Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[Andy_Ross]

When I am on the beach at Saltburn I can see as far up the coast as Redcar about three miles, further than that and stuff starts to disappear below the horizon. If I look across the Tees Bay I can see Hartlepool town and the cranes and warehouses at the docks but I can't see the seawall, it's below the horizon.
looking further up the coast I see less above the horizon until all I see are the tops of the cliffs at Easington and further on the tops of the tower blocks in Seaham.

If I start walking up the path from the beach to the top of Warsett Hill above Huntcliff 700 ft above sea level, I see more and more. I can see Seaham harbour then the docks and lighthouses at Sunderland and the city above. Finally at the top I can see Tynemouth, over thirty miles away.

It's the same with ships off the coast. At Saltburn beach I only see ships in the Tees Bay Anchorage or coming n to the Tees itself. As I go higher I can see more and more ships moving north and south along the coast. I can use my Ship Tracking App and identify them all and their distance from me. Some are service ships working on offshore Wind Farms, when the big Platform ships are in position I can see the tops of their pylons and cranes before they themselves come in to view as I climb the path.

This is direct evidence with my own eyes
How would this be possible on a flat Earth?

 

[DGM]

"Flat Earth" is a thing because YouTube pays for clicks and it's really easy to access.

 

[Elagabalus]

So I can run them through Photo Forensics and Validate their Authenticity, Objectively.


Yes, since every appeal ("Photo") of the Earth that I've run though Forensics has been Manipulated.


Sure. When was CGI first Possible...?


regards

Really? All these photos?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums

Every one of 'em?

How about this image from Apollo 7? One of my favorites.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21290472583/in/album-72157658999650280/

Make sure you go to the big view. Can you explain exactly how this image was faked in 1968?

Will you be doing the photo forensicatin'? And your qualifications are?

 

[BadBoy]

When I am on the beach at Saltburn I can see as far up the coast as Redcar about three miles, further than that and stuff starts to disappear below the horizon. If I look across the Tees Bay I can see Hartlepool town and the cranes and warehouses at the docks but I can't see the seawall, it's below the horizon.
looking further up the coast I see less above the horizon until all I see are the tops of the cliffs at Easington and further on the tops of the tower blocks in Seaham.

If I start walking up the path from the beach to the top of Warsett Hill above Huntcliff 700 ft above sea level, I see more and more. I can see Seaham harbour then the docks and lighthouses at Sunderland and the city above. Finally at the top I can see Tynemouth, over thirty miles away.

It's the same with ships off the coast. At Saltburn beach I only see ships in the Tees Bay Anchorage or coming n to the Tees itself. As I go higher I can see more and more ships moving north and south along the coast. I can use my Ship Tracking App and identify them all and their distance from me. Some are service ships working on offshore Wind Farms, when the big Platform ships are in position I can see the tops of their pylons and cranes before they themselves come in to view as I climb the path.

This is direct evidence with my own eyes
How would this be possible on a flat Earth?

Ahaaaa! So you think all this is because the earth is spherical. I can pick all that apart with my sharp analytical brain as easy as pie. But I’m not going to, you have to figure it out for yourself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LSSBB]

I've PUMMELED Soundly's Nonsense into the Incoherent Oblivion, personally...

The total distance of these power lines over Lake Pontchartrain is 15.9 Miles.
Per Soundly: Viewer Height was between 35 - 50 Feet, so let's say 40 Feet.
The distance between each Pylon is .18 Miles. (~88 Pylons)
I counted ~ 40 Pylons in Soundly's now infamous "P-900" shot...roughly 7 Miles, with some significant curvature.
Louisiana Length (North/South = 379 Miles)

If Soundly's Pics/Video are Accurate; THEN, we MUST LIVE ON...

"PLANET LOUISIANA" !! smh

Furthermore, according to your 'Spinning-Ball' Narrative, every point along a Tangent from your feet falls away from you in every direction at 8" per mile².

The horizon at 7 Miles from 90 degrees --- through Zero --- to 270 degrees is 21.5 MILES.

So you're saying that we see significant curvature on the Z Axis....which is at 7 Miles BUT along the X Axis...which is 21.5 MILES: It's FLAT, No Curvature ???


