my evidence

  • 242 Replies
  • 61379 Views
?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2007, 12:55:24 AM »
interferometry (sp?) is used to increase angular resolution, not necessarily light-gathering power.  at least that's my understanding of it.  with the goal being things such as resolving the actual discs of extra-solar planets.  increasing angular resolution would unfortunately do nothing to help see through the "fog of the atmosphere" (as bishop calls it but completely erroneously describes as "atoms getting in the way").  optics capable of grossly exceeding the limits of visibility and useful resolution are already available at affordable prices (such as my lens optically doubled, with a tripod and clear but non-windy day [or properly wind-sheltered]).

again, fagan would probably be the expert to weigh in on this.

That is one use of interferometry yes... actually I think I might have been thinking of something more along the lines of a phased array (it's completely possible it's called something else, but I got it confused with interferometry). You have two or more light gathering devices, then overlay them to see what is garbage and what is not (in layman's terms). I think it's the same principle as IFM, but works in a slightly different way.

Then again, this is all off the top of my head.

oh, that's what i was thinking of too.  i thought the two terms were synonymous or that interferometry (sp?) is accomplished via a phased array.  we are probably thinking of the same thing.  where is fagan, or wikipedia, when you need him or are too lazy to look it up.

?

Chacotay

Re: my evidence
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2007, 01:03:11 AM »
interferometry (sp?) is used to increase angular resolution, not necessarily light-gathering power.  at least that's my understanding of it.  with the goal being things such as resolving the actual discs of extra-solar planets.  increasing angular resolution would unfortunately do nothing to help see through the "fog of the atmosphere" (as bishop calls it but completely erroneously describes as "atoms getting in the way").  optics capable of grossly exceeding the limits of visibility and useful resolution are already available at affordable prices (such as my lens optically doubled, with a tripod and clear but non-windy day [or properly wind-sheltered]).

again, fagan would probably be the expert to weigh in on this.

That is one use of interferometry yes... actually I think I might have been thinking of something more along the lines of a phased array (it's completely possible it's called something else, but I got it confused with interferometry). You have two or more light gathering devices, then overlay them to see what is garbage and what is not (in layman's terms). I think it's the same principle as IFM, but works in a slightly different way.

Then again, this is all off the top of my head.

oh, that's what i was thinking of too.  i thought the two terms were synonymous or that interferometry (sp?) is accomplished via a phased array.  we are probably thinking of the same thing.  where is fagan, or wikipedia, when you need him or are too lazy to look it up.

Haha, I feel like I'm talking to myself. Ok, I'll man up and read.

*Back from wiki*

Yes, I was more or less on the right lines. Interferometry is just using two or more sensors in a phased array to get rid of the garbage through superimposition. It's used in astrometrics and even in seeing the lattice of crystals in X-ray interferometry (diamonds and such.. even salts).

I think my idea would be sound... but as you say, the air would get in the way. It would improve it somewhat, but it just wouldn't be worth it.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2007, 02:06:42 AM »
but back to the topic.  bishop's wining can be dismissed as that of a complete "optics idiot".  furthermore, i've already exposed his direct contradiction that he found images taken from a canon digital rebel + 400mm lens to be perfectly acceptable evidence allegedly supporting rowbotham's idiocy.  (but not acceptable for disproving it.)

here are some clips from the flikr album:

here is the partially "sunken" farallon islands, taken from an elevation of 300ft, at three levels of zoom.  normalized to 35mm equivalent they are: 328mm, 432mm, and 624mm.  (there are wider shots posted in the same sequence but i want to be more brief here).





whaddaya know, the islands are no more or less sunken with more or less zoom.  (there are more dramatic levels of "sunken-ness" without restoration in the flikr album, but these examples represent a wider range of zoom (including even wider in the flikr set).  see the last shot below to see the most "un-sunken" view of the islands, which are clearly less sunken than the veiw from 300 ft above.)


now just for giggles, let us look at the same islands with the same 624mm of effective zoom, but at three different elevations (sampled from the more complete flikr set): 42ft, 80ft, and 700ft.  these were taken under exceptionally clear bay area conditions.





wow, the islands un-sink themselves just by viewing from higher elevations.  (these weren't all three taken on the same days, but on flikr you can see ones that were.  they look the same.  the dates are clearly noted in the filenames and available in the exif info.)  no doubt bishop has a magical yet preposterous explanation involving hallucinogenic perspective lines and nonsensical narratives that he thinks make sense.

