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: 1490
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
#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. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
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. No, they do not. They pose a conundrum only for flat earthers. I never heard of Eratosthenes. The image I posted shows how parallel lines can appear to not be parallel. Since railroad tracks don't actually converge, the photo illustrated how sun rays, "crepuscular rays" as I learned from you they are called, can appear to converge but actually not do so. The second video you posted shows this optical illusion, made possible by the fact that the extreme distance away removes the advantage of binocular vision giving depth perception. All the rays shown ARE parallel, but the portion of the rays near the earth surface are much, much closer than the portion of rays higher up, just as the RR tracks are far closer at the bottom of the pic then they are higher up. For that reason, placing a straight-edge ruler on the screen to estimate the altitude of convergence would fail or the same reason that doing it on the RR tracks in my pic would fail. For the Exact. Same. Reason. I honestly thought my posted pic would expose the "crepuscular rays" for the illusion that they are, or at least for what they could be. I was wrong. If we were to take that second video at face value and say it was not an optical illusion and did triangulation, the sun would only be about twice the altitude of the clouds, which would mean there's no way it could be 3000 miles away. It would be much more like 5000 to 15,000 feet up. Even if the sun were only 3000 miles away, rays from it would still be very close to parallel in the few miles field of view shown in 2nd video. The claim that the "official explanation" of these rays is that the atmosphere refracts the light is certain NOT true. That's a fake, strawman argument the narrator creates and then shoots down. While such atmospheric refraction does occur, it would not be noticeable to the naked eye for someone on the ground. The real reason: Optical illusion. I have to say I'm disappointed to have failed to convince you there's even one *possible* hole in this one single argument. I thought that would be easy with the pic I posted.
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. 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.
No, they do not. They pose a conundrum only for flat earthers. They obviously do. And did. But then again this is the case for EVERYONE because there are several points of contention even in your simple example as well as in my follow up. There are theories and observations that can be genuinely be challenged and contentious. And that is my point. I never heard of Eratosthenes. The image I posted shows how parallel lines can appear to not be parallel. Since railroad tracks don't actually converge, the photo illustrated how sun rays, "crepuscular rays" as I learned from you they are called, can appear to converge but actually not do so. To be honest, neither had I ever heard of Eratosthenes. But because Globe-Earthers now cite him as a scientific/mathematical formulaic source of the cosmological measurement, he's directly involved in the fray. Regarding your example of parallel/not-parallel... What *I* see: Flat earth on the horizon (no curve) Train tracks disappearing (or "converging") into the horizon due to perspective and a vanishing point. Our vision is obviously limited. (In either PT 14 or 15, even the end of a hotel hallway disappeared due to this same vanishing point.) In my vids, sunrays that splay in all directions (but on water surface, are actually seen as a parallel line of sunray.) I don't believe "Crepuscular rays" were what was in effect from the sun at the horizon over the train tracks. But do splay outward through clouds. They do appear to converge back into the seemingly apparently local sun location (not in your traintrack photo, but in my vids). The second video you posted shows this optical illusion, made possible by the fact that the extreme distance away removes the advantage of binocular vision giving depth perception. All the rays shown ARE parallel, but the portion of the rays near the earth surface are much, much closer than the portion of rays higher up, just as the RR tracks are far closer at the bottom of the pic then they are higher up. For that reason, placing a straight-edge ruler on the screen to estimate the altitude of convergence would fail or the same reason that doing it on the RR tracks in my pic would fail. For the Exact. Same. Reason. But see? Aren't you assuming an "optical illusion" AND "extreme distance" of the sun based on mathematical theories of cosmological distances? ( that's how Eratosthenes became involved in the 93 mil vs. 3,000 mi discussion.) Yes, there is some distortion and questions posed because of the fluctuations in lens focus; The vid is a shorty. It wasn't intended to resolve any question -- just demonstrate how parallel sunrays, angles, and distances are...THEORIES and relative. If you took your ruler and tried to measure angles according to formulas and convergence -- and as you say, "it failed," that *may* be true. But in every case? What if you're/they're