So to remain "COHERENT" with Soundly's Z Axis, the X Axis should look like this...

http://imgur.com/iWg9vSZ

Do you need more Gasoline with your Matches?


regards

Nice word salad.

You
Can
See
The
Curve

Your geometrical musings are meaningless.

The curve is real. And it matches the curvature for the globe per calculations, did you bother to read the Metabunk article?

 

[rwguinn]

Can you be a little more specific than "way up yonder in the sky"?

Well our eyesight has limitations inherently, not even speaking to Atmospheric Conditions.

With Mount Everest at 29,029 Feet, the Horizon is at 208 Miles. Is Chicago or Singapore within 208 Miles of Mount Everest?


regards

Um.
If the earth is indeed flat, the horizon would actually be that great stupid ice wall that you think keeps the water and air in...


ETA: Ninja'd by everyone....

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[LSSBB]

Say What?






Nope.


regards

Then the curve is real.

 

[LSSBB]

"First Photo From Space", eh? Well you have a couple problems...

1. There is No "Space" (i.e. No "Vacuum of Space").
2. Rotate this "Photo" 90 degrees Clockwise, what do you see...?


regards

Sophistry. And anyway you rotate it, there is a curve too.

 

[The_Animus]

Why don't all the flat earthers start a kickstarter and pool their money to loan an aircraft and then fly to the edge or all the way around, whichever comes first?

Like this should be so damn easy to prove if the Earth was flat

 

[BadBoy]

Why don't all the flat earthers start a kickstarter and pool their money to loan an aircraft and then fly to the edge or all the way around, whichever comes first?

Like this should be so damn easy to prove if the Earth was flat

they have an answer for that. They say you are flying in a circle on the flat earth

 

[PhantomWolf]

Source File Please...?

you want the source file for a photograph that was taken with a film camera? Seriously? My god, do you people think that current computer technology has been around for 60 years? JPEGs were only invented in 1992, 34 years after this shot was taken!

All missions pre-shuttle used film and photographic plates. The Lunar Orbiter missions actually had a photographic development lab and a scanner on them. They took the photos, developed them, scanned them, and radioed the scanned image back to earth to be created on what was basically a fax machine.

The first CGI was done in 1968 and as you can see from looking at it below, it wasn't exactly photorealistic.



Photoshop wouldn't be around for another 22 years after that!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why don't all the flat earthers start a kickstarter and pool their money to loan an aircraft and then fly to the edge or all the way around, whichever comes first?

Like this should be so damn easy to prove if the Earth was flat

All they have to do is fly around Antarctica.....

 

[threadworm]

Nope.






This isn't a Source File.

Define 'source file'. It is a scanned copy of a document, one of many in existence, compiling the images taken by a geostationary satellite. If you have evidence that those images aren't genuine then feel free to provide that.

Are you kidding?

Nope. Are you telling my I don't own that document and didn't scan it? It is my scan of my 1967 booklet.

Just for fun, here's that same ATS-3 image in a 1969 book 'Violent Universe' by Nigel Calder. I'm even being kind to you by showing you the dated library stickers in the front.

Yes just fine; However, it's not "MY" Job to support "YOUR" Claims.

Nope, you're the one that made the often repeated but totally false claim that there are no non-cgi images of Earth. Prove it. Prove that computer graphics existed either at all or in a form powerful enough when the photos I posted were taken. Prove that there was anything capable of rendering images of Earth taken from space in the 1960s on live TV that match the weather satellite imagery of the day - satellite imagery available to anyone with the right equipment.

Even if you can prove the equipment was available to do what you claim (it wasn't), you still need to prove your claim that the images of Earth from that era actually were faked using CGI.

You still need to prove that the modern images that have been generated by digital means aren't genuine.

 

[threadworm]

you want the source file for a photograph that was taken with a film camera? Seriously? My god, do you people think that current computer technology has been around for 60 years? JPEGs were only invented in 1992, 34 years after this shot was taken!

