is clearly quite some distance above the water.
Do you believe the tripod is a mere 3' above the water?

Why complain if search engines don't promote such dishonesty?

Quote from: faded mike on January 13, 2020, 03:48:33 PM

Is this what you believe, that the tripod is 15 feet high?

While I can't speak for stash, I can certainly say it isn't 3 feet.
The tripod alone is likely to be significantly more than that, and the tripod is clearly quite some distance above the water.
Do you believe the tripod is a mere 3' above the water?

Why complain if search engines don't promote such dishonesty?

The guy who would know of course, is the film maker, and i would say i believe him, but even at 4 feet....6 feet(i don't think so)....

As far as complaining about search engines, what i said before.

The guy who would know of course

He certainly could have determined it, and then correctly told us.
But as they are making a video to specifically pretend there is a problem with a RE, they have a very serious motivation to lie as FEers often do when it comes to these things, such as by pretending the camera is at sea level.

Again, I can know for certain that it is higher than that.
The question is how much higher.

Ah i see, a real sleuth you might say.

Ah, I see, a real sleuth you might say.

And obviously, you are not and believe any old trash these FEers might dish up.

Look at this video:

Flat Earth 2019 - Major Zoom Proof 100% Destroys Globe Illusion by OUTER LANDS
At 1:45 the camera height is claimed to be 1 foot above the water but by 1:50 it's obvious the camera is NOT only 1 foot above the water.
Then at 2:20 asks "could that be water we see beyond the platforms?".
My answer would be:
   "Who cares? There is so much atmospheric distortion and haze that it might be anything! Just take a look at the crazy bent crane one the left."
And to cap it off: On the previous day (look from 1:10 to 1:22) he had already shown a great deal hidden (with no distorted cranes) from the same distances.

But OUTER LANDS uses the grossly distorted and extremely hazy day as his "Major Zoom Proof 100% Destroys Globe Illusion".
Looked at objectively, it's more like a "Major Zoom Proof" that OUTER LANDS uses cherry-picking of the "bad day" as his evidence!

OUTER LANDS did not take that video himself but "borrowed" (cherry-picked might be better) bits from this one:

Ocean Horizon Rising (atmosphere) Blocking Visibility..Not Curvature by bmlsb69
Just compare 1:00 and 2:45 in that video.

This video by the same person might also be relevant:

Atmospheric MAGNIFICATION: Why objects are behind horizon, even after zoomed in with P900 by bmlsb69

No, faded mike, you cannot trust what the makers of the FE videos say.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 14, 2020, 01:37:30 AM

Quote from: faded mike on January 13, 2020, 03:48:33 PM

Is this what you believe, that the tripod is 15 feet high?

While I can't speak for stash, I can certainly say it isn't 3 feet.
The tripod alone is likely to be significantly more than that, and the tripod is clearly quite some distance above the water.
Do you believe the tripod is a mere 3' above the water?

Why complain if search engines don't promote such dishonesty?

The guy who would know of course, is the film maker, and i would say i believe him, but even at 4 feet....6 feet(i don't think so)....

As far as complaining about search engines, what i said before.

So youre still upholding the position that the fe has a valid stance?

You realise these "debunks" are EXTREMELY easy to verify and reproduce.
I mean - the acuracy are easy to verfiy and the experiments are easy to reproduce.
The entire scientific community cant and are unwilling to test and figure these out?

As for inability to find proof of a flat earth in a google search is probably because...   what was said before.

Ah i see, a real sleuth you might say.

No, just someone who bothers to actually think about and fact check when not to difficult, rather than just blindly accepting anything said.

I have seen plenty of FEers post things which simply do not add up.
A recent one other than yours would be Tom Bishop posting a video about lights off the cost being visible too far from the shore.
Yet a simple calculation based upon the angular separation in the photo vs what it should be in reality showed that it was pure fiction.
Either the FE presenting it had no idea at all about what they were talking about, or they were intentionally lying.