using an erroneous baseline to begin with? (Just sayin') What I'm also saying is, we can't just take the word of mathematicians and scientists who devised the formula/theory 400 years ago as a default "fact." Heck -- we see the very same shut-down of challenge to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. We'd also seen the same of Darwin's Theory of Evolution banked and slammed in the vault of "established scientific" Dogma. I honestly thought my posted pic would expose the "crepuscular rays" for the illusion that they are, or at least for what they could be. I was wrong. Dunno if it was about you being right or wrong. Maybe its about why, who, and from whom a particular dogma was established and became etched in stone. If we were to take that second video at face value and say it was not an optical illusion and did triangulation, the sun would only be about twice the altitude of the clouds, which would mean there's no way it could be 3000 miles away. It would be much more like 5000 to 15,000 feet up. Even if the sun were only 3000 miles away, rays from it would still be very close to parallel in the few miles field of view shown in 2nd video. Well, maybe now in that case "optical illusion" is legit. It might provide a good challenge to those who claim the sun is indeed only 3,000 miles away. (Though it does appear to be MUCH closer than a sun that's "millions" of miles away. That number (3,000 miles) is actually one that has long been calculated and confirmed by several mathematicians/cosmologists between 1860-1920s. In 'Kings Detrones' (Gerrard Hickson), he addresses the calculations head on (short concise book, under 100 pages. Also a free read online.) Being a geometry guy, I'd assume you'd find his kind of stuff and tackling those formulas far more interesting than me. Exactly for the reasons you'd seek (either way of the debate.) The claim that the "official explanation" of these rays is that the atmosphere refracts the light is certain NOT true. That's a fake, strawman argument the narrator creates and then shoots down. While such atmospheric refraction does occur, it would not be noticeable to the naked eye for someone on the ground. The real reason: Optical illusion. Ping, that's ONE man's theory. Versus what seems to be a "scientific" consensus. Some of his own counter-theories may certainly be challenged. I'm not saying they can't. Two things are certain; "Optical Illusion" is a real phenomena. Both natural AND man-made. The problem seems to be that one side has on its side "Optical Illusion" for convenient cover; The other side, not so much, and NO benefit of doubt on *its* theories. That in itself creates a default censorship or shut-down if and when "scientific" Dogma is challenged. EVEN with respect to theories of Evolution, Big Bang, and the rest of that Magic Bag. I have to say I'm disappointed to have failed to convince you there's even one *possible* hole in this one single argument. I thought that would be easy with the pic I posted. Until or unless something or issue is *proven* without a shadow of doubt, there are always "holes" in any argument. Especially in and of Theories. The be honest, that photo was at best provided ambiguity -- as well as a few personal observations I'd shared. The "convincing" part from your perspective -- I didn't see it. Then again, I thought the balloon video of a non-moving, flat earth was "convincing." Here is the effect of a wide angle lens. We can agree that the courtyard shown in actually flat, but the effect of the wide angle lensing is to distort the left/right outside edges -- that are below the center of the image -- upward. The L/R outside edges above the image center would be distorted downwards. Note the roof of the building appears almost flat, which is due to it being very close to image center. The balloon video shown, if it used a wide angle lens, which would be the recommended choice for such a high altitude video, would similarly distort the L/R edges below the image center upwards, resulting in less earth curvature being recorded. In the video, the earth horizon is indeed below the image center, and I contend the distortion of the wide angle lensing matched very closely the natural earth curvature resulting in what appears to be a flat horizon. Perhaps that was even by design. We can note that the horizon remains below the image center in the video and moves very little. If the camera moved up and down, the wide angle distortion would be readily apparent. In fact, perhaps it is apparent with the small movements if very careful analysis is done. It was not my intent to disprove flat earth with that simple image. It was only to point out that the Crepuscular ray visual effect alone does not prove the sun is very close to the earth. I.e. it was to poke a hole in that one single argument. If I have created room for doubt on that single argument, then I succeeded.
One more pic: This purports to be "anti-crepuscular" rays. That is, rays of sunlight as viewed in the opposite direction from the sun. Facing the sun, you see crepuscular rays, but at sunset, turn around and you see might see this: I don't see how this could be any optical illusion formed by rays that are first seen diverging so strongly from a theoretical/illusionary nearby sun. Parallel rays could do this though.
