Support NeoGAF

[MadAnon]

The site itself makes the Grumman claim, not the article being discussed, maybe read it again.

Just shows how clueless you flat earthers, fake moon landing loonies are. When you can't even properly read and understand your own sources.

This is literally what's written on your posted site.

The following article was published in August 1997 in Media Bypass. The author, James M. Collier, died in 1998. Mr. Collier's text appears in colored roman type. My comments appear indented in white italics intermingled with the text to which they refer. Where I intrude upon Mr. Collier's paragraphing, "[...]" appears.

Now read all the white parts that destroy that stupid article written in blue.

 

[Nymphae]

This is literally what's written on your posted site.
Now read all the white parts that destroy that stupid article written in blue.

Bro, the Grumman statement is in white. Read it again.

 

[Thaedolus]

Says who? You?

Yes, among many others who have put substantial thought into these things. Expecting something to be 100% proven is a “basic bitch” philosophy 101 error to make in deciding what’s real and what’s not. So let’s move past that into what’s most likely, and understand uncertainties aren’t all equal.

Can you at least accept that last point?

 

[MadAnon]

Bro, the Grumman statement is in white. Read it again.

And as you can see there's explenation for it.

 

[Thaedolus]

From my experience, globers tend to skip refutation and jump right to ridicule.

As well they should. At a certain point some people don’t want to know the truth and that willful drive toward being completely ignorant of our reality shouldn’t be coddled.

I think the faith I grew up in is preposterous now, but at least the faithful have 200-4000 years of fuzzy history to blur the details enough that I can get why they stick to it. Flat earthism is orders of magnitude dumber, given what a massive conspiracy would be required to trick everyone into believing this supposed lie of planets and space being real, to say nothing of no plausible motive for it. You’d probably have a better chance of convincing me The Smurfs was a documentary

 

[Nymphae]

And as you can see there's explenation for it.

I relayed the information about Grumman deleting everything - this is met with skepticism, you don't believe this. It does sound rather unbelievable. You want sources for this crazy claim.

I give you the link to where I found this out - you don't want to watch it. Can you do the work for me?

Ok sure, here's the link - you apparently skimmed this, then erroneously claimed that the article you just read does not make the statement about Grumman that it clearly does. LOL reading comprehension not your strong suit I see.

Just shows how clueless you flat earthers, fake moon landing loonies are. When you can't even properly read and understand your own sources.

What was that again?

I point out your error, you read it again, and come back with - ok now I understand why they destroyed all of the data for the only vehicle that has ever supposedly take a human to another celestial body. Makes sense to me.

 

[Weilthain]

man Nymphae is way better at dealing with the basic bitches than I am

Thaedolus I understand what you are saying. we have different views

 

[MadAnon]

I relayed the information about Grumman deleting everything - this is met with skepticism, you don't believe this. It does sound rather unbelievable. You want sources for this crazy claim.

I give you the link to where I found this out - you don't want to watch it. Can you do the work for me?

Ok sure, here's the link - you apparently skimmed this, then erroneously claimed that the article you just read does not make the statement about Grumman that it clearly does. LOL reading comprehension not your strong suit I see.



What was that again?

I point out your error, you read it again, and come back with - ok now I understand why they destroyed all of the data for the only vehicle that has ever supposedly take a human to another celestial body. Makes sense to me.

Yes, large parts of it doesn't exist anymore. I guess, that's your proof the module didn't work and moon landing was faked?

According to you, everything should've been preserved for what purpose? In case "fake moon landing" loonies want to build a lunar module?

Maybe you should also go look for full, detailed blueprints of the first transistor based computer and the first commercial plane. Blueprints of such significant inventions have to be preserved right? Otherwise it's open up for debate if these inventions existed and worked at all, right?

 

[Nymphae]

Yes, large parts of it doesn't exist anymore. I guess, that's your proof the module didn't work and moon landing was faked?

No this was simply my refutation to the user who smugly told Weilthain that you could easily find "Apollo 11 blueprints" via our trusted information processor Google. You cannot.

 

[MetalAlien]

Ok so my view on what this thing we are living on, what it is, how big it is, what shape it is, how it came to be etc is a big fat I don’t know.

most of our “evidence” for the globe and the heliocentric model, are based on ideas that were never scientifically proven using the scientific method, and often presuppose a spherical earth.

