what would this look like through a telescope

bishop claims that more magnification restores a "sunken" island or ship.  so naturally, i'm curious, what would these images (from this thread) look like with more magnification?

(also, if you disagree with my detailed calculation of effective magnifications used below - and feel free to - then prove that it is wrong.)


exhibit 1a) cargo ship - 9.76x magnification (3888:500 pixel downsample)




exhibit 1b) cargo ship - 700x magnification (1:1 pixel crop from 10.1mp image)





so: what would an order or two magnitude more magnification look like?  would it drastically re-invent the entire scene, as bishop insists?  would we cease to see the details on the water directly in front of the ship, and somehow the hull of the ship would overlap it?  (in spite of the ship clearly being significantly farther away than the horizon, based on relative levels of detail-obscuring atmospheric haze?)  does it turn into one of those trick paintings where something is both behind and in front of something else?

edit: fixed calculation link

How many flat Earthers would happily whip out their super impressive telescope if they were stood next to cpt bthimes, and be confident that their telescope was going to show the entire ship? 

Too bad that's still not a shot as seen through a telescope. It's a shot through a camera lens with a zoom ratio of 1:6.1.

Too bad that's still not a shot as seen through a telescope. It's a shot through a camera lens with a zoom ratio of 1:6.1.

fail.

read the post before opening mouth.  it saves us all a lot of time and keeps you from looking like a jackass. 

for starters, you have demonstrated that you know nothing of lens/sensor cropping factors.  the 6.1 figure you used is only relevant for a 35mm frame size.  don't bother us with it: google it yourself. 

secondly, you have no understanding of the direct correlation between pixel density, and magnified eyepeices on telescopes.  (which even your suck-ass telescope uses to acheive it's magnification factors.)  don't bother us with it: google it yourself.

and finally, none of that has anything to do with the post.  i specifically asked you (or someone else stupid enough to bite) to describe how this particular scene would be transformed with any arbitrary magnification you would like to use.  it should be simple to describe.  i've seen you do so, generically, before.

bishop, do not reply until you have read and fullly comprehended what you are responding to.  my patience is this fucking thin with you.  this may mean you never reply, which would be fine.

once again tom bishop proves he has no idea how telescopes, cameras or even magnifying lenses work!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens

How many flat Earthers would happily whip out their super impressive telescope if they were stood next to cpt bthimes, and be confident that their telescope was going to show the entire ship? 

I don't think you can ever see the entire ship, dude. They usually travel with part of the hull below water. That's how they float. It's a cargo ship, not a cargo hovercraft... like duh...

Too bad that's still not a shot as seen through a telescope. It's a shot through a camera lens with a zoom ratio of 1:6.1.

WTF Tom?  They both have lenses and magnify.  WTF is different between a camera lens and a telescope lens?

Quote from: GazMcB on December 26, 2007, 01:49:34 PM

How many flat Earthers would happily whip out their super impressive telescope if they were stood next to cpt bthimes, and be confident that their telescope was going to show the entire ship? 

I don't think you can ever see the entire ship, dude. They usually travel with part of the hull below water. That's how they float. It's a cargo ship, not a cargo hovercraft... like duh...

Yeah fair enough, not the entire ship, but a lot more than you can see there. Look at page 2 of this thread at the pictures of the cargo ship http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18526.20

Quote from: GazMcB on December 26, 2007, 01:49:34 PM

How many flat Earthers would happily whip out their super impressive telescope if they were stood next to cpt bthimes, and be confident that their telescope was going to show the entire ship? 

I don't think you can ever see the entire ship, dude. They usually travel with part of the hull below water. That's how they float. It's a cargo ship, not a cargo hovercraft... like duh...

if it weren't for the fact that you have made so many completely idiotic but otherwise apparently sincere posts, i would think your retort was just a stupid joke.  but your reputation - however brief and noobish - precedes you...  you are probably being serious.

so this must be a cargo submarine then...



you can see more pictures of the same ship "diving deeper" (and higher) too, on another post elsewhere.  you do the legwork.

I can't see the bottom of it on some pictures because there's a wave in front of it. Your experiment is fundamentally flawed because you took the pictures at different times. Have you considered that maybe the waves were picking up as you moved further out or dying down as you moved in, as the case may be?

Thought not.

Imagine this - I take a series of pictures of a ship from 100ft, 200ft, 300ft, and 400ft. I take the 400ft picture at 6:30pm, the 300ft at 7:00pm, the 200ft at 7:30pm and the 100ft at 8:00pm right before it gets dark.

I conclude based on my photographs that the further out I take the picture from, the brighter the ship looks. After all, the camera, lens, and film are all identical in each case.