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. Thanks for weighing in on your observations the original questions. (I wonder what others saw as well) At that 120,000 ft altitude, that balloon was at about the same general elevation as conducted by many NASA balloon/"satellites," mapping, weather observations, and everything else. It's "Satellites" ARE balloons. There is over-whelming video evidence by YouTube researchers that reinforce this to be the case. Even from NASA's own official docs. NASA-"Satellites" = Balloon Transport of equipment and gondolas. Not that I expect you to concede this to be the case. BUT...one day ;-) THAT said... IF the earth is indeed spinning at 1000 MPH, wouldn't one expect there to be *some* movement from the earth? Even a tiny bit? With respect to your conclusion that there was some distortion and flattening of the horizon due to lens anomaly or angle, I have indeed seen this kind of unintentional warping from fish-eyes and Go Pro lens. But in *those* cases, the distortions will routinely flux from concave to flat to inverted curve...repeatedly, depending on angles. Might your assumption be due to your expectation? Of *this* particular low-orbit balloon vid, I saw NO such fluctuation or distortion from that lens. At all. Moreover, I have watched innumerable *other* independent balloon video and not once witness any type of warping or lens distortion. It stayed FLAT. So...other than speculation of a possible lens flattening of the earth horizon, why not consider the strong possibility that your eyeballs merely interpreted the truth? ("Two of the lens and photos you submitted are obviously distorted in the extreme.") Of course, which illustrates well the varying degrees of distortion possible. Absolutely. I agree with you on the possibility AND probably of lens distortion at times -- depending on lens. With respect to the video at :37 seconds, and my notation that a different lens was used, revealing a flat, level earth, the elevation makes no difference. Whether 20', 200' or 20,000 up. Level is level. Note the roof of the building appears almost flat, which is due to it being very close to image center. Brutha -- We absolutely ad and certainly agree on the actual warping and distortion of lensing -- especially at the far outer edges as opposed to the center of the given subject. (cool photo btw.) In THIS case, even the photo-center and roofs aren't flat to my eyes; ALMOST, but, not really. The balloon video shown, if it used a wide angle lens, which would be the recommended choice for such a high altitude video, would similarly distort the L/R edges below the image center upwards, resulting in less earth curvature being recorded. In the video, the earth horizon is indeed below the image center, and I contend the distortion of the wide angle lensing matched very closely the natural earth curvature resulting in what appears to be a flat horizon. Perhaps that was even by design. [regarding the Balloon footage] We can note that the horizon remains below the image center in the video and moves very little. If the camera moved up and down, the wide angle distortion would be readily apparent. In fact, perhaps it is apparent with the small movements if very careful analysis is done. Even you have to concede -- your theory or possibility is a long stretch. Well...the camera IS attached to a balloon, remember. Why speculate and presume that camera to be a wide-angle lens whose distortion is creating an absolute level horizon? Would even a tiny bit of movement via scrutiny and analysis create distortion that would monetarily reveal even the most minute curvature?... IF this was the case, we can be absolutely positive Globe-Advocate would have exposed this anomaly, and...celebrating it. Even if we concede the slight possibility of a wide angle lens which might be distorting the far ends of the earth horizon, couldn't *that* be attributed more to limitations of our eye-sight? Maybe...maybe...the Horizon IS flat and level. And the "design" was merely to photograph the horizon's actual and true view. If there is a "natural earth curvature", how would we even determine it? Logic tells us NASA and its photos and vid should be THE gold standard. But oddly, its not the case 50 years later. Instead what we've gotten from NASA is...earth depicting far more extreme curvature than should be expected. And quite a bit of obvious fish-eye action. If anything -- and I think you'd agree -- NASA photographs and video have been consistently *inconsistent* and painfully lacking --if anything. For a Space agency that claims to have shot hundreds if not thousands of spacecraft and Satellites into earth orbit -- as well as several missions to the Moon and back -- wouldn't and *shouldn't* there be mountains of photographs AND video available of the Earth from countless angles and distances that put this entire question of the shape of our Realm/Globe to rest? It was not my intent to disprove flat earth with that simple image. It was only to point out that the Crepuscular ray visual effect alone does not prove the sun is very close to the earth. I.e. it was to poke a hole in that one single argument. If I have created room for doubt on that single argument, then I succeeded. Ping, I appreciate your perspective and challenge -- and any case, of any discussion. That's what a forum is about. Crepuscular rays. I agree. As stand-alone "evidence," is does not prove a "local, close sun." In *some* cases it may provide evidence