Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Why Do Periscope Views Hide the Lower Hull of Distant Ships?  (Read 8507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why Do Periscope Views Hide the Lower Hull of Distant Ships?
« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2018, 02:15:03 AM »
.
You flat-earthers don't need any help making fools of yourselves.
.
The record of your posts stands for itself, showing how nonsensical and inside-out your thinking is.
.

Re: Why Do Periscope Views Hide the Lower Hull of Distant Ships?
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2018, 04:28:56 AM »
Define "model"  

.
Ships never disappear from the top down, first off, so that must be your fantasy world, again.
.
First you use a word then demand that someone else defines it?
Why should we be surprised --- flat-earthers most generally get the cart before the horse.
.
You ought to be the one to define model.
.
Then you posted another snow-globe "flat" earth, while you want someone else to define "model" ?
.

What is with all this arrogance.  You reek of it!  You are so condescending.  Do you really think that God is going to bless this prideful attitude of yours.  Do you think St. Lawrence would approve?  I think not!  

It is disgusting and it is scandalous for Catholics to behave this way.  


Re: Why Do Periscope Views Hide the Lower Hull of Distant Ships?
« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2018, 10:12:20 PM »
.
First you demand that someone should "Define model," then you run off on insults and nonsense.
Typical of flat-earther diatribe.
.
It's conspicuous that you don't like "model" because there is no way a model of your flat-earth Shangri-La fantasy world can work in reality.
.
The parts can't fit, and any way you slice it, it contradicts itself. Because it's FALSE.
.
Arrogance, reeking, condescending, prideful, disgusting and scandalous, but like a good Jew, you commit the crime as you accuse your victim. Are you Jєωιѕн? Or Protestant? (They learned it from the Jews.)
.
What is with all this arrogance.  You reek of it!  You are so condescending.  Do you really think that God is going to bless this prideful attitude of yours.  Do you think St. Lawrence would approve?  I think not!  

It is disgusting and it is scandalous for Catholics to behave this way.  
.
Your insults don't warrant a reply. But they won't go unopposed.
You are in error.
.
You are the arrogant one, and your smell is conspicuous.
Condescension is your middle name.
God will be my judge, and He'll be yours, too. So watch out.
.
St. Lawrence sees the spheroid earth from heaven and has no doubts either, just like I don't.
Because I have seen the earth's curvature, as I have explained already.
.
There is nothing for me to doubt.
Some day, you'll understand, but it might be too late for you by then.
.
Now go to confession and admit how wrong you've been.
.
Oh, right. You're not Catholic.
.
Again,
.
You flat-earthers don't need any help making fools of yourselves.
.
The record of your posts stands for itself, showing how nonsensical and inside-out your thinking is.
.

[....] this is a photo taken by a submarine while attempting to record a good image of a target ship. They wanted to get the most exposure of the target as possible, and if there were any rogue waves about they would have taken the shot while the target ship was on TOP of the crest with a trough in between the target and the periscope.

A photo taken almost certainly for confirming the identity of the target ship--the more of the hull & superstructure visible--the better.  Especially any unique markings or damage.  If not a prelude to attacking and sinking it, then perhaps just gathering specifics on fleet numbers & movements (e.g., when returning to port with no torpedoes left).  Sometimes it would be just plain foolish for a sub or dive-bomber to hang around to confirm the fate of a target ship that seems to have been hit, so confirmation will be delayed until the next allied sighting (e.g., thro' another sub's periscope).  And some sub-skippers were just more aggressive than others.

[....]  There are hundreds of movies showing periscope images, taken in calm seas, with no erratic waves making things unusual for cherry-picking. [....]  Try watching some WWII submarine movies with moving images of what the periscope showed.

Except that some of the more acclaimed WWII submarine movies were produced during that war, so, e.g., U.S. film crews for Destination Tokyo [×] certainly weren't going to have been able to film on-location in-&-around Tokyo Bay.  So what viewers see on-screen might be the work of a Hollywood special-effects team, often using model subs & ships in water tanks.

Consider instead the submarine footage in the 13 hours of the classic t.v. docuмentary Victory at Sea, which was famous for having been chosen from genuine photographic film made available by the U.S. Navy, including by being captured from the German or Imperial Japanese Navies.[†]

-------
Note ×: A great title for a movie about the daring carrier-launched "Doolittle Raid" (1942), but it was, in fact, a WW-II submarine movie.

Note †: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_at_Sea#Episode_list>.

Re: Why Do Periscope Views Hide the Lower Hull of Distant Ships?
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2018, 04:19:25 AM »
.
There are no periscope images in the Victory at Sea series.
.
All the footage is connected clips of film from various sources but they don't have any shots in the viewfinder of a periscope.
.
It makes sense, really, when a sub is at war and firing torpedoes the skipper probably wouldn't have any patience for a photographer setting up his movie camera on the periscope viewfinder. 
.