You see the problem here obviously.

Here's another BIG BIG problem with your experiment - researcher subjectivity. You already knew what you wanted the outcome of this experiment to be. How do we know that you didn't subconsciously time your shutter squeezes so that on the longer shots you'd have a bigger wave in front, and on the shorter ones less wave? This happens all the time in research, which is why we have double-blind methodology. You can be as honest as Gandhi, but your subconscious might still be rigging the outcome.

The only way you can do this correctly is to have several boats out there and take all the pictures at exactly the same time. Given wave dynamics I would imagine that to be within a 100-200ms window, which is easily achievable with amateur equipment. You'll have to correct for the relative altitude of each boat, but I imagine that shouldn't be too hard.

Once you have done that please come back with the new photos and we can get the discussion back on track without worrying about waves obscuring the view. The only thing we are seeing from your photos right now is how high the waves were when you squeezed the shutter.

Waves don't stretch across the horizon.  Does the horizon look like this?



Thought so.

I can't see the bottom of it on some pictures because there's a wave in front of it. Your experiment is fundamentally flawed because you took the pictures at different times. Have you considered that maybe the waves were picking up as you moved further out or dying down as you moved in, as the case may be?

Thought not.

Imagine this - I take a series of pictures of a ship from 100ft, 200ft, 300ft, and 400ft. I take the 400ft picture at 6:30pm, the 300ft at 7:00pm, the 200ft at 7:30pm and the 100ft at 8:00pm right before it gets dark.

I conclude based on my photographs that the further out I take the picture from, the brighter the ship looks. After all, the camera, lens, and film are all identical in each case.

You see the problem here obviously.

Here's another BIG BIG problem with your experiment - researcher subjectivity. You already knew what you wanted the outcome of this experiment to be. How do we know that you didn't subconsciously time your shutter squeezes so that on the longer shots you'd have a bigger wave in front, and on the shorter ones less wave? This happens all the time in research, which is why we have double-blind methodology. You can be as honest as Gandhi, but your subconscious might still be rigging the outcome.

The only way you can do this correctly is to have several boats out there and take all the pictures at exactly the same time. Given wave dynamics I would imagine that to be within a 100-200ms window, which is easily achievable with amateur equipment. You'll have to correct for the relative altitude of each boat, but I imagine that shouldn't be too hard.

Once you have done that please come back with the new photos and we can get the discussion back on track without worrying about waves obscuring the view. The only thing we are seeing from your photos right now is how high the waves were when you squeezed the shutter.

zeroply: I would love to read your posts in their entirety but I have a day job. Can you summarize this in under 500 words or so, say? I don't have the time to read half a million words to determine some hidden context that you claim but I don't see.

Quote from: zeroply on December 27, 2007, 02:36:56 PM

I can't see the bottom of it on some pictures because there's a wave in front of it. Your experiment is fundamentally flawed because you took the pictures at different times. Have you considered that maybe the waves were picking up as you moved further out or dying down as you moved in, as the case may be?

Thought not.

Imagine this - I take a series of pictures of a ship from 100ft, 200ft, 300ft, and 400ft. I take the 400ft picture at 6:30pm, the 300ft at 7:00pm, the 200ft at 7:30pm and the 100ft at 8:00pm right before it gets dark.

I conclude based on my photographs that the further out I take the picture from, the brighter the ship looks. After all, the camera, lens, and film are all identical in each case.

You see the problem here obviously.

Here's another BIG BIG problem with your experiment - researcher subjectivity. You already knew what you wanted the outcome of this experiment to be. How do we know that you didn't subconsciously time your shutter squeezes so that on the longer shots you'd have a bigger wave in front, and on the shorter ones less wave? This happens all the time in research, which is why we have double-blind methodology. You can be as honest as Gandhi, but your subconscious might still be rigging the outcome.

The only way you can do this correctly is to have several boats out there and take all the pictures at exactly the same time. Given wave dynamics I would imagine that to be within a 100-200ms window, which is easily achievable with amateur equipment. You'll have to correct for the relative altitude of each boat, but I imagine that shouldn't be too hard.

Once you have done that please come back with the new photos and we can get the discussion back on track without worrying about waves obscuring the view. The only thing we are seeing from your photos right now is how high the waves were when you squeezed the shutter.

zeroply: I would love to read your posts in their entirety but I have a day job. Can you summarize this in under 500 words or so, say? I don't have the time to read half a million words to determine some hidden context that you claim but I don't see.

Man it must suck to click the icon, read my post, and realize that you just wasted 40 hours of your life because you have no idea how research methodology works.