that the sun is far closer than we are told. Moreover, as I've mentioned more than a few times, certain scientists & researchers (see Gerrard Hickson) have already concluded via geometric triangulation formulas that the sun is about 3,000 miles away. The subject of Crepuscular Rays does seem to pose additional challenges and questions for "Science" as well a mathematicians in re-explaining their original formulas for calculating distances to bodies in the Cosmos in the FIRST place. ALL unproven Theories should not be considered "Science" -- never mond dogma at that. Wild photo... I don't see how this could be any optical illusion formed by rays that are first seen diverging so strongly from a theoretical/illusionary nearby sun. Parallel rays could do this though. I concur; It's no optical illusion. How my eyeballs processed that photo: It appears to be a photo of a sunrise or sunset from *atop a much higher buff or elevation*....with the rays emanating from a much lower altitude, filtered through clouds. (any idea where that location is?) I see no reason to dismiss the notion of a possible local sun from that amazing photo. I think this simulation is actually pretty lame and most of the A.I. NPR's in it really do not seem to give me the impression that anything is real.
"Call Me Ishmael" -Ishmael, A character from the book "Moby Dick" 1851. "Call Me Fishmeal" -Osama Bin Laden, A character created by the CIA, and the world's Hide And Seek Champion 2001-2011. -Tommythemadartist
I am sure the gandy dancers in the old days would take issue with you on this. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Yes, it's local to our solar system, it's only 93 million miles away. Our next closest neighbors are a few light years away. As a 6 foot tall person can see the horizon at 3 miles away, the earth drops 6 feet every 3 miles. So that is a drop of 2 feet per mile. Are you claiming that a 2 foot drop over a one mile distance would affect the construction of the train tracks? Are you claiming that a person can visually discern a 2 foot drop over a distance of a mile? Did you know that Darwinists are the ones who have pushed the flat earth theory as being a Christian belief in order to make Christians appear ignorant and stupid? It goes way back before that, but the Christian Church never said the earth was flat. creation.com/who-invented-the-flat-earth BTW, do you think the cell phone or computer you're using works by way of voodoo? I don't think they believe in planets, they think they're light bulbs or something. Just ask him why an object falls to the ground when dropped. He can't explain it, because he doesn't believe in weight. Weight is obviously the force of gravity. First off, I'll believe you when you can show me the calculations and prove them correct. Secondly, do you know what the original Hebrew meaning for the word Firmament used in the King James Bible actually is? http://answersingenesis.org/cont...e/underneath-a-solid-sky/ Nice article on how the distance to the sun was determined back in the 18th century. What's fascinating is that the Greeks calculated the approximate distance to the moon over 2000 years ago. Great article. Here is an excerpt: French astronomer Jerome Lalande collected all the data and computed the first accurate distance to the Sun: 153 million kilometers, good to within three percent of the true value! Now we know the truth. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Check this brief vid out... Ping, this is as definitive a capture of Crepuscular Rays as I've seen. It appears to project what appears to be the location of the sun based on its geometry. As one whose forte is indeed geometry, what do you think of it? Follow these splayed-out Crepuscular Rays up into their convergence point into the clouds. The camera scans the rays angling out from the left, from the far right, and...then smack dab in the center where the Rays shoot straight down. Could these or do these Crepuscular Rays suggest a possible fairly local sun? From my own perspective and sense of geometry (and tossing out any pre-conceived bias based on prior "knowledge" of others), I can't see how the light of a sun that is supposedly 93 million miles away could possibly have its sunrays splayed to either side in exactly that manner...and then also straight down from appears to be THE projected solar epicenter. *trying to process....:-)*
That offers no new perspective than the previous vid. It's an optical illusion. The missing ingredient that makes it an illusion is depth perception. Our minds tell us they are the same distance away, in which case the sun would indeed have to be about twice the cloud height, but the rays near the clouds are instead much farther away, just like RR tracks are farther away at the point where the disappear in the distance. But there's no illusion with tracks as our minds already understand what's going on, and when standing on tracks, our 3D perception isn't lost with the rails. In any event, if you think the sun is 3000 miles away -- about the same as the width of the USA -- then in this video which covers perhaps an area of only 5 miles wide, the rays would be about parallel anyway, very little different from the sun being 93 million miles away, so you have virtually the same problem as I do in explaining the video as the degree of ray divergence should only be something like 0.5 degrees at most (On a face clock, that would be about 1/10th of the angle between the 12:00 and 12:01).
