Conspiracy about the flat earth conspiracy - Thread bans in OP

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608069#Comment_120608069

If there is no camera powerful enough to take the photo then where did the photo come from?

Is it a fake photo that has been created by a flat earther to prove there is no curvature? In which case why don't they mention this along with the explanation of how they took the photo?

Is it a real photo taken by someone to prove who knows what? In which case why are you now claiming that there is no camera powerful enough to take the photo when a few posts ago you were claiming that the photo is genuine and proves the flat earth because it's real?

You are barely able to keep a consistent argument for the entirety of one post, let alone over several posts which all contradict each other.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608216#Comment_120608216

Do you purposely misread posts and make up spurious crap about posters? You need to find a new hobby badly.

I said there was no camera powerful enough to take a picture of new york from galway (even if it wasn't obscured by terrain). The infrared picture i posted above was over a distance of 252km with a telephoto lens (500mm) with further zooming carried out in photoshop, and even then, the shape of the Notre Dame de la Garde is only just about distinguishable.

You are clearly weaponising your own ignorance of photography and using it to your advantage. This is the last time I'm engaging with your pernicious posting style.

-----------------------------------------

Warned for Breach of Charter. 2 week forum ban

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608281#Comment_120608281

You're simply announcing that you're engaging in your tactics of ignoring issues you can't address rather than doing it without comment.

Your claim that there is no camera powerful enough is still not defined or substantiated and it is already debunked by the video I posted. The only ignorance of photography being displayed is your own.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608281#Comment_120608281

So what about satellite photography or pictures taken from the ISS? Are they not powerful enough, ignoring for a moment that the curvature can clearly be seen from space photography?

magicbastarder

again, i'll go back to the issue that a flat sea cannot have a distinct horizon. you should see a gradual fade as haze prevents visibility of far off sea.

unless of course there's some stephen king-esque thick, well defined mist sitting 8 or 15km off shore.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608336#Comment_120608336

Markus's contention in previous threads was that all images from the ISS and satellites are faked. Just as any images of anything in orbit are faked.

robinph

As for the zoom lens that the guy used, maybe he just didn't want to lug a heavier/ more expensive bit of kit up the mountain.

Here's a Canon lens over twice the length of the one he used :

https://www.canon.co.uk/press-centre/press-releases/2022/02/canon-lanches-two-new-rf-lenses-including-the-world-longest-focal-length-af-lens/

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608365#Comment_120608365

Yep, because they often used photoshop or composite of multiple pictures... Yet here he's using a composite picture that has been photoshopped as proof that the earth is flat even though it shows nothing of the sort.

It's mad Ted.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608386#Comment_120608386

But notice how the claim that that photo proves the earth is flat. It's only just been implied so that it can be backtracked later if it's convenient.

Markus hasn't actually directly stated his beliefs.

I also imagine that the pictures I pointed out of Saturn and Jupiter would be dismissed as fake because they were also enhanced by photoshop.

There's no consistency whatsoever in conspiracy theories. Rules only apply to the official story and real evidence while any evidence that is believed to support the conspiracy theory is completely above those rules when it suits.

robinph

Find a wide bay. (someone else can figure out how wide)

Stand on the beach and look across and see what you can see.

Climb up to the top of the lighthouse on top of the cliff.

Now look across again and can you see more of the buildings, beach, cliffs on the far side of the bay?

It's really not tricky to do simple things to be able to prove the earth is curved. Just takes a mild bit of curiosity and any prehistoric human could have figured it out if they had cared about such things... Which they may well not have.

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608439#Comment_120608439

Some Flat Earthers did this as part of a documentary and ended up proving the curve. Unfortunately, they were not convinced and started to justify and excuse things after the fact to preserve their believe. Most Flat Earthers aren't willing to do similar experiments (never mind spend a small amount of money and effort to produce definite proof) because they aren't actually willing to put their beliefs to any test.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608069#Comment_120608069

There's no two sides to this. The earth is a globe, that's an irrefutable fact, which anyone can simply prove to themselves. That's the beauty of it, you can prove this stuff to yourself.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608614#Comment_120608614

Irrefutable... because if it could be refuted, it would have been, simply execute the experiments noted on this thread. And yet flat earthers have not done so, because that would burst the fantasy bubble. The scientific understanding of flat earthers is about 500 years out of date, at least.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608648#Comment_120608648

One person can do this for a few 100 quid.