But you can see the curvature. Send a camera up in a weather balloon. Go up in a plane or balloon high enough and there it is. You don't believe in gravity why would the image of a flat earth bend away as it spreads out. Don't just give me your opinion.... prove it.

some good points I think are...(don’t answer back why it wouldn’t work on a flat earth, just prove it with the scientific method)

any proof of curvature- not obstruction due to perspective- curvature.

In the middle of a large ocean there is no obstruction... curves away at exactly the same point in all directions. And the higher you go from that point, the more horizon you can see. Until the curve goes behind the planet. You don't need NASA or the government to see this. You can buy a weather balloon, a Gopro, a little tracker to recover it and make a video all for yourself. As many have done.

what is the proof of earths radius?

Measurement of the curve you can easily see with the slightest effort. They even measured that ages ago before we had balloons or the ability to fly.

where is the proof of earths axial rotation?

You find it more likely that there are muilple suns that pass by us as exactly the same time every day? If the earth is flat the sun is moving in a straight line, that means each Sun we see in the morning is a different Sun. Why can't we see all these Suns lined up since everything is flat perspective would not hide them. Oh yea and shadows change and the length of days changes the farther up the globe you are based on rotation. Why in a flat earth would there be parts of the world where the sun never sets and others where it does?

prove gravity is real

prove that the Center of the earth is a self perpetuating molton iron core - dynamo theory isn’t proof it again requires the presupposition of a globe

how can a pressurised system exist next to a “lower pressure” vacuum? It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics don’t say gravity

Prove what the sun is Etc etc etc etc etc etc

————

Out of time I have to get ready for work.

 

[Nymphae]

But you can see the curvature. Send a camera up in a weather balloon. Go up in a plane or balloon high enough and there it is.

I've seen video where you can't though, so how does one account for that? I can account for perceived curvature due to lenses, that effect is easy to replicate, but I've seen videos from high altitude balloons that do a 360 rotation with a camera, and you see no curve at all. Horizon has risen to eye level, and there does not appear to be a curve.

I'll try and find the video that shows 2 balloon ascent computer models side by side, one based on the purported proportions of the earth and the other based on a flat earth model. The video simulates what a specific type of camera (with no lens distortions) would see on it's ascent to the upper atmosphere. The FE model video clearly matches closer to videos of high altitude balloon ascents than the model which is using the globe earth proportions. Indeed, on that model the curvature is very noticeable as you rise, the horizon is supposed to fall as you rise, and that is very noticeable in the simulation, and does not match video data.

Edit:


Here it is, I can't get timestamp from mobile, but start the video at 14:53 for the simulation

 

[MetalAlien]

I've seen video where you can't though, so how does one account for that? I can account for perceived curvature due to lenses, that effect is easy to replicate, but I've seen videos from high altitude balloons that do a 360 rotation with a camera, and you see no curve at all. Horizon has risen to eye level, and there does not appear to be a curve.

I'll try and find the video that shows 2 computer models, one based on the purported proportions of the earth and the other based on a flat earth model. The video simulates what a specific type of camera (with no lens distortions) would see on it's ascent to the upper atmosphere. The FE model video clearly matches closer to videos of high altitude balloon ascents than the model which is using the globe earth proportions. Indeed, on that model the curvature is very noticeable, the horizon is supposed to fall as you rise, and this is very noticeable in the simulation, and does not match video data.

Well you are going to have to provide that video. But why is there a limit to what you can see on a flat earth? As you go up why can't you see it all? Why can I call up someone far away and they say it's dark there and where i'm at it's daylight?

 

[MadAnon]

I've seen video where you can't though, so how does one account for that? I can account for perceived curvature due to lenses, that effect is easy to replicate, but I've seen videos from high altitude balloons that do a 360 rotation with a camera, and you see no curve at all. Horizon has risen to eye level, and there does not appear to be a curve.

I'll try and find the video that shows 2 computer models, one based on the purported proportions of the earth and the other based on a flat earth model. The video simulates what a specific type of camera (with no lens distortions) would see on it's ascent to the upper atmosphere. The FE model video clearly matches closer to videos of high altitude balloon ascents than the model which is using the globe earth proportions. Indeed, on that model the curvature is very noticeable, the horizon is supposed to fall as you rise, and this is very noticeable in the simulation, and does not match video data.

How did you determine "horizon has risen to the eye level?" Horizon level was marked on the lense before take off? And the camera was moving up perfectly still, perpendicularly to the earth to determine if there's drop in horizon level? Or it's the usual "It looked like that..."

