I keep bringing it up because you keep using this logic.
No, we don't.
That is your strawman of what logic we are using.
Because you are intentionally refusing to understand.
Instead, the logic we are using is more akin to this:
vs
By taking a reference point, and measuring the angle to this point at spots on the surface, and knowing/measuring the distance between those spots, you can determine the shape of the surface.
It is simple geometry.
Something you claim to understand, yet here you are strawmanning it.
You obviously discovered the wrong one.
Here's where I found it.
i.e. you blatantly lie about it yet again.
In this age of photoshop, if you still believe any image proves anything, you are gullible AF.
And notice the blatant hypocrisy there?
You happily believe anything which supports your delusional BS, while outright rejecting anything that doesn't.
You happily provided with absolutely no idea where they came from and acting like they prove your delusional BS.
Sometimes even taking composites which are clearly indicated as such, and just ignoring that.
But then a picture shows you are are a lying POS and suddenly it must be fake.
You clearly have absolutely no integrity and do not give a damn about the truth at all.
Especially because plenty of these existed long before photoshop.
And more importantly, this is something you can go verify for yourself.
They put an X by the second one. But the second is how actual vanishing point works.
Yes, the second is how actual vanishing point works, with the parallel lines continuing off to infinity and becoming too small to resolve.
But that isn't what happens in reality.
So it gets an X because it doesn't match reality.
i.e. the vanishing point does not explain the horizon.
This is real.
And still shows a curve:
But like the lying POS you are, you instead get a very thick line which you don't even bother drawing accurately, to pretend it doesn't.
This is doctored.
You mean because it shows you are a lying POS you claim it is, with no evidence at all.
Again, you accept things as "real" when they support your delusional BS, and reject it as fake when it doesn't, solely because it doesn't. You have no justification at all for why one should be accepted as real and not the other. You have no justification at all for why one should be rejected as fake and not the other.
If you want to have any semblance of integrity while appealing to the fact that things can be faked to act as if they are faked, then you have to reject EVERYTHING.
You don't get to accept the things consistent with your delusional BS, you need to reject them as fake as well.
He thinks
I don't give a damn what your lying POS thinks.
This is something which has been verified by countless people.
And even if it were live, as Eric Dubay pointed out in his video, trick angles are a thing.
I.e. you don't give a shit about reality or the truth or anything like that.
You have your delusional fantasy that you will desperately cling to like your depends upon it and look for whatever excuse you can to reject it at all costs.
Do you notice anything? Because I do! I notice that the line of vanishing point made does not match up to that curve made in the picture.
Do you mean the vanishing point doesn't match the horizon, like we know it doesn't.
When we look at a bridge picture of lake pontchartrain, like so
You mean at a drastically different angle to hide the curve?
So no, it doesn't show any doctoring at all.
It should read "If we made a real picture, it should intersect with the vanishing point, as all real pictures conform to that."
No, it shouldn't, because that is pure BS, with countless examples not conforming to that.
The best you get is low altitude shots and minimal zoom to minimise the angular separation between the vanishing point and the horizon makes it too difficult to see that they are different.
But that is you intentionally hiding from the truth.
This has all been explained to you before, but like the lying POS you are, you ignore it.
@dataidiot, why does the bridge appear straight when it should arc with the curve of the earth?
?
Hoppyidiot, as explained repeatedly, a small enough section of a large enough curve will appear indistinguishable from a straight line.
So how about instead of spouting completely useless garbage like you have done, you instead provide the math telling us exactly how much it should appear to have curved. Ideally in units of px, given we have the photo.
Datasmartperson has already started helping.