Spoiler - its a globe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXP-va2t4D8&ab_channel=OverlookHorizon

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608670#Comment_120608670

The usual heads-up. "It's a fish-eye lens", "It's fake", "There's cuts", "It's CGI", "There's atmospheric distortion" all the types of responses you will receive from a flat-earth believer to that video.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608614#Comment_120608614

I'm not disputing the shape of the earth. i'm disputing your claim that you can easily observe curvature. Do you accept or reject the infrared photo above that clearly dismisses your argument that wind turbines at the coast make the curvature observable?

Can you explain why such discrepancy in the curvature calculators?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608790#Comment_120608790

There's no discrepancies in the curvature calculators I've come across.

The photos show objects like turbines and ships below the horizon due to curvature. Like the below

There's video of ships disappearing over the horizon, e.g. the below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_TpeNZYTmw

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608841#Comment_120608841

I've already explained this to you countless times and you still don't get it. The exact same behavior would be observed on a plane as it would on a globe. All that's changing as the boat moves away is the distance and the angle between the observer and the observed object (i.e. as the boat moves away the angle is becoming more and more acute) and also the amount of the boat that is being obscured by the sea roughness (for example, if the roughness obscures 1degree of the observed object then the percentage it obscures increases the further the boat moves away). To put it simply, if the boat is right infront of you in the docks it will take up close to 90 degrees of your view. After about 5km it will only take up 5degrees. After 10km 0.5degrees and so on. If 1 degree of your view is obscured by the terrain then the boat will not be visible after 10km.

This is very basic geometry and if you don't get it then that's not my problem. I don't have time to spoonfeed it to you.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609100#Comment_120609100

At longer distances curvature kicks in, it's as simple as that. At e.g. 20km out, the curvature is around 31 meters. So if you are looking at an object 20 km out, it's missing around 31 meters due to the curve. It's not linear either, so at 30 km it's around 70 meters.

Crude diagram below (not to scale)

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609185#Comment_120609185

Right so you are going to continue to claim to observe curvature despite one outspoken scientist (Niel DeAss tyson) clearly stating you can't detect it even from a very high altitude. Well done to you for this.

So what is going on in the infrared photograph then? Light distorting around the curve? the picture is fake? If the picture is fake, how are they keeping it a secret?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609100#Comment_120609100

How do the waves obscure more of the object further away. Your eye level is still the same height above the waves assuming the waves are the same height. If the waves are not the same height and they suddenly become as high as the ship then they would surely be calling for a lifeboat rescue? Or if the waves are so much bigger then you'd see that by the boat bouncing around on top of them.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609198#Comment_120609198

On a calm clear day you can see it yourself. A camera with a good zoom or telescope helps. Something about 12+ km out it gets noticeable.

Here it is sped up. Those ships aren't "sinking", it's not waves or distortion or any of that stuff. They are just moving far away and curvature is kicking in visibly at those distances. Simple maths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYYZMJL5aBc

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608790#Comment_120608790

As predicted the backtracking begins.

You still are being evasive and vague about your beliefs.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609198#Comment_120609198

You are now engaging in some very immature tactics of misspelling a famous scientists name as an insult for some reason. Not sure why you are doing that or why you think that helps your case.

You are also repeating your fishornst misrepresentation of the photographers site. This has already being addressed and debunked.

The pictures you are claiming show mountains beyond the curve are not claimed to be beyond the curve. The person who created those images does not claim that and is not a flat earther. You are lying about what the images are because you are desperate for points.

But oddly not desperate enough to actually get the evidence you've been told how to get easily.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608069#Comment_120608069

So you acknowledge that photographing New York on a flat earth is hypothetical? In doing so conceding that it’s not actually flat. I assume that was a mistake, but thank you none the less.

As for your claims. Too far away. Ok Dougal, clearly you’ve never heard of a telescope. There are telescopes that can see celestial objects millions of miles away. 3,000miles to New York is a doddle.

