« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down

Indisputable Evidence

  • 231 Replies
  • 46451 Views
?

The Government

  • 339
  • +0/-0
Indisputable Evidence
« on: February 24, 2007, 11:35:02 AM »
OK, a guy i JUST MET TODAY, on another forum said one of his jobs was taking aerial photos.. so i asked him if he had any showing the horizon and here you guys go







and he didnt take this but heres another




ALL taking with a regular lens

if you dont believe me ill save the convo
« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 11:42:19 AM by The Government »
Logged
?

pilot4444

  • 28
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2007, 11:36:12 AM »
if you don't believe him, talk to me, i'm the pilot. i've been in the air for over 15 years. you guys are ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous. i can't even comprehend what you're trying to prove it's so stupid. have any of you ever been to the desert? apparently not. in arizona its clear as day that the world is round.

and how do you explain NASA? you know, all the orbiting that they do?

insane.

the world is a HUGE place. the only reason you can't see the curve on the ground is because it's so huge. but when i'm flying at 3,000 feet, i'm sure as hell that i can see the curve.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 11:39:08 AM by pilot4444 »
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2007, 11:43:27 AM »
Quote from: pilot4444 on February 24, 2007, 11:36:12 AM
i've been in the air for over 15 years.
Wow, what do you do when you have to use the bathroom!?!
Quote
  have any of you ever been to the desert?
Yes.
Quote
in arizona its clear as day that the world is round.
Where in Arizona is it clear the earth is round?  I want to go there.
Quote
and how do you explain NASA? you know, all the orbiting that they do?
They don't. Satellites?  Please.
Quote
but when i'm flying at 3,000 feet, i'm sure as hell that i can see the curve.
Then why can't I see it when I'm flying ten times as high?
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2007, 11:49:26 AM »
It's obvious that most of those pictures have slight fish-eyes. Even if the world WAS round, those pictures are way too low to the ground to be able to see the curvature of the Earth. That would put the Earth at a circumference much smaller than it actually is.

And to the one who said he can see the curve at 3,000 feet. ::) Talk about pulling stuff out your ass. Even on a round Earth model, you wouldn't be able to see the curve accurately until AT LEAST somewhere around 45,000 feet in altitude.

~D-Draw
Logged
?

The Government

  • 339
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2007, 12:18:01 PM »
Logged
?

Tom Bishop

Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2007, 12:21:23 PM »
Quote from: The Government on February 24, 2007, 12:18:01 PM
and what about this

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/satellites_budget.html

The pictures in that link were also taken with a wrong lens type.
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2007, 12:22:11 PM »
I love how people says "obvious fish-eye lens" when I've looked out at the ocean and can see a slight curve. Last time I checked my eyes didn't have fish-eye lenses. We all know the FE stance of the curvature of the Earth and that is that it is some kind of optical illusion. So why not just stick to one answer for a change.
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2007, 12:23:28 PM »
For reference, see this image:


If that red line is about forty kilometers across (liberal estimate), and, as you can see by the protractor, the angle is about 1/2 of a degree, then you multiply 360 x 2 (=720), and multiply that by forty kilometers, you come out with about 29,000 kilometers where in reality the circumference is somewhere around 40,000 klometers. Granted, the arc would need to be curved, but that doesn't really matter, seeing as 3/4 of what the Earth's shape would be leaves more than enough room for error.

Evidence: Disputed.


~D-Draw
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2007, 12:23:38 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2007, 12:21:23 PM
Quote from: The Government on February 24, 2007, 12:18:01 PM
and what about this

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/satellites_budget.html

The pictures in that link were also taken with a wrong lens type.

So what is the right lens type oh expert in photography. Surely what you meant to say is that optical illusion causes it to appear curved? Can't you remember which argument to use now or what?
Logged
?

The Government

  • 339
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2007, 12:41:32 PM »
Quote from: DiegoDraw on February 24, 2007, 12:23:28 PM
For reference, see this image:


If that red line is about forty kilometers across (liberal estimate), and, as you can see by the protractor, the angle is about 1/2 of a degree, then you multiply 360 x 2 (=720), and multiply that by forty kilometers, you come out with about 29,000 kilometers where in reality the circumference is somewhere around 40,000 klometers. Granted, the arc would need to be curved, but that doesn't really matter, seeing as 3/4 of what the Earth's shape would be leaves more than enough room for error.

Evidence: Disputed.


~D-Draw

that makes no sense, your just pulling math out your ass
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2007, 01:02:50 PM »
Quote from: DiegoDraw on February 24, 2007, 12:23:28 PM
For reference, see this image:


If that red line is about forty kilometers across (liberal estimate), and, as you can see by the protractor, the angle is about 1/2 of a degree, then you multiply 360 x 2 (=720), and multiply that by forty kilometers, you come out with about 29,000 kilometers where in reality the circumference is somewhere around 40,000 klometers. Granted, the arc would need to be curved, but that doesn't really matter, seeing as 3/4 of what the Earth's shape would be leaves more than enough room for error.

Evidence: Disputed.


~D-Draw

Okay seeing as we're playing around with numbers that fit our own beliefs....I estimate the camera is around 250 m high. Calculating distance to horizon from this (60 km) and using basic trigonometry (normal lense gives about 50 degree viewing angle) I deduce the width of the horizon in that picture to be about 57 km. 57 x 720 = 41040. Pretty close I'd say.
Logged
?