 

[Weilthain]

MetalAlien

sorry bro



Pretty clear you haven’t done much looking into this stuff.

 

[Nymphae]

But why is there a limit to what you can see on a flat earth? As you go up why can't you see it all?

You can see a good shot at the beginning of the video called "Our Flat Earth Journey", by the Taboo Conspiracy channel. I've seen many videos like this from what appears to be the very height of the atmosphere, and it's flat as fuck as the camera turns. The video I linked above discusses the Red Bull jump which is pretty interesting. Some globers are like "look you can clearly see the curvature from some of the shots facing the earth above Felix" - but it's like, look at the earth in those shots man, New Mexico takes up the whole fucking globe! - it's very clearly a lens distortion, but these kinds of shots are absorbed as proof of curvature by many.

As for why we can't see forver, angular resolution, perspective. Your eyes cannot see forever. This is what the FE camera experiments try to prove with zooming cameras - a ship will disappear from your view over the horizon, due to the supposed curvature of the earth. So a camera should not be able to zoom in on it - it's literally hidden behind the ball from your perspective. But funnily enough, if you zoom far enough, it comes back into view.

 

[Nymphae]

How did you determine "horizon has risen to the eye level?"

Tell me what you think of the simulation video I posted, and how that compares to actual video footage.

 

[zeomax]

But funnily enough, if you zoom far enough, it comes back into view.

You asking always for proofs. Now its your turn, prove it with a picture or a video where this happens?

 

[Nymphae]

Show a picture or a video where this happens?

A picture by definition couldn't show this occurring lol. I'll find a video later for you, but there are many good video experiments on the Taboo Conspiracy channel though if you have the time to check it out. I need to get some work done lol.

 

[zeomax]

A picture by definition couldn't show this occurring lol.

Why?

 

[Weilthain]

You asking always for proofs. Now its your turn, prove it with a picture or a video where this happens?

there are hundreds of these videos showing missing curve etc

 

[Nymphae]

Why?

Because I'm talking about something that is perceived to have disappeared behind a physical barrier, and is reappearing in real time just by looking farther into the distance. A picture is only going to show you hidden or unhidden.

 

[zeomax]

there are hundreds of these videos showing missing curve etc

Now i am quite sure you are a troll.

Because I'm talking about something that is perceived to have disappeared behind a physical barrier, and is reappearing in real time just by looking farther into the distance. A picture is only going to show you hidden or unhidden.

You said if you zoom in it comes back into view. Why is it not possible to take a picture from something that you can see?

 

[Thaedolus]

there are hundreds of these videos showing missing curve etc

Because I'm talking about something that is perceived to have disappeared behind a physical barrier, and is reappearing in real time just by looking farther into the distance. A picture is only going to show you hidden or unhidden.

This is so obviously conflating two different things I’m seriously continually questioning if this is all just a massive troll...obviously objects far away are less perceptible to a camera with no zoom. Obviously adding a zoom will focus in on that object and you can go from imperceptible to perceptible. And obviously the size and curvature of the earth isn’t disproven by the fact you can zoom in and out on something to magnify it.

Fucking microscopes, how do they work?

 

[Nymphae]

You said if you zoom in it comes back into view.

Right, it will. Watch the experiment videos and tell us what's wrong with their methods or conclusions, instead of just calling Weilthain names.

Why is it not possible to take a picture from something that you can see?

If it's visible you can see it, if it's not it's not, what aren't you understanding here? A picture takes a picture of a state - it's visible to you or not. A video can record real time zooming and show an object that has "disappeared" coming back into view.

 

[Grinchy]

It's like we never lost Angular Saxophone

 

[Tesseract]

It's like we never lost Angular Saxophone

 

[JCK75]

I feel pretty sure the military branches of most governments are always working on new technologies that are intended to be kept secret, especially the US.. I have no doubts strange objects are witnessed I just don't believe they come from another planet.

 

[Weilthain]

Now i am quite sure you are a troll.

you can’t keep saying that forever. It doesn’t hold water like a ball


why not look into this stuff first, this is getting hilarious, almost feel bad for some of you.

by the way I’m about to start drinking beer so I’m going to try stay out of this for a while, no guarantees.

ill probably do some jokes but the serious stuff I will leave from now on until tomorrow

this is NeoGAFlat

 

[Ornlu]

I'm still completely not seeing "the point" of a conspiracy to convince everyone for thousands of years that the Earth is round, if it isn't. There's no incentive.