All your photos are worthless. Any genuine researcher, FE or RE, will agree that the methodology makes the results meaningless.

Trekky0623, waves can be pretty wide. If you look at a photo of a 30ft wave you'll see it spans quite a few thousand feet. Not to mention that all the photos were taken with a telephoto which captures a very small section of the visible horizon, so what if the wave in question was only 75 ft in front of the ship? The photos don't show the whole horizon, so how are you expecting to see the edges of the wave?

I went down the same track too. You have to conclusively prove that waves could not affect the photos enough to account for the sinking ship illusion. However, I spent some time on it and I don't think you'll be able to do that without precise oceonographic data for the locations in question. The margins are too tight otherwise. Glad to see you try.

Right, Tom.  and a huge wave is supposed to form between the time of the first picture and the time of the second picture?  Picture A, according to FE theory, is a result of the sinking effect.  Picture B is from wave coverage.  What are the chances that the wave coverage would produce the exact same view?

COMPARE:

Picture B:


Picture A magnified:


Pretty slim wouldn't you say?

Trekky0623, I believe he may be 'Bible is True' or Narcberry/Smarticus/I won goodbye.

I don't think he's Narc.  He's not troll enough.

We don't know that for sure, however I do believe he may be 'Bible is true' They both share the same ignorance.

Nah, cpt_bthimes is right - I'm basically a noob. I've been on since early 2006 but haven't posted much.

I'm flattered that you confuse me for a more experienced member. Especially Tom.

Nah, cpt_bthimes is right - I'm basically a noob. I've been on since early 2006 but haven't posted much.

I'm flattered that you confuse me for a more experienced member. Especially Tom.

There is no way that Tom, Narc, or BiT are 'experienced.'

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 27, 2007, 02:43:42 PM

Quote from: zeroply on December 27, 2007, 02:36:56 PM

I can't see the bottom of it on some pictures because there's a wave in front of it. Your experiment is fundamentally flawed because you took the pictures at different times. Have you considered that maybe the waves were picking up as you moved further out or dying down as you moved in, as the case may be?

Thought not.

Imagine this - I take a series of pictures of a ship from 100ft, 200ft, 300ft, and 400ft. I take the 400ft picture at 6:30pm, the 300ft at 7:00pm, the 200ft at 7:30pm and the 100ft at 8:00pm right before it gets dark.

I conclude based on my photographs that the further out I take the picture from, the brighter the ship looks. After all, the camera, lens, and film are all identical in each case.

You see the problem here obviously.

Here's another BIG BIG problem with your experiment - researcher subjectivity. You already knew what you wanted the outcome of this experiment to be. How do we know that you didn't subconsciously time your shutter squeezes so that on the longer shots you'd have a bigger wave in front, and on the shorter ones less wave? This happens all the time in research, which is why we have double-blind methodology. You can be as honest as Gandhi, but your subconscious might still be rigging the outcome.

The only way you can do this correctly is to have several boats out there and take all the pictures at exactly the same time. Given wave dynamics I would imagine that to be within a 100-200ms window, which is easily achievable with amateur equipment. You'll have to correct for the relative altitude of each boat, but I imagine that shouldn't be too hard.

Once you have done that please come back with the new photos and we can get the discussion back on track without worrying about waves obscuring the view. The only thing we are seeing from your photos right now is how high the waves were when you squeezed the shutter.

zeroply: I would love to read your posts in their entirety but I have a day job. Can you summarize this in under 500 words or so, say? I don't have the time to read half a million words to determine some hidden context that you claim but I don't see.

Man it must suck to click the icon, read my post, and realize that you just wasted 40 hours of your life because you have no idea how research methodology works.

All your photos are worthless. Any genuine researcher, FE or RE, will agree that the methodology makes the results meaningless.

Trekky0623, waves can be pretty wide. If you look at a photo of a 30ft wave you'll see it spans quite a few thousand feet. Not to mention that all the photos were taken with a telephoto which captures a very small section of the visible horizon, so what if the wave in question was only 75 ft in front of the ship? The photos don't show the whole horizon, so how are you expecting to see the edges of the wave?

I went down the same track too. You have to conclusively prove that waves could not affect the photos enough to account for the sinking ship illusion. However, I spent some time on it and I don't think you'll be able to do that without precise oceonographic data for the locations in question. The margins are too tight otherwise. Glad to see you try.

tl;dr

Right, Tom.  and a huge wave is supposed to form between the time of the first picture and the time of the second picture?  Picture A, according to FE theory, is a result of the sinking effect.  Picture B is from wave coverage.  What are the chances that the wave coverage would produce the exact same view?

that's right trekky.  as always, nice illustration.  and like i pointed out in my very first post with those photos - which certain noobs would do well to remember (or read in the first place) before making idiotic, uninformed assertions - i have over 7gb of photos from the series - including roughly a couple/few dozen of that particular ship, including multiple series over time from the same elevations.  and like i said in that very first post and in several since (which some people don't bother to read before stupidly opening their mouth), i will be more than happy to upload *all* of them.  all this requires is someone to donate an ftp directory.  anyone.  fe'er or re'er.  (my flikr account only allows 100mb/mo upload, and i *damn sure* am not going to *pay* to prove to a bunch of morons that the earth isn't flat.  i wouldn't have done all the driving around, hiking, and documenting i did, unless it wasn't first and foremost vastly enjoyable.  spending money on things that don't give back, sucks.)

7GB of photos? Dangnabbit!! If your methodology fails, let's compensate with more data!! More data to the argument, Scotty!!

Sorry, it just don't work that way...

You still haven't addressed my issue about subconscious bias and the need for double-blind methodology. You don't need to believe me. Go to your local university and give a physics prof a copy of my post. He will confirm the problems in your methodology. If we had given the camera to Tom and asked him to take pictures, they would have probably come out completely different because he would have squeezed the shutter at different points in time with different waves in the foreground. I have illustrated a clear mechanism whereby your subconscious bias can affect the results - end of story...

( And I did it in under 1000 words, how do you like them apples? )

Unless it's impossible to see the entire ship...

a dur...

7GB of photos is a lot.  Out of ALL of those, with ALL of them looking the same, I doubt it's because of random waves.

cpt, why don't you put the photos in a zip archive and email them to me ([email protected]), if you want to.  You don't have to.

Good point, but I don't buy the idea of a "random" wave.

On a photo, a wave would be distinguished mostly by its amplitude. We're not going to see a signature tied to each wave where you can differentiate one 20ft wave from another.

Again, the amount of data doesn't matter. I have 20GB of porn where the floor looks flat, will uploading all of that convince you that the earth is flat? No, I'm not going to do that... I want to get banned for corrupting the young, not for porn uploads...

Too bad the objective here is to call out Tom Bishops lie about seeing children 33 miles away.

You mean the old Monterey Bay thing again?

See:http://www.icogitate.com/~ergosum/essays/vtth/viewtothehorizon.htm

My, my, my.... All of a sudden everyone's kinda lost focus on where this thread was headed...

What happened to waves and amplitudes? I'm still waiting on cpt_bthimes to talk to an impartial referee about his methodology.... and prove me wrong.... ain't happening, is it, dude?

Trekky0623: you were supposed to show how waves were mathematically irrelevant to this experiment? I'm still waiting...

So you guys wanna discuss or tuck your tails in and move to another thread?

7GB of photos? Dangnabbit!! If your methodology fails, let's compensate with more data!! More data to the argument, Scotty!!

Sorry, it just don't work that way...

You still haven't addressed my issue about subconscious bias and the need for double-blind methodology. You don't need to believe me. Go to your local university and give a physics prof a copy of my post. He will confirm the problems in your methodology. If we had given the camera to Tom and asked him to take pictures, they would have probably come out completely different because he would have squeezed the shutter at different points in time with different waves in the foreground. I have illustrated a clear mechanism whereby your subconscious bias can affect the results - end of story...

( And I did it in under 1000 words, how do you like them apples? )

i said <=500.  since when "under 1000 words" <=500?

You mean the old Monterey Bay thing again?

See:http://www.icogitate.com/~ergosum/essays/vtth/viewtothehorizon.htm

Mrs. Peach, I am sure that if cpt_bthimes came down there with the magical telephoto of truthiness and took photos EXACTLY at the right times he could disprove this...

Quote from: zeroply on December 27, 2007, 08:03:40 PM

7GB of photos? Dangnabbit!! If your methodology fails, let's compensate with more data!! More data to the argument, Scotty!!

Sorry, it just don't work that way...

You still haven't addressed my issue about subconscious bias and the need for double-blind methodology. You don't need to believe me. Go to your local university and give a physics prof a copy of my post. He will confirm the problems in your methodology. If we had given the camera to Tom and asked him to take pictures, they would have probably come out completely different because he would have squeezed the shutter at different points in time with different waves in the foreground. I have illustrated a clear mechanism whereby your subconscious bias can affect the results - end of story...

( And I did it in under 1000 words, how do you like them apples? )

i said <=500.  since when "under 1000 words" <=500?

Dude, when your writing is this rambling, 500 words seems like a thousand....