CathInfo.com

Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?

.
The 120m tall object 60 km away would appear twice as tall (40m) compared to the 20m tall object 20 km away.

Not sure what you're getting at here. The video seems to be arguing perspective.
Here's the question, then. In a flat earth world, for an observer at the same level as their bases, can you say which of these should appear taller: a 20m tall object that is 20 km away, or a 120m tall object that is 60 km away?
If that's not enough information to decide, what other factors would you need to know?

.
Stanley N, don't you know it's a hate crime to math a flat-earther?
.
Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger's Cat
1 year ago
Babeaba, You mathed A Bertinasco.  It is a hate crime to math an FE person.
.

.
Here is a flat-earther attempting to jump topic (Gleason's Plane, alias Mark Jamus)
.
Gleason's Plane [a.k.a. Mark Jamus]
1 year ago
Wolfie6020 I'm not here to talk trash or insult, I'm genuinely curious and interested if you can properly explain to me how these things can be possible, first off, there are 2 videos by Dan Dimension, the first 1 is called "Flat Earth, The Rabbit Hole spotted from 108,000 feet !!!"  and the second video is called "Flat Earth ... Nasa footage reveals 470,000 ft and STILL FLAT !!!"

You don't have to watch them but at least explain why it still looks flat from that high up.
.
Wolfie6020
Wolfie6020
1 year ago
+Mark Jamus  Hi Mark,  Always happy to discuss things without insults.  I just looked at the latter video and you can clearly see it is using a fisheye lens.  

A fisheye lens can produce fake curvature but it can also flatten or even reverse real curvature.  Look at 1:44 in that video - pause it and see how the horizon is concave?  Obviously that is a fisheye lens so it will distort reality.

From my own personal experience though I can see curvature quite easily from 45,000 ft and higher.  People have claimed it is due to the window curvature but it is not and I have proof of that.  Also the curve was visible flying another jet years ago that had flat panel windows.

One thing I have noticed with Flat Earth channels is they pick and edit the footage carefully to only show the part of the video where the Horizon looks flat.  

The little piggy video is a perfect example.  Flat Earth channels never show you the entire footage.

If you watch all of them you will see the camera has a fisheye lens that actually flattens the horizon when it is just below mid frame.

Have you seen the balloon footage "High Altitude Balloon over South Florida"  That shows clear evidence of curvature and if you look at Cara Diann's channel it also shows how to analyse the footage correctly.  When you do, the curvature is always visible.
.
Requiem4aDr3Am
Requiem4aDr3Am
1 year ago
+Mark Jamus the first video is part of the favorite video that flat-earthers put out. Its set below the center of frame using a wide angled lens taking advantage of the barrel distortion. The video it is taken from is the little piggy weather balloon launch. If you watch the entire video anytime the earth's horizon crosses center frame you do indeed see the true shape and slight curvature. When the balloon pops this becomes clear as you can pause with it center frame and see the true shape.

The second video is taken through a small window porthole and obstructs the field of view enough so you will not see curvature. Its funny that flat earthers think things like field of view, barrel distortion, etc don't matter.

What you have shared are two videos that base everything on argument from incredulity and ignorance rather than actually pointing to valid evidence that disproves the globe or that supports a flat earth. The fact that there are so many videos out there of weather balloon footage and high altitude footage where proper field of view is established and it shows curvature completely dismantles flat earthers claims with this video footage found in those videos. It also shows dishonesty on the part of flat earthers.

This video shows an example of curvature with an observation that would be impossible on a flat earth. Why are you ignoring this video and instead trying to post flat earth propaganda that is easily dismissed?
.
Michael Onines
Michael Onines
1 year ago
Mark Jamus, both those videos are fish-eye lenses where the horizon is well below center of frame. Check out Dwayne Kellum's balloon 9 footage. Pretty clear look at the horizon, not a wide angle lens, and around 108k' you can get a screen grab right as the horizon crosses the center of frame and you will get about 4° of curvature, very close to what you would expect at that altitude with the field of view used.
.
Gleason's Plane
Gleason's Plane
1 year ago

Wolfie6020 Thanks for the detailed response, I lean more towards a flat Earth but I still try to be open minded about all this stuff, I find your work interesting nonetheless. Are ya gonna do a video about the upcoming solar eclipse by any chance? I look forward to seeing videos about it from both sides.
.
.
These comments were posted a few days before the August 21st 2017 total solar eclipse that swept all across America as predicted.
.
.
Gleason's Plane
Gleason's Plane
1 year ago
Another genuine question I have is that it is claimed that the other planets are spheres and so therefore Earth must also be a sphere. Firstly, Earth is a “plane” not a “planet,” so the shape of these “planets” in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these “planets” have been known for thousands of years around the world as the “wandering stars” since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, and NOT photographs.