All missions pre-shuttle used film and photographic plates. The Lunar Orbiter missions actually had a photographic development lab and a scanner on them. They took the photos, developed them, scanned them, and radioed the scanned image back to earth to be created on what was basically a fax machine.

The first CGI was done in 1968 and as you can see from looking at it below, it wasn't exactly photorealistic.



Photoshop wouldn't be around for another 22 years after that!

That video is showing a more complex version of one of the first bits of computer programming I did in the mid-1980s. Took a long series of instructions recorded on a cassette to produce a simple drawing of a leaf. Took me days to write. And people like Daniel puking out the false 'it was all CGI' claim think that's good enough to produce photo-realistic real time imagery?

Ridiculous.

 

[John Jones]

Define 'source file'. It is a scanned copy of a document, one of many in existence, compiling the images taken by a geostationary satellite. If you have evidence that those images aren't genuine then feel free to provide that.



Nope. Are you telling my I don't own that document and didn't scan it? It is my scan of my 1967 booklet.

Just for fun, here's that same ATS-3 image in a 1969 book 'Violent Universe' by Nigel Calder. I'm even being kind to you by showing you the dated library stickers in the front.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/lZu2ABT.jpg[/qimg]





Nope, you're the one that made the often repeated but totally false claim that there are no non-cgi images of Earth. Prove it. Prove that computer graphics existed either at all or in a form powerful enough when the photos I posted were taken. Prove that there was anything capable of rendering images of Earth taken from space in the 1960s on live TV that match the weather satellite imagery of the day - satellite imagery available to anyone with the right equipment.

Even if you can prove the equipment was available to do what you claim (it wasn't), you still need to prove your claim that the images of Earth from that era actually were faked using CGI.

You still need to prove that the modern images that have been generated by digital means aren't genuine.

Ask him his opinion about evolution.

 

[threadworm]

Some more on Csuri's technique in producing the video posted by PhantomWolf:

"The subject was a line drawing of a hummingbird for which a sequence of movements appropriate to the bird were outlined," recalls Csuri. "Over 30,000 images comprising some 25 motion sequences were generated by the computer. For these, selected sequences were used for the film. A microfilm plotter recorded the images directly to film. To facilitate control over the motion of some sequences, the programs were written to read all the controlling parameters from cards, one card for each frame."

https://sciencenode.org/spotlight/charles-csuris-hummingbird-gives-computer-animation-its-wings.php

 

[MikeG]

All they have to do is fly around Antarctica.....

Don't they have this fantasy about compasses not indicating direction properly, GPS being fakery, and that all voyages claiming to be in a straight line are actually curved? I'm buggered if I can see how they explain away the voyages of sailors around the globe.

Joshua Slocombe, the first to circumnavigate the globe solo, met Paul Kruger, president of South Africa, as he was nearing the end of his voyage. Kruger was a flat earther, who told Slocombe to his face that he was lying about his voyage, despite Slocombe having signed testimony from various mayors, prime ministers, harbourmasters, and so on that he had in fact been to the places he'd been. Where is the warp in the space time continuum* which means travelling continually east you don't end up A/ falling off the edge of the earth and B/ arriving back where you started?

* It's between the ears of flat earthers, the world's ultimate ignorami.

 

[threadworm]

Let's expand a little more on the CGI capabilities around in the late 1960s. Charles Csuri, who made the image shown in PhantomWolf's video link, used an IBM 1130 and later a PDP 11/45.

Let's have a look at them:

As you can see from the monitors...oh...wait...no monitors. Well the graphics card output goes to...oh...wait...no graphics card invented yet.

Csuri's pioneering work involved translating cartesian coordinates on a VDU display into punch cards in FORTRAN. That was translated by the computer into (initially) a paper output via a pantograph plotter. Line by line. The video shown above is effectively a stop motion animation of a sequence of those paper printouts.

Now if Daniel wants to explain how that process was used to produce Apollo 8's Earthrise image I'm all ears.

 

[Oystein]

The military always has secret technology that is 50 years ahead of what public science knows! [/CT]

 

[Andy_Ross]

The military always has secret technology that is 50 years ahead of what public science knows! [/CT]

That is true, a reliable source told me the same thing very recently

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12095808&postcount=79