RoundisWrong

  • 37
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2007, 03:32:39 PM »
Quote from: DiegoDraw on February 24, 2007, 12:23:28 PM
If that red line is about forty kilometers across (liberal estimate), and, as you can see by the protractor, the angle is about 1/2 of a degree, then you multiply 360 x 2 (=720), and multiply that by forty kilometers, you come out with about 29,000 kilometers where in reality the circumference is somewhere around 40,000 klometers. Granted, the arc would need to be curved, but that doesn't really matter, seeing as 3/4 of what the Earth's shape would be leaves more than enough room for error.

Evidence: Disputed.


~D-Draw
The red line you're using assumes that the photo was taken perfectly parallel with the surface of the earth, but your red line clearly shows that it wasn't, which clearly shows that you're an idiot. 
Logged
?

The Government

  • 339
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2007, 03:48:23 PM »
umm yea... no fisheye lens was used


FISHEYE


NO FISHEYE
Logged
*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2007, 04:09:13 PM »
What happened to the 'pilot'?  I was looking forward to talking to him. :'(
Logged


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2007, 04:10:33 PM »
He's already dead. Secret astronaut NASA agents tracked him down as soon as they read his posts.
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2007, 04:16:17 PM »
The first fish-eye is an actual fisheye LENS, yes, but that doesn't mean that the latter image does not have a slight fish-eye. It's obviously less extreme, but even in the round Earth model, you probably need to be somewhere around 45,000-50,000 feet before seeing any curvature at all whatsoever.

~D-Draw
Logged
?

The Government

  • 339
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2007, 07:07:26 PM »
Quote from: DiegoDraw on February 24, 2007, 04:16:17 PM
The first fish-eye is an actual fisheye LENS, yes, but that doesn't mean that the latter image does not have a slight fish-eye. It's obviously less extreme, but even in the round Earth model, you probably need to be somewhere around 45,000-50,000 feet before seeing any curvature at all whatsoever.

~D-Draw

find me a 'slight' fisheye lens


and he is working his other job at the moment... when he gets on i will point him back here
Logged
?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2007, 07:20:55 PM »
Quote from: The Government on February 24, 2007, 11:35:02 AM
OK, a guy i JUST MET TODAY, on another forum said one of his jobs was taking aerial photos.. so i asked him if he had any showing the horizon and here you guys go







and he didnt take this but heres another




ALL taking with a regular lens

if you dont believe me ill save the convo

Looks like a giant disc to me.
Logged
?

The Government

  • 339
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2007, 07:24:40 PM »
I'm beginning to think that the FE'ers are autistic
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2007, 07:25:30 PM »
Quote from: The Government on February 24, 2007, 07:07:26 PM
find me a 'slight' fisheye lens


and he is working his other job at the moment... when he gets on i will point him back here
It's not a "slight fish-eye" lens, it's just that due to the lens's imperfection, it captures a slight curvature that's not there due to the fact that it's looking across a very large distance. Because I dunno about you, but the horizon looks pretty flat to me.


~D-Draw
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2007, 07:29:17 PM »
You can see the curve in three of those photos you just linked to.
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2007, 07:30:33 PM »
Quote from: kasroa on February 24, 2007, 07:29:17 PM
You can see the curve in three of those photos you just linked to.

Where? You're completely lying out your ass, my friend. All those pictures show the horizon completely flat.

~D-Draw
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2007, 07:32:38 PM »
Just because you're looking for it to be flat doesn't mean it is. One of them is from above the clouds in a plane. It's clearly curved.
Logged
?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • +0/-0
  • Rick <3 Gayer
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2007, 07:33:18 PM »
Quote from: kasroa on February 24, 2007, 07:32:38 PM
Just because you're looking for it to be flat doesn't mean it is. One of them is from above the clouds in a plane. It's clearly curved.

Just because you're looking for it to be curved doesn't mean it is. They look flat to me.
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2007, 07:35:50 PM »
You would say that even if they didn't. At least I can admit that some of them look flat.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2007, 07:38:38 PM »
I'm an RE and they look flat to me. So what's that say to you now? Are they still deluded? Am I deluded? Or are you just stubborn?
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2007, 07:40:45 PM »
Three of them show a curve. There's no discussion needed.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2007, 07:42:53 PM »
I don't see a curve in any of them.

Have you ever heard of the research involving training the brain to "un-learn" what you learned? You learned that the earth was round, so your brain accounts for that, or takes a shortcut so to speak. If you train your brain to not take that shortcut, you could then see that the images all look flat.
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • +0/-0
  • Meep.
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2007, 07:49:50 PM »
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
  • +0/-0
Re: Indisputable Evidence
« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2007, 07:52:39 PM »
Quote from: Hara Taiki on February 24, 2007, 07:42:53 PM
I don't see a curve in any of them.

Have you ever heard of the research involving training the brain to "un-learn" what you learned? You learned that the earth was round, so your brain accounts for that, or takes a shortcut so to speak. If you train your brain to not take that shortcut, you could then see that the images all look flat.

Please stop talking to me. Thanks.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up
« previous next »