(just say "rowbotham", bishop, and save everyone from the mouse-wheel cramps.  better yet, say nothing - this isn't about you.  if you haven't noticed, i don't give a shit about rowbotham.  he's was an idiot and laughing stock then, and he's a dead idiot and laughing stock now.  as are you.  i could care less what the "protocol" in his "literature" was, how presumptuous and ignorant of you.  i care about making controlled, easily repeatable, photographed experiments with rigorous documented evidence - not the rowbotham process of making shit up and then drawing sketches of it, while enlisting his friends to write quotes about how smart he is.  nor do i feel compelled to pull a fancy name out of my ass to call my "process" by but not actually follow, either, like rowbotham did.)

but don't believe me.  these experiments have been exhaustively documented including the precise locations in lat/long, the precise date/times, and all of the precise camera details are available in the exif tags.  especially you, bishop: rather than inanely dismissing the arguments while betraying a profound ignorance of optics, get off your fat lazy ass and repeat them.  and post the evidence.  prove me wrong.  or better yet, prove yourself right to everyone else who thinks you are a joke.

design an experiment.  like i did.  expend effort in collecting the evidence over many days if necessary.  like i did.  very carefully document the precise times and locations.  like i did.  drive hundreds of miles if necessary.  like i did.  hike several miles if necessary.  like i did.  document the conditions and observations.  like i did.  repeat the experiments on different days and conditions, and with different instruments.  like i did

or repeat rowbotham's experiments, or your pervert beach experiment.  i don't really care.  prove me wrong with your own goddamned actual evidence.  or again, prove yourself right to everyone else.  and more importantly, post the frickin' evidence, because your words are completely meaningless.  you are just a squeaky, impotent, sad little man sitting on a chair typing his sad little endlessly copy/pasted rowbotham arguments, never venturing out into the world to actually test how it works.  you are also a proven compulsive liar, and a serial self-contradictor.

you say you've duplicated every goddamn one of rowbotham's experiments, yet haven't a frickin' shred of evidence to show for it.  (man if i went to all that effort, i would video tape it!)  you just talk, and talk, and talk more shit without every saying a thing.  quit talking and do something.

but again, like i said.  this isn't about you.  i sure as hell did not bust my ass on this for your pathetic ass.  you couldn't change your mind if it was blown out of your skull.  i did this for everyone else that has a brain and can weigh evidence on it's own merits, rather than a sad devotion to a dead jackass.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2007, 02:20:04 AM »
I think the odds that Tom Bishop will return to this thread are rather small.
 

?

Chacotay

Re: my evidence
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2007, 02:22:04 AM »
He ain't coming back.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2007, 02:22:25 AM »
let us not forget the relatively nearby cargo ship (distance unknown), from increasing elevation, all at 624mm 35mm effective:

barely visible at 4 ft.


less "sunken" at 12 ft.


much less "sunken" at 42 ft.


not sunken at all at 145 ft.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: my evidence
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2007, 02:23:36 AM »
The fact that you spent over 40 hours taking photographs of the Horizon just for evidence against Tom Bishop means that you fail, automatically.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Chacotay

Re: my evidence
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2007, 02:39:47 AM »
The fact that you spent over 40 hours taking photographs of the Horizon just for evidence against Tom Bishop means that you fail, automatically.

No, it means that he's committed to what he believes... and that he had too much time on his hands.

It's also the mark of a great scientist. You believe that computer your using was made by fucktards doing no work and criticising everyone else?

Re: my evidence
« Reply #38 on: December 19, 2007, 02:50:38 AM »
The fact that you spent over 40 hours taking photographs of the Horizon just for evidence against Tom Bishop means that you fail, automatically.

No, it means that he's committed to what he believes... and that he had too much time on his hands.

It's also the mark of a great scientist. You believe that computer your using was made by fucktards doing no work and criticising everyone else?