The Copernican or Newtonian theory of astronomy is an "absurd composition of truth and error;" and, as admitted by its founder, "not necessarily true nor even probable;" that instead of its being a general conclusion derived from known and admitted facts, it is a heterogeneous compound of assumed premises, isolated truths, and variable appearances in nature. Its advocates are challenged to show a single instance wherein a phenomenon is explained, a. calculation made, or a conclusion advanced without the aid of an avowed or implied assumption.

Where are the practical evidential examples of a body of water naturally conforming to the exterior of a shape?

Also, The Sun brings noon to every time-zone as it passes directly over-head every 15 degree demarcation point, 24 times per day in its circular path over and around the Earth. If time-zones were instead caused by the uniform spinning of the ball-Earth around the Sun, every 6 months as Earth found itself on the opposite side of the Sun, clocks all over Earth would have to flip 12 hours, day would be night and night would be day.

Next, If the world is a sphere, why will the eclipse on August 21 2017 be seen visually moving West to East when the sun and moon move East to West?

I hope my questions here aren't too loaded but if anybody here can properly address each of these concerns I have, it would be appreciated, I lean more towards a flat Earth like I already said but I'm also curious about these questions I presented here and the potential answers I may get from asking them.
.
Wolfie6020
Wolfie6020
1 year ago (edited)
+Mark Jamus,  When the Sun and Moon are both visible during a Lunar Eclipse that is called a Selenelion Eclipse and is easily explained by normal refraction.    

When I do my time lapse videos of the Sun it always rises slightly in the video just before setting.  This is due to refraction,   All it takes is half a degree for the Sun and half a degree for the moon and both can be visible at the same time.

The practical example of Water clinging to a rotating ball is the Earth you are standing on.
.
Wolfie6020
Wolfie6020
1 year ago
+Quikee.  Thanks I was just thinking about the best way to set the camera for the 24 hour time lapse.  I might even use two at different angles.   Looking forward to it myself.  I'll let it run for 30 hours so we see two sun sets

Gleason's Plane
Gleason's Plane
1 year ago (edited)
Also, there's this, as early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky.  The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590, November 3rd, 1648, June 16th, 1666, and May 26th, 1668 the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still above the horizon.”  McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.”  Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.”  The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day.

To also expand off of what I said in my first message, the claim we are born into is that we live on a nature defying sphere pear. Fluxion calculus may well be able to cogently explain how trillions of tonnes of water theoretically could theoretically cling to a tilted, wobbling, spinning ball. However without the practical examples of water behaving this way in reality, this is merely a mathematical construct that began from a false axiom. Such mathematical obscurantism as the theory of relativity may overawe the simpleton and neophyte but now the common man is coming to see that these equations prove absolutely nothing without the practical reference in the natural world.

Those paying attention know mathematics to be a formal science and an artificial language that can be founded on false axioms. It is also clear that mathematics does not depend on empirical observation. Moreover, language can also be used to lie, confuse and stultify.

Those making the affirmative claim that vast bodies of water in nature behave in a manner where they will hold and display convexity are making an extraordinary claim. Despite the sophism and gaslighting, It is not upon any other to disprove.

These erroneous claims have no reference to the objective reality we share and are contrary to our daily experience and observation of water in the natural world.

Try to focus, it is not a difficult question to comprehend:
Can you provide a practical evidential example of a body of water conforming to the exterior of a shape
.
Requiem4aDr3Am
Requiem4aDr3Am
1 year ago
+Mark Jamus okay now I'm thinking you are a troll because you are doing a typical flat earther gish gallop of nonsense where you try to overwhelm with multiple false points that are arguments from incredulity and ignorance rather than evidence.

Planets are not luminious discs of light. If you have ever actually observed them through a telescope you will see they are indeed spheres that are illuminated by the very same sun that illuminates our planet earth. Furthermore we can use radio astronomy to confirm size, shape, distance, etc of the planets.  And there are plenty of images and videos of the planets observed through telescopes showing them as spheres with their moons which are also spheres or close to it all orbiting around.

And yes the earth is most definitely a planet as the globe is confirmed via observation, measurement, experiment, and calculation.

Why did you fail to answer my earlier question? Because you ignored it and went off on this gish gallop it makes you look like a troll.

A natural example of water conforming to exterior shape is earth. Furthermore we can observe this occurring on other celestial bodies in our own solar system such as a couple of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. In fact Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, has its entire surface covered in water and ice.

Funny thing about your quote mine is that it is from hundreds of years ago when people were just beginning to be able to observe planets with telescopes. Since then there have been a multitude of advances that have allowed us to examine and observe the other planets of our solar system. This includes satellites and rovers in some cases. So not only have we observed them with telescopes, radio signals, spectrum, etc., but we have also sent objects to orbit them, or even land on them, to get a close-up view.

Your question about the sun and positions, etc., is easily explained when you look at the actual time it takes for the earth to complete 1 rotation which is once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This means the earth is actually completing 360.9856° of rotation every solar day, or 24 hours. So in 6 months time it will have rotated nearly 1 full degree a day to compensate for the seasons and location on the other side of the sun by 180°. This keeps the sun rising and setting at a predicted time every day. So no, the clocks would not have to flip, and day and night would not switch.

