You're basically arguing that it's unscientific to climb to a higher vantage point to get better bearings, to gain increased knowledge about the location below that vantage point and it's surroundings, knowledge you may not so easily glean from the ground. Have you ever been orienteering? Do you get lost often?
OMG did we just discover a Flerf proof!?
This is globe earth content. The earth is a spinning spheroid. Tell everyone. Big Flattie is lying to you.
His talk of 35mm shows he has no clue what he's doing and has simply edited the footage to make the horizon flat throughout.
When you do such auto effects on Adobe software you are asked what lens was used to video the original footage, and there are many lenses to choose from all with different measurements. Based on their measurements the algo will make adjustments. If you don't know the original lens measurements, and I doubt this clown did, you can do it arbitrarily instead of choosing an exact measurement. This is probably what he did, arbitrarily edited the horizon to be flat throughout.
Be sure to check the video description for a details of how they calculated their red line curve. They even included their GNUplot code.
Wrong. The information in the description is exactly the same. He doesn't demonstrate that he knew the measurements of the "fish-eye" lens that he is "correcting" to look like "35mm", nor does he demonstrate that such "corrections" better reflect reality and do not result in further distortion, which given the state of the footage in the 2nd half of the video, they clearly seem to.
Furthermore, the "35mm" number refers to film negative, not a camera lens measurement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film
A camera that takes 35mm film can often use different lenses of a variety of sizes and types. Including, indeed, a fish eye lens, ironically enough.
It's funny that, as a filmmaker (as he describes himself) he is not aware of such things.
I'm sure you've noticed, given your keen observational skills, that the edited footage in the second half of the video has a stretched, more pixelated look to the original and has greatly increased linear jitters.
I think we must question the degree to which this youtuber (or whoever he stole the footage from) has "corrected" the image. How did he decide how much distortion to "remove" or "correct"? He gives zero details. How much fish eye effect was present in the original film? Does he know what exact type of lens was used? Was it a careful calculation to compensate for the exact amount of distortion in the lens...?
Or did he just keep going till the horizon looked flat?
My guess is it's the latter, especially given all the Flat Earth links he lists in the description, where he really should have detailed his calculations.
It is certainly, absolutely possible that they do, and there is evidence that would indicate they do.
what's not close about it? Explain the vast gulf of difference to me please? I'm a stupid globe earther.
Kind of like Britain refusing to return the Grecian Elgin Marbles - although they directly stole those, the Greeks weren't stupid enough to send them, lmao. My point is all governments, ruling "elite", aristocracy etc. are dens of thieves.
"The great thieves lead away the little thief."
Diogenes upon seeing a petty criminal arrested by authorities.
In photography, a rectilinear lens is a photographic lens that yields images where straight features, such as the edges of walls of buildings, appear with straight lines, as opposed to being curved. In other words, it is a lens with little or no barrel or pincushion distortion.
It doesn't sound wild, it sounds lacking in foundation and contrary to observations and reality.
Remind us why aren't actual "non balloon" satellites aren't possible?
on both occasions they were newly discovered photos of seeming significance because of the location and or the people in them. The article you posted is also a new discovery of significance. It's just your title, like I said. And there is more than just trump in those logs that could be of significance.
Thanks for admitting you made a claim without evidence. I do indeed object to such things when I see them, as I did in this thread.
I made no misleading claims in either title.
It's your title dude. You are claiming trump brought his child to be raped on a plane, when there is no evidence for that. It sensational editorializing.
The horror of being given a private jet flight to your destination. Someone must pay for this crime.
There have been independent rocket makers that have done just that and their videos show the curve of the earth developing as they get higher. No, they are not distorted, no they are not lying. I am correct in my estimation that FE is retarded and this forum is lucky to have me.
Well you're assuming rockets go where they say they go. Just for example, it's fairly certain the Saturn rockets never left LEO, and simply crashed into the middle of the pacific. So the highest photo they could have obtained would not have been able to frame the entire earth anyway. Yet they presented photos of the entire earth at that time, as if they were taken from space after the rocket got there.
So those fake images were made to convince people the rocket travelled into space, not to convince people the earth is flat. You see that scenario is very plausible, but the FE scenario is profoundly retarded. I hope that helps.
did he ever mention this before?
No one is paid to mod on conspiracies. We have about 100 users. I don't know or care about the rest of this website
No. Free speech.