See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words (PT 14 & 15)
Source:
YT
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Y9cy6ujvc
Published: Dec 8, 2019
Author: ThePotter'sClay
Post Date: 2020-02-13 11:45:56 by Liberator
Keywords: TRUTH, EARTH, FLAT, NASA
Views: 1442
Comments: 30
Part 14: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Y9cy6ujvc Part 15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQV1I3T-XC8 Memes are effective and popular in that don't require much time and patience, yet....they provide instant, extensive information from which to process. These memes (Part 14 & 15) are the last in a series that thus far. They focus on Realm-Truths, reinforcing real-world observations, exposing and challenging life-long mental imprinting & programming, the scriptural reinforcement of our realm & reality, and...Common Sense. The 'ThePottersClay' YouTube website is a very worthy source of truth -- whether from a Christian viewpoint or secular viewpoint. YouTube Web Page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpEdOLvL6olNghR-BWghUQA
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
#1. To: Liberator (#0)
What do sunrays and railroad tracks have in common? Both are parallel.
Both are parallel. Parallel sunrays. Yes. In certain cases. (Btw, how does one explain hundreds of miles of parallel train tracks AND no allowance made for any curve IF the earth's supposed curve is a given?) The sun's rays present a few conundrums for the realm/science curious... Parallel sunlight (especially shining on water lower in the sky) that is viewed straight from the horizon all the way to the observer on the beach is not possible were this realm were a globe; It's only possible on a FLAT surface. (Yes, I've watched several vids on this exact subject as well.) With respect to the sun's "parallel" rays, yes, they *may* look parallel, but then again, at times not so much. Ever hear of "Crepuscular Rays"? (I've quickly found these two vids): Moreover...those "Crepuscular Rays" as seen shining through the clouds? They can only be the result of a *local* sun -- not one that's 93 million miles away. Triangulation measurements indicate the sun is actually only around 3,000 miles away from earth, and within the Firmament. (I know, I know ;-)
Then we would be nice and toasty here just like Mercury is. ;)
Yes. IF the Sun were actually 785,000 sq mi in circumference. :-) Ever hear of the theory that the Sun/Moon are plasma? That the Moon is NOT "solid"? IF we allow ourselves to consider theories outside and beyond the usual mental barriers/box, the case made for so many OTHER theories start to make sense -- or at least warrant further consideration and research. (For instance, it's very difficult to alter our long established hard-wired default "education" of "established science." So yes, a local, moon-sized Sun AND notion that the entire "Cosmos" including Mercury, planets and stars lie *within* the Firmament dome as described in the Bible is an alternative model many are trying to understand and embrace as possible.) Back on track... In order to help explain their model of the cosmos -- as well both the distance and size of the Sun (vs the Moon) -- the scientists/mathematicians during the 1500s-1900s engaged in many theoretical, voodoo math/science formulas. For distance to the moon, sun, planets and stars (especially impossible), they barrow on Eratosthenes' theory and calculations.
SHORT AND SWEET. This actual view of the sun and our earth from a high altitude balloon (120,000 feet.) What do you see? Are the clouds and world moving a thousand miles per hour? Or does earth appear stationary and flat? Do you see any curve? Trust your OWN eyes and internal truth.
Camera lenses can be deceptive. Why not trust our eyes with these pics?
Well played :-) BUT... From the example vid I'd posted at 120,000 feet and its view, do you see any curve? OR any movement at all from the earth below? If not, are you suggesting that its possible that in the balloon video of the sun and earth a lens may have been used to "correct" purported curvature? In your examples (and with respect to your question of "trust,") maybe I *can* and do trust my 50+ year old eyeballs, to discern reality. Can I be fooled? Of course -- can't we all? Two of the lens and photos you submitted are obviously distorted in the extreme. The closest one to reality is obviously the third, taken with a 18mm lens. It passes initially as a "eyeball" view at first glance because the frame is cut off at the edges before the distortion becomes more obvious. Various degrees fisheye (the kind that NASA typically uses to create their deception and illusion of curvature) can produce extreme curvature and concavity as seen in two pix. A Go Pro type of fisheye lens was used for the 'Red Bull Jump' - if you'd ever seen it. NOTE the lens used at :37 of the landing area was NOT a Fish-Eye or wide-angle. It appears to be normal lens because the background is flat.
#9. To: Liberator (#8)
I see no curve in that balloon video, and no movement. I'd expect no obvious movement given it's from a balloon and not a satellite or airplane. I would certainly conclude the video camera likely uses a lens that happens to distort the horizon into unintentionally appearing flat. Of course, which illustrates well the varying degrees of distortion possible. It's taken only a couple hundred feet up.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Pinguinite (#1)
What do sunrays and railroad tracks have in common?
#3. To: Liberator (#2)
the sun is actually only around 3,000 miles away from earth
#4. To: BTP Holdings (#3)
#5. To: All (#4)
#7. To: Liberator (#5)
Trust your OWN eyes and internal truth.
#8. To: Pinguinite (#7)
Camera lenses can be deceptive. Why not trust our eyes with these pics?
Replies to Comment # 8. From the example vid I'd posted at 120,000 feet and its view, do you see any curve? OR any movement at all from the earth below? If not, are you suggesting that its possible that in the balloon video of the sun and earth a lens may have been used to "correct" purported curvature?
Two of the lens and photos you submitted are obviously distorted in the extreme.
NOTE the lens used at :37 of the landing area was NOT a Fish-Eye or wide-angle. It appears to be normal lens because the background is flat.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.