I agree that cpt_bthimes has made a very important contribution to the RE vs. FE discussion. People keep claiming that the "sunken ship" argument has been refuted by using a telescope, and having contrary evidence so readily available is useful.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 02:56:51 AM by Richard Kilgore »

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2007, 02:56:17 AM »
and what about bishop's claim of being able to see children splashing in and out of water, and teenagers throwing frisbees, from 33 miles away on a chilly clear day?  let's momentarily forget the fact that a re would prevent that.  let's also forget that children wouldn't be splashing in 55 degree water on a chilly day and he was clearly lying out of his [expletive].  let's forget the problems of looking through two beaches worth of sea spray at ocean level.  let's forget that this clearly violates bishop's "waves piling up causing a sinking beach" self-contradiction.

let's just look at how realistic it is to see through 33 miles of sea-level atmosphere on one of the clearest days of the year on the pacific coast.  and from a more conservative, higher, clearer elevation than right at sea level, where pesky sea spray and piling-up waves don't get in the way.


here's a view of the farallon islands, 28.7 miles away, from 702 ft.:



even at full 1:1 resolution (much, *much* larger), even with very expensive stabilized binoculars, there is zero detail to see.  just a blue-gray silhouette of an island.  the cross-section you see is about 3/4 of a mile, as seen obliquely to the camera.  although there is no beach to speak of on the farallons, could you imagine being able to tell a child from a teenager, or resolve a frisbee, with this kind of atmospheric haze?

here's one from a different, slighly more incredibly clear pacific coast day.  slightly closer (by a little less than a mile), and lower (100 ft.).



no kids or frisbees there either.

or how about this one.  it is of the northern end of stinson beach, exactly 10 miles away, from 117 ft. elevation.  in spite of being an exceptionally clear day, it wasn't all that cold.  (look up the weather for the area on that date and time.)  there would have been people on the beach on such an brilliant day.  and in 1:1 pixel zoom, and through binocs, there seemed to be people there - the live scene had lots of contrasty dots moving around and occasional glints of sunlight reflections.  but even with 10mp and 624mm of zoom, the people were less than one pixel high.  (if there at all - only the live movement seemed to suggest so.)  those colorful and contrasty dots at the top of the beach are beachfront homes.

keep in mind, this is less than 1/3 the distance bishop claimed to clearly discern not only children vs. teenagers, but frisbees.  (whomever wants to see a 1:1 blowup, either donate an FTP server for full origs, or tell me what image and section you would like to see severely cropped for 1:1 upload so as not to blow my free monthly upload allotment and avoid automatic flikr downsampling):



?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2007, 02:57:21 AM »
The fact that you spent over 40 hours taking photographs of the Horizon just for evidence against Tom Bishop means that you fail, automatically.

it wasn't to disprove bishop's beliefs.  it was to prove your beliefs...

edit: and the only thing crazy here is that i am up at 3:00 in the freakin' morning!  man, 5:30 is going to hurt.  it's been many months since I've been used to that kind of crap.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 02:59:22 AM by cpt_bthimes »

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2007, 03:04:15 AM »
No, it means that he's committed to what he believes... and that he had too much time on his hands.

minor correction: i don't believe in re, i just think it best explains the available and abundant observational and experimental evidence.  i might have believed in re as a child though on faith of my elders alone.  but you might not have meant "believe" in that context...

You believe that computer your using was made by fucktards doing no work and criticising everyone else?

awesome on multiple levels.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2007, 03:13:33 AM »
No, it means that he's committed to what he believes... and that he had too much time on his hands.

minor correction: i don't believe in re, i just think it best explains the available and abundant observational and experimental evidence. 

And that is an excellent reason to believe in RE!

?

Chacotay

Re: my evidence
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2007, 03:14:53 AM »
No, it means that he's committed to what he believes... and that he had too much time on his hands.

minor correction: i don't believe in re, i just think it best explains the available and abundant observational and experimental evidence. 

And that is an excellent reason to believe in RE!
Well they do say that you can prove something as many times as you want, yet you only need to have one solid disproof to render a theory useless.

Then again, I don't think this is the forum for that. I think only three or four people would actually go along with that logic. RE ftw!

Re: my evidence
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2007, 03:28:27 AM »
No, it means that he's committed to what he believes... and that he had too much time on his hands.

minor correction: i don't believe in re, i just think it best explains the available and abundant observational and experimental evidence. 

And that is an excellent reason to believe in RE!
Well they do say that you can prove something as many times as you want, yet you only need to have one solid disproof to render a theory useless.

Then again, I don't think this is the forum for that. I think only three or four people would actually go along with that logic. RE ftw!

I think that inference to the best explanation is a legitimate way of reasoning in the sciences.

But around here, it seems people reach a conclusion on the basis of the alleged results of some experiments involving still bodies of water, and they cling on to those conclusions for dear life against any and all contrary evidence, including the unanimous testimony of trained contemporary experts in the relevant fields. So you hear people saying "We know the earth is flat, therefore there is a conspiracy...the setting of the sun is a perspective illusion...etc."