Like, even if you believe it's flat, or a donut, or a turtle, or the matrix or some shit...whatever you believe doesn't have any impact on your reality, right? You still walk on the same Earth as everyone else. Is there some deeper secret that flat earthers believe in that is somehow revealed to them via believing in a flat earth? I really don't see the impetus for someone to dive down the rabbit hole and then decide for themselves "you know, everyone else is wrong, this one youtuber is clearly correct".

 

[Tesseract]

I'm still completely not seeing "the point" of a conspiracy to convince everyone for thousands of years that the Earth is round, if it isn't. There's no incentive.

Like, even if you believe it's flat, or a donut, or a turtle, or the matrix or some shit...whatever you believe doesn't have any impact on your reality, right? You still walk on the same Earth as everyone else. Is there some deeper secret that flat earthers believe in that is somehow revealed to them via believing in a flat earth? I really don't see the impetus for someone to dive down the rabbit hole and then decide for themselves "you know, everyone else is wrong, this one youtuber is clearly correct".

sure is fun tho

 

[Thaedolus]

I'm still completely not seeing "the point" of a conspiracy to convince everyone for thousands of years that the Earth is round, if it isn't. There's no incentive.

Like, even if you believe it's flat, or a donut, or a turtle, or the matrix or some shit...whatever you believe doesn't have any impact on your reality, right? You still walk on the same Earth as everyone else. Is there some deeper secret that flat earthers believe in that is somehow revealed to them via believing in a flat earth? I really don't see the impetus for someone to dive down the rabbit hole and then decide for themselves "you know, everyone else is wrong, this one youtuber is clearly correct".

Did you watch that zoom in video tho

 

[Ornlu]

sure is fun tho

100%!

It'd make for a hell of a movie/game.

"But what if, like"

*rips bong*

"All of science and history was wrong for 3,000+ years, and there was a secret lizardpeople illjewminati conspiracy to keep the normies controlled and convinced that we live on a globe and..."

 

[Nymphae]

Did you watch that zoom in video tho

What was wrong with it?

 

[zeomax]

A video can record real time zooming and show an object that has "disappeared" coming back into view.

That's what i am asking for.

 

[Nymphae]

obviously objects far away are less perceptible to a camera with no zoom. Obviously adding a zoom will focus in on that object and you can go from imperceptible to perceptible

But it's supposed to be hidden by a physical barrier (the curvature of the ball), and zooming wouldn't bring it back into view if that were the case.

 

[Thaedolus]

What was wrong with it?

Nobody disputes you can zoom in on far away objects. It neither proves nor disproves anything

But it's supposed to be hidden by a physical barrier (the curvature of the ball), and zooming wouldn't bring it back into view if that were the case.

Simple explanation: the subjects of the video were not far enough away to be over the horizon and obstructed.

 

[Nymphae]

Nobody disputes you can zoom in on far away objects. It neither proves nor disproves anything

See above, where is the curvature. There are hundreds of videos of people filming things at a distance that would make viewing it impossible according to the globe model. Objects beyond the horizon are supposed to drop 8 inches per mile squared. You can watch the videos and do calculations for yourself. You can't bring something back into view that went behind a downward curve in front of you by simply looking farther.

 

[Nymphae]

Simple explanation: the subjects of the video were not far enough away to be over the horizon and obstructed.

lol, not according to the curvature calculations.

 

[Ornlu]

See above, where is the curvature. There are hundreds of videos of people filming things at a distance that would make viewing it impossible according to the globe model. Objects beyond the horizon are supposed to drop 8 inches per mile squared. You can watch the videos and do calculations for yourself. You can't bring something back into view that went behind a downward curve in front of you by simply looking farther.

How far away are the objects, and how tall are the objects being viewed?

 

[Nymphae]

How far away are the objects, and how tall are the objects being viewed?

Varies per experiment, look into them if you're genuinely curious.

 

[zeomax]

A video can record real time zooming and show an object that has "disappeared" coming back into view.

You can't bring something back into view that went behind a downward curve

I am confused.

 

[Thaedolus]

See above, where is the curvature. There are hundreds of videos of people filming things at a distance that would make viewing it impossible according to the globe model. Objects beyond the horizon are supposed to drop 8 inches per mile squared. You can watch the videos and do calculations for yourself. You can't bring something back into view that went behind a downward curve in front of you by simply looking farther.