But why would it be too acute an angle? It’s only too acute if the location of New York drops drops something, such as the curvature of the earth. So admitting it’s curved again. Whoops again.

To explain the geometry for the feeble minded. The tallest building in NYC if the One WTC, the top of which is 400m above sea level. The high poinyd on the west of Ireland are 600-1000m above sea level, you’d be looking down on New York. The mid Atlantic waves would need to be constantly 700m above sea level. They are not, as a child would tell you.

…than for the air densities to configure themselves in such a way that they could bend the light around the curve over a distance of 252km.

Another geometry fail. I assume you read the link. The geometric horizon is 188km, the refracted horizon is 200km, it’s only bending light 12km not 250km. That’s going to be much more frequent, obviously. But even that its’s not visible everyday, only when conditions are correct. Proving its not simple geometry.

It's a ridiculous argument and only satisfies the most scientifically clueless. (i.e. people who use earth curve calculators)

Ironic given you brought up curve calculators. At least we can both that you are clueless.

As I said, you’re not even making this a trivial challenge. Is this really the best argument flat earthers have come up with after centuries? Imagine having to explain to an adult that mountains are taller than buildings (and waves ffs).

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608281#Comment_120608281

That telephoto lens had a focal length of 500mm. A consumer telescope has a lens of up to 3,000mm. The largest lens have a length of 50m-100m.

Oh, and what terrain would you see at sea, this is pathetic. Next...

 After about 5km it will only take up 5degrees. After 10km 0.5degrees and so on. If 1 degree of your view is obscured by the terrain then the boat will not be visible after 10km.

This is very basic geometry and if you don't get it then that's not my problem. I don't have time to spoon-feed it to you.

Why would the angular dimension decrease by a factor of 10 when you double the distance. It's a linear triangle. One of us has no grasp of geometry, and as I've repeatedly proven, its not me.

Atlantic waves rarely get above 20m, and never above 40m. Once you are above that height, they could not obscure your horizonal view. From any decent height you are looking down on the new york coast. Combine a large telescopic zoom, say 100-200x and New York is no smaller than that photo of Notre Dame de la Garde. Next...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609198#Comment_120609198

We already cover Degrasse Tyson https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599086/#Comment_120599086

I explain why you were wrong. Next...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608790#Comment_120608790

You are not disputing the shape of the earth? Well clearly you were, but not surprised you since you've been embarrassed at every point. You also let it slip a few times. Like fellow flat earther Lex Luthor also messed up repeatedly.

So if you concede that its curved, they why are you trying to explain that the curve doesn't obscure object at distance? That would happen for any curve radius, al be it as different distances.

And I already explained the discrepancy in the curve calculator. 12kn of refraction. (You've also conceded refraction exists).

King Mob

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120610719#Comment_120610719

This is another point Flat Earthers have to avoid like the plague.

Markus is claiming that there is terrain between Galway and New York. But he will be careful not to say what terrain because this will require him to reveal what he believes the layout of the Earth is, or that he doesn't have an answer for that.

If we draw a straight line on a typical flat projection, the only terrain in the way is Long Island, which only has an average height of 40 meters or so, and the tallest point is only like 400m.

If we take an actual straight line and draw a great circle from Galway to New York there's more stuff in the way. However this is impossible for Markus as that requires the Earth to be round.

Again, he isn't willing to discuss this problem so will avoid, stall and jam up any debate to be had.

Big Bag of Chips

sydthebeat forum banned for 1 week.

Markus Antonius forum banned for 2 weeks.

Do not reply to any of their posts as they have no right of reply.

All posters are reminded to stick to discussing the topic and to "attack the post, not the poster" - personal comments or remarks about other posters will result in warnings up to and including forum bans.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609185#Comment_120609185

i would take one issue with your diagram (and i know it mentions it's not to scale) but it's worth pointing out that at the distances we're talking about, 'lean' is not really a factor. your diagram shows the angle between observer and observed as being pronounced, which would exaggerate how much of the observed object is below the horizon.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120611196#Comment_120611196

Indeed, that one not "not to scale" at all (which I pointed out). Am too lazy to do one myself and took the first one on google to demonstrate the basic principle.

Bogwoppit

explain this globalists