Re: my evidence
« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2007, 05:32:59 AM »
i didn't read all this thread, just looked at the pictures.. but has RE just won ??? because apart from bishop no FE'er has touched this thread...
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2007, 09:36:21 AM »
I had to sign up for an account today simply to say "WOW". 

cpt_bthimes:  Well done!  When you talk, you actually do more than just that; you back it up with action, evidence, and repeatable experiments.  And thankfully you never copy and pasted some scans from a 100 year old book to do it.  Kudos and kudos again.

Tom Bishop: ...You just got served.  But I'm sure you will return with some more image links to the afore mentioned book. 


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: my evidence
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2007, 09:43:33 AM »
No, RE has not won. In fact, despite bthimes neglect to use a proper telescope as suggested by the Flat Earth Literature, it seems that his camera lens produces enough optical magnification to reverse the sinking effect.

Use photoshop to enlarge the following images to 900%:

Original Image 1 (Before the optical zoom):


Here's an enlargement of Image 1 (Before the optical zoom):



Now here's the same enlargement with an adjusted contrast to better make out the distant island:



This is the second image the author presented.  In this image the author zooms in with the lens of his camera.

Original Image 2 (After the optical zoom):



Now here's an enlargement of Image 2 (After the optical zoom):



And here's the same enlargement with an adjusted contrast to better make out the distant island. I have outlined the area of the island which has suddenly become visible compared o image one through the optical zoom of the camera's lens:

« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 10:34:57 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: my evidence
« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2007, 09:45:16 AM »
So as we can see, bthimes' own images prove that the perspective effect can be reversed through the use of optical zoom.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2007, 09:49:59 AM »
So as we can see, bthimes' own images prove that the perspective effect can be reversed through the use of optical zoom.

What? you haven't restored anything, you've just made the images bigger, and therefore easier to see.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #50 on: December 19, 2007, 09:51:09 AM »
...and I'm sure that big ass lense he has used is more than sufficient

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: my evidence
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2007, 09:57:14 AM »
Quote
What? you haven't restored anything, you've just made the images bigger, and therefore easier to see.

I have given bthine's two images a 900% enlargement. If we look at the nook of the island on the main landmass we can clearly see that there is additional land visible. Also study the second smaller island to the far left of the image.

Therefore, since on the earth were a globe it would be impossible to see through a hill of water, this thread is actually evidence for a Flat Earth.

If the author of this thread had actually used a decent telescope with a quality zoom as suggested by the Flat Earth Literature, even more of the island would be uncovered.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 10:03:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: my evidence
« Reply #52 on: December 19, 2007, 10:02:08 AM »
Tom:  You're saying that if I open the image of the island in photoshop and start "zooming" in using the software, that I will start to see more land appear above the water line?

Just want to make sure what you are saying before I try this.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: my evidence
« Reply #53 on: December 19, 2007, 10:05:52 AM »
Tom:  You're saying that if I open the image of the island in photoshop and start "zooming" in using the software, that I will start to see more land appear above the water line?

Just want to make sure what you are saying before I try this.

No. The additional landmass came from the optical zoom of his camera lens. Image 1 in my above post is the scene zoomed out. Image 2 is the scene zoomed in with the optical zoom of the photographer's camera lens.

Enlarging the image digitally with Photoshop will not reveal more landmass. It will only make the pixels larger.

One of the main tenants of Flat Earth Theory is that a good telescope can reverse the perspective effect of a half sunken ship.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #54 on: December 19, 2007, 10:06:05 AM »
Quote
What? you haven't restored anything, you've just made the images bigger, and therefore easier to see.

I have given bthine's two images a 900% enlargement. If we look at the nook of the island on the main landmass we can clearly see that there is additional land visible. Also study the second smaller island to the far left of the image.

Therefore, since on the earth were a globe it would be impossible to see through a hill of water, this thread is actually evidence for a Flat Earth.

If the author of this thread had actually used a decent telescope with a quality zoom as suggested by the Flat Earth Literature, even more of the island would be uncovered.

Yeah, and the rest of the island is hidden below the 'hill of water' as you say, what's you're point? The island is still in the picture whether you zoom in on it or not, it's just hard to see because it is very small. you haven't risen anything up, you've just spread the pixles out in the picture.  How do you explain the picture of that island on page 2 of this thread that was taken at 42 feet or something?