When viewed from the north celestial pole, i.e. from the approximate direction of the star Polaris, the Moon orbits Earth anticlockwise and Earth orbits the Sun anticlockwise, and the Moon and Earth rotate on their own axes anticlockwise. Earth's moon exhibits prograde motion, meaning that it orbits Earth in the same direction that Earth is rotating on its axis. Viewed from above the North Pole, this is counter-clockwise. This is also the same direction in which Earth orbits the Sun, and the same direction in which the Sun rotates on its axis. The earth rotates west to east just as the moon orbits west to east. The moon is also 240,000 miles away orbiting at approximately 2288 mph as it takes over 27 days to complete an orbit around the earth. This means just as we observe the shadow of an eclipse will move west to east.

Lunar eclipses with the sun and moon are visible are called selenelion eclipses. They are easily explained by refraction as they only occur when the moon and sun are rising and setting at the same time. Furthermore we again have telescopes and radio telescopes all confirming locations.

I've already provided a couple of practical examples but hey there are videos out there where folks have demonstrated this using a simple baseball with water. Simply pour the water on the baseball and drop it. While it tumbles towards the ground you can record the water conforming to the shape of the baseball as it falls. Anyways already provided you with the examples of the earth as well as other celestial objects in our solar system.
Funny that you ask all these questions yet you haven't bothered to ask yourself why it is that there is no map or model for a flat earth that lines up with real world observation. It kind of makes you look like a troll.
.
Sly Sparkane
Sly Sparkane
1 year ago
"Has anyone really researched what lens Distortion really is?"
-yup...



.
Pauline Underground
Pauline Underground
1 year ago
Sly Sparkane not simulations but real video evidence of where the top of water starts to curve, if you show me this and I will believe in the "spinning ball earth", there has just been too much fraud presented that has been proven to be illegitimate, there's too many lies,

2


Sly Sparkane
Sly Sparkane
1 year ago
Pat... the movement of the camera does not cause the lens distortion.. otherwise it would be called movement distortion.. keyword in Lens distortion.. is the LENS..
Dogcam was also with lens distortion.. however the very location of the praised 'hotspot' pretty much damns FE anyways, because at no time in history (definitely not recent history) was the Sun directly over northern Poland... The bobble-head balloon was filmed with a GoPro H2..  are you going to make a single researched point in the near future?

2


Requiem4aDr3Am
Requiem4aDr3Am
1 year ago
it's obvious that A Bertinasco, Pat Falcey, Daniel Guevara, and Mark Jamus are nothing but trolls. They have nothing of intelligence to offer mankind.

3


Sly Sparkane
Sly Sparkane
1 year ago
Req... they do their movement proud...

.
There are over 300 more Replies all under the first comment by Wolfie6020.

.
Referring to the video on top in my previous post,
Here is one comment by the author that clearly explains what he has been answering with these videos regarding distortion:
.
.
David Murphy
David Murphy
2 years ago
Feel free to mock me for asking this but...  why is this distortion effect employed?  Is it for a wider field of view, because the effect is pleasing or does it suit some kind of pragmatic purpose that I'm not aware of?
.
Sly Sparkane
Sly Sparkane
2 years ago
+David Murphy (DaddyMonster) it is simply a distortion caused by the wide angle lens on the camera.. nothing more spectacular than that.. Greater field of view from 1 camera.. FEs like to say [effectively] that when the distortion flattens the horizon below the center at high altitudes, it means the Earth is flat.. Yet cry foul when the exaggerated curve is shown above center..
.
.
This is the same error that Ladislaus has bought into, which is why he cannot understand how high altitude cameras work.
.
Ladislaus weakly conforms to the flat-earthers' lie regarding wide angle lenses (that only when the horizon is below the center of the viewing frame is the flattening effect of distortion relevant, while pretending that the curvature exaggerated above center is some kind of violation); and likewise they deliberately overlook the relative heights of distant objects when compared to objects at closer range, because things far away look "smaller due to perspective."
.
Anyone with any experience in photography knows that when using a telephoto lens objects at great distance in the background appear relatively LARGER compared to foreground objects. Anyone can see this by having a man stand still 200 feet in front of a large object like a house, and take his picture with the house in the background with a wide angle lens. The house will appear small. Then keeping the man where he is, the cameraman moves away 200 feet further making it 400 feet to the house, and changes lenses to a 200 mm telephoto. Taking another picture, with the man the same size as in the wide angle shot, the house in the telephoto will appear much larger. Therefore it is a FALLACY to say that distant objects always appear smaller. Because when you zoom in on them they appear to be larger, and if you change the distance to the foreground subject, it can be quite deceptive.
.

.
For the record, this video (above) is now 2 years old.
The video it rebutts has since been taken down, apparently by the owner - a flat-earther who was embarrassed by being exposed.
The exposure is this video here, which near the end includes a few screen shots of the flat-earther's removed video.