8 inches per mile squared? What does square mileage have to do with the distance between two objects? Do you have the actual coordinates of the object in the video and the videographer? The height of the ship above the water line? Have YOU done the calculations? A cruise ship would need to be 20 miles out to be completely obscured by the horizon based on 8” per mile, does that ship look anywhere near that far? What’s more likely: everything we know about the universe so far is wrong, or you or this YouTube account overlooked something simple like one of these questions?

EDIT holy shit I’m pretty sure I fucked up that cruise ship calculation too and it would be 12x that distance? Goddamn imperial measurements. I don’t even know or have time to recheck how to calculate it, but see how easy a mistake like that can be made?

 

[Ornlu]

Varies per experiment, look into them if you're genuinely curious.

I haven't seen anything showing a ship actually over the horizon; you can have a ship not visible to the naked eye, yet still not be over the horizon. If the ships were "going over" the horizon, you would only be able to see the top of the ship, and it would disappear from the bottom as it moved away. There are videos available of that, as well.

 

[AV]

Wtf?

You're trying to argue with two people who linked a video of objects that haven't actually gone over the horizon. Objects that you can actually see at the end of the clip if you aren't blind. Hell, In the 2nd piece of footage they're no where fucking near the horizon. You could reasonably swim to those boats.

This is why it's best for your own mental wellbeing not to engage. It's never going to end because these people are legitimately mentally ill and you won't convince them otherwise, even though you could literally go and watch boats sail over the horizon, with a telescope if you want, tomorrow, rather than linking YouTube videos.

 

[Nymphae]

Wtf?

You're smarter than this.

A video can record real time zooming and show an object that has "disappeared" coming back into view.

You can't bring something back into view that went behind a downward curve

Disappear was put in quotes because it's not actually disappearing. It is moving too far away for you to be able to resolve the image with your eyesight. It has not moved behind the physical barrier of the earth, but simply far enough away that your eyesight cannot perceive it any longer. It's still on the flat plane, and will become visible again if you are able to look farther, as you can with a zooming camera.

I am saying that if the globe model were correct, an object would at some distance literally be hidden completely by the earth itself. And in that model, no amount of zooming would be able to bring that object back into view.

 

[Nymphae]

If the ships were "going over" the horizon, you would only be able to see the top of the ship, and it would disappear from the bottom as it moved away. There are videos available of that, as well.

I can link you to some videos that show why this is the case, angular resolution prevents you from seeing things from the bottom up at maximum viewable distances, meaning you will lose sight of the bottom of objects first, this is easily demonstrable.

 

[zeomax]

I am saying that if the globe model were correct, an object would at some distance literally be hidden completely by the earth itself. And in that model, no amount of zooming would be able to bring that object back into view.

Uhm, yes thank you for showing us that the earth is round.

 

[Nymphae]

Yes that's exactly what happens. Very easy to see on every beach.

I disagree, many experiments have shown that we are able to see farther than the globe model would allow, and the reason given is typically that you're viewing a mirage caused by atmospheric light refraction.

Edit: I really appreciate the gold Weilthain ! thanks!

 

[Weilthain]

This is amazing

people do these experiments and log all this stuff. Where they are, what height they are, how much curvature should be there.


Also depending on atmospheric conditions you can get a miraging effect where the horizon and sky literally merge together making things disappear, it’s fascinating stuff

 

[MadAnon]

Tell me what you think of the simulation video I posted, and how that compares to actual video footage.

I watched the video and it showed horizon was lower than his yellow line when the capsule was in the air. So he proved that horizon actually did drop? Besides, we don't know how much the capsule was tilting. Something that would make his measurments pointless. A tiny 3 degree forward tilt in the air would make huge difference. You can use this tool yourself and see how much a few degree tilt moves the horizon/eye-level. We also don't know what's the field of view on that camera. Wide angle lense would make the horizon drop look smaller than in the simulation that uses only 60+ degree field of view. You can change field of view and see for yourself.

Finding the Curvature of the Earth

With the help of a simulation, I show, up to what altitudes the earth appears flat, although it actually has a spherical shape. Using some animations, you can learn how to recognize the curvature of the earth, or in what circumstances it appears flat. The simulation can also simulate refraction...

walter.bislins.ch

Comparing Baumgartner video to perfect simulation is stupid to say the least.