Re: my evidence
« Reply #55 on: December 19, 2007, 10:12:04 AM »
Also to prove anything, you have to do exactly the same enlargement process with a different image of the same island taken at a different hight and then compare them. So, your one picture doesn't seem to be making any point atall.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: my evidence
« Reply #56 on: December 19, 2007, 10:14:31 AM »
Quote
Yeah, and the rest of the island is hidden below the 'hill of water' as you say, what's you're point? The island is still in the picture whether you zoom in on it or not, it's just hard to see because it is very small. you haven't risen anything up, you've just spread the pixles out in the picture. 

No. I did not "spread the pixels" by enlarging the images in Photoshop.  I have only enlarged the pixels by 900% in each of the two images. The photographer's optical zoom with his camera lens in image two is what caused the additional landmass to appear.

Quote
How do you explain the picture of that island on page 2 of this thread that was taken at 42 feet or something?

As one increases his altitude he is pushing the vanishing point of perspective back. The vanishing point in FE theory is what causes bodies to become merged with the horizon line, appearing to intersect with the earth.

      An ant has a horizon located a few inches away.

      A mouse has a horizon located about six feet away.

      A human has a horizon located about thirty miles away.

      An eagle has a horizon located over a hundred miles away.

The higher you go the farther back the vanishing point is pushed, which is why man can see far distant lands the higher he goes.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 10:27:57 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: my evidence
« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2007, 10:34:29 AM »
Quote
Yeah, and the rest of the island is hidden below the 'hill of water' as you say, what's you're point? The island is still in the picture whether you zoom in on it or not, it's just hard to see because it is very small. you haven't risen anything up, you've just spread the pixles out in the picture. 

No. I did not rise the landmasses up by enlarging the images in Photoshop.  I have only enlarged the pixels by 900% in each of the two images. The photographer's optical zoom with his camera lens in image two is what caused the additional landmass to appear.

Quote
How do you explain the picture of that island on page 2 of this thread that was taken at 42 feet or something?

As one increases his altitude he is pushing the vanishing point of perspective back which causes bodies to intersect with the surface of the earth.

      An ant has a horizon located a few inches away.

      A mouse has a horizon located about six feet away.

      A human has a horizon located about thirty miles away.

      An eagle has a horizon located over a hundred miles away.

The higher you go the farther back the vanishing point becomes.

But if at about 40 feet you can see so much less of the island, then how is it you are able to see a beach 33 miles away while lying on your stomoch? If you gave an ant a really good telescope, would it be able to see something 33 miles away? What kind of telescope did you use, and what do you know about the lense that he has used to know that it's not sufficient? What makes you an authority on these things?

Yeah the closer you are to the ground, the closer the horizon is, because you cannot see as far over the curve of the Earth. Where did you get those numbers from about the ant, the mouse, the human etc?  I personally read that a human of about say 5ft 10 will have a horizon of about 3 miles away. Oviously if an obect is sticking out of the ground then you can still see some of it past 3 miles.

Anyway, you have taken the same image, shown it zoomed out, and then shown it zoomed in. You haven't compared it to any other images at different hights.  Just because by zooming in on something, something very small becomes more easily visable, doesn't mean that most of it isn't sunken behind the horizon. 

?

Tristan Lachman

  • 39
  • Flat Earther
Re: my evidence
« Reply #58 on: December 19, 2007, 10:44:22 AM »
Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to prove it to be so by quoting the fact that when the ship's hull has disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again becomes visible. But this, is logically premature; such a result arises simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing point, as shown in the following figure:



Hence the phenomenon of the hull of an outward bound vessel being the first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied upon as proving the rotundity of the earth, is fairly, both logically and mathematically, a proof of the very contrary, that the earth is a plane. It has been misunderstood and misapplied in consequence of an erroneous view of the laws of perspective, and the unconquered desire to support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose is now completely demonstrated.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #59 on: December 19, 2007, 10:48:15 AM »
OK Tom.  I took the same 2 pictures you did, and to make it easier to see, I switched it to negative and enhanced the contrast and gamma properties.


(heres the link to the originals:   http://picasaweb.google.com/damon.hill/UntitledAlbum)

Don't know if the picture is showing so here is a link: http://picasaweb.google.com/damon.hill/UntitledAlbum/photo#5145755015579415058

I decided to look at the far right of the island since it is easier to make out the land mass in both pictures.  When I zoomed into the same relative size for both images and overlay them, I get this:






Now, maybe my eyes are bad, but I don't see anymore "additional" land mass showing in the "zoomed in" image. (the bottom and darker of the 2)

Feel free to copy the images from the link above and try it yourself.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 11:02:35 AM by Ender Wiggin »