It's an optical illusion. I differ 100%. What we see is...Physics. Geometry. Why can't you trust your own eyeballs? Why isn't a "local sun (based just on this video possible? The missing ingredient that makes it an illusion is depth perception. Sure...but then as in nearly every equation in question, we must connect the dots. In this case they seem fairly easy. As in simply, 2 + _ = 4. Those sunray angles are dots to connect. Our minds tell us they are the same distance away, in which case the sun would indeed have to be about twice the cloud height, but the rays near the clouds are instead much farther away... I get it. If we're debating distance and definition of "local," THAT is debatable. In any event, if you think the sun is 3000 miles away -- about the same as the width of the USA -- then in this video which covers perhaps an area of only 5 miles wide, the rays would be about parallel anyway, very little different from the sun being 93 million miles away, so you have virtually the same problem as I do in explaining the video as the degree of ray divergence should only be something like 0.5 degrees at most... You pose an interesting theory and projection. But I disagree with your assessment that in both the case of 3,000 distance as well as 93 mil mi away, the degree of ray divergence or Crepuscularity would be so similar. A sun from such a far distance of 93m miles could not geometrically bend or splay out like that in multiple LOW directions. With respect to the railroad tracks, that's a simple answer; it's no illusion either. Just the convergence point that ALWAYS disappears into the distance due to our limitation in sight. In one of the prior vids, the same disappearing convergence is seen...down a hotel hallway. Gandy dancers were those guys that drove spikes to keep rails in place when they were building the railroads. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#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)
#6. To: Liberator (#2)
The sun's rays present a few conundrums for the realm/science curious...
Triangulation measurements indicate the sun is actually only around 3,000 miles away from earth,
#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?
#9. To: Liberator (#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.
#10. To: Pinguinite (#6)
(Edited)
("The sun's rays present a few conundrums for the realm/science curious...")
#11. To: Liberator (#10)
Until or unless something or issue is *proven* without a shadow of doubt, there are always "holes" in any argument.
#12. To: Liberator (#10)
#13. To: Pinguinite (#9)
I see no curve in that balloon video, and no movement.
#14. To: Pinguinite (#11)
Here is the effect of a wide angle lens. We can agree that the courtyard shown in actually flat, but the effect of the wide angle lensing is to distort the left/right outside edges -- that are below the center of the image -- upward. The L/R outside edges above the image center would be distorted downwards.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#12)
This purports to be "anti-crepuscular" rays. That is, rays of sunlight as viewed in the opposite direction from the sun. Facing the sun, you see crepuscular rays, but at sunset, turn around and you see might see this...
#16. To: Liberator (#0)
#17. To: Liberator (#2)
(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?)
#18. To: Liberator, Pinguinite (#15)
I see no reason to dismiss the notion of a possible local sun from that amazing photo.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination 
#19. To: Liberator, Pinguinite (#2)
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?
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#20. To: Liberator (#4)
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.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#21. To: BTP Holdings (#3)
Then we would be nice and toasty here just like Mercury is. ;)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#22. To: Pinguinite (#6)
They pose a conundrum only for flat earthers.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#23. To: Liberator (#2)
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 ;-)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#24. To: All (#23)
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#25. To: FormerLurker (#24)
(Edited)
How did we find the distance to the sun?
#26. To: Pinguinite (#12)
#27. To: BTP Holdings (#17)
#28. To: Liberator (#26)
#29. To: Pinguinite (#28)
That offers no new perspective than the previous vid.
#30. To: Liberator (#27)
*trying to process....:-)*
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest