It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flat earth theory?

page: 84
14
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Look at the image of what they claim to be the southern stars going around a central southern star...

Where is the central southern star in the image?

It is not at the southern pole, for one thing. I've never seen stars circle halfway up the horizon before, either.

This is not similar to the northern motion of stars, which circle the direct north star at the center. Which is in the true north sky above Earth.

Why haven't they gone to Antarctica, isn't it the southern pole?

No reason they are in Australia to see the Southern Star, of course. It's above the horizon, see?


That's nice to believe it's the Southern Star, while the southern pole is above a horizon in Australian skies!


Why do the stars dip halfway under the horizon? It's only a half-circle we see here, what about the other half-circle?

Aren't there other images of this, from other locations? I'd like to see them, as well.


Any images of the 'Southern Star' which are directly shot at the southern pole?


Where is the southern star you think is at the southern pole?


There is no visible star directly at the celestial south pole like Polaris is in the north. There is a visible star 1 degree away called Sigma Octantis, but it is just barely visible, and only when conditions are very dark. The Southern Cross, or Crux, is several degrees from the celestial south pole, but it is sometimes used to tell direction because it points to the celestial south pole

Here is a good video showing star trail rotations as seen in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere, each looking in all four cardinal directions.

Interestingly, because the person who posted this video didn't understand what he was looking at, he incorrectly thought the video proved a flat Earth, and posted it for that reason. However, this video actually shows exactly what would be expected from a globe Earth.



edit on 2019/3/30 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: turbonium1

Because it's fun to watch you fail, please tell me the azimuth and inclination of where I would need to look tonight in Sydney, Australia to see Polaris. If you can't provide this information, the Earth can't be flat, it's really that simple, you can prove all of us wrong by providing two angles, it's literally that simple to destroy this 2000+ year old hoax, one simple star will prove everything you believe as correct. I look forward to your answer.


Awesome post. I see another turbo rant coming......



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Did you miss me ?

OK you win I wasn’t on Concorde. Now let’s move on.

Here’s the flat earth sun model it turns in a counter clockwise motion overhead .

You’re going to post a silly video like this that apparently only flat earthers observe on a regular basis. Then claim the sun shrinks until it disappears .



Here’s a GIF of a sunset under magnification with the sun going over the Horizon. The green flash is a nice touch .





Here’s a picture of a normal sunset.



Go,,,...

edit on 30-3-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-3-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Nothin

Did you miss me ?

OK you win I wasn’t on Concorde. Now let’s move on.

Here’s the flat earth sun model it turns in a counter clockwise motion overhead .

You’re going to post a silly video like this that apparently only flat earthers observe on a regular basis. Then claim the sun shrinks until it disappears .



Here’s a GIF of a sunset under magnification with the sun going over the Horizon. The green flash is a nice touch .





Here’s a picture of a normal sunset.



Go,,,...


Didn't miss you.

Questions asked of you: 9
Answers: 0.

Perhaps you're the same guy that had the profile: 14377; well dozens of questions were asked of them, and no answers were ever given.

And you want to move-on now?

Why are you posting FE vids?

Not really interested in exchanging with know-it-all know-nothings.

edit on 31-3-2019 by Nothin because: sp



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

A random video with no context, with no indication of type of len used, with no indication if upper atmospheric conditions was making the sun look bigger because of haze and glow in the upper atmosphere, with clearer atmospheric conditions at the horizon making the sun look smaller and more defined.



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Also using a large camera aperture and focusing the camera to be in sharp focus on the horizon would give the sun a large hazy effect farther away it is from the sharp focus point. In other words when the sun is high in the sky. As the sun grows closer to the point of sharp focus, it’s going to look smaller and well defined.

Stange in the video, the sun looks glowing and largely undefined while high in the sky. Then looks smaller and well defined as it comes to the point the lens is set for sharper focus.

The video is nothing more than a testament that a 3D world is distorted when placed on to a 2D image. And the way the sun looks is dependent on atmospheric conditions, camera aperture, lens type, and how and where the lens is focused to.


edit on 31-3-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin
...
The video is nothing more than a testament that a 3D world is distorted when placed on to a 2D image. And the way the sun looks is dependent on atmospheric conditions, camera aperture, lens type, and how and where the lens is focused to.


So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'?
Any? Some? All? None?



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin
...
The video is nothing more than a testament that a 3D world is distorted when placed on to a 2D image. And the way the sun looks is dependent on atmospheric conditions, camera aperture, lens type, and how and where the lens is focused to.


So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'?
Any? Some? All? None?


It doesn’t matter what camera tricks flat esrthers use. The below simple and elegant post kills the flat earth theory


originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: turbonium1

Because it's fun to watch you fail, please tell me the azimuth and inclination of where I would need to look tonight in Sydney, Australia to see Polaris. If you can't provide this information, the Earth can't be flat, it's really that simple, you can prove all of us wrong by providing two angles, it's literally that simple to destroy this 2000+ year old hoax, one simple star will prove everything you believe as correct. I look forward to your answer.



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
With the linked to video in the post below with more substance the earth is not flat.


originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1
Look at the image of what they claim to be the southern stars going around a central southern star...

Where is the central southern star in the image?

It is not at the southern pole, for one thing. I've never seen stars circle halfway up the horizon before, either.

This is not similar to the northern motion of stars, which circle the direct north star at the center. Which is in the true north sky above Earth.

Why haven't they gone to Antarctica, isn't it the southern pole?

No reason they are in Australia to see the Southern Star, of course. It's above the horizon, see?


That's nice to believe it's the Southern Star, while the southern pole is above a horizon in Australian skies!


Why do the stars dip halfway under the horizon? It's only a half-circle we see here, what about the other half-circle?

Aren't there other images of this, from other locations? I'd like to see them, as well.


Any images of the 'Southern Star' which are directly shot at the southern pole?


Where is the southern star you think is at the southern pole?


There is no visible star directly at the celestial south pole like Polaris is in the north. There is a visible star 1 degree away called Sigma Octantis, but it is just barely visible, and only when conditions are very dark. The Southern Cross, or Crux, is several degrees from the celestial south pole, but it is sometimes used to tell direction because it points to the celestial south pole

Here is a good video showing star trail rotations as seen in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere, each looking in all four cardinal directions.

Interestingly, because the person who posted this video didn't understand what he was looking at, he incorrectly thought the video proved a flat Earth, and posted it for that reason. However, this video actually shows exactly what would be expected from a globe Earth.





posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin
...
The video is nothing more than a testament that a 3D world is distorted when placed on to a 2D image. And the way the sun looks is dependent on atmospheric conditions, camera aperture, lens type, and how and where the lens is focused to.


So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'?
Any? Some? All? None?


It doesn’t matter what camera tricks flat esrthers use. The below simple and elegant post kills the flat earth theory


Did you just change the subject, and completely ignore the questions to your previous statements?




A random video with no context, with no indication of type of len used, with no indication if upper atmospheric conditions was making the sun look bigger because of haze and glow in the upper atmosphere, with clearer atmospheric conditions at the horizon making the sun look smaller and more defined.


and...




Also using a large camera aperture and focusing the camera to be in sharp focus on the horizon would give the sun a large hazy effect farther away it is from the sharp focus point. In other words when the sun is high in the sky. As the sun grows closer to the point of sharp focus, it’s going to look smaller and well defined. Stange in the video, the sun looks glowing and largely undefined while high in the sky. Then looks smaller and well defined as it comes to the point the lens is set for sharper focus. The video is nothing more than a testament that a 3D world is distorted when placed on to a 2D image. And the way the sun looks is dependent on atmospheric conditions, camera aperture, lens type, and how and where the lens is focused to.


My questions were:




So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'? Any? Some? All? None?



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

I made my point clear. The video used settings, lens, and atmospheric conditions to create a undefined glowing blur of a sun while it was higher in the sun. The reason the sun looks like it became smaller is that it went from an out of focus blur in hazy atmospheric conditions to a defined shape in sharp focus with clearer atmosphic conditions at the horizon.

You


So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'? Any? Some? All? None?


Only a troll or idiot doesn’t understand a 2D picture is not real in the context its a lower captured image of a very real and complex 3D world. Photography/videography uses exposure, aperture, lens, focal point, focus, and depth of field to manipulate a 3D world on to a 2D imagine.

Much information is lost when a picture of the 3D world is distorted in to a 2D picture. Video equipment and settings shape what distortions take place.

One example. A fog or mist can have complex and visible swirls and visible currents. Take a picture of those delicate misty structures, those complex items are lost in the negative. There is no depth to a photo, so those complex swirls just become a uniform white blob in the picture.

edit on 31-3-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Now we beat to death your quote of:


So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'? Any? Some? All? None?



It doesn’t matter what camera tricks flat esrthers use. The below simple and elegant post kills the flat earth theory



originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: turbonium1

Because it's fun to watch you fail, please tell me the azimuth and inclination of where I would need to look tonight in Sydney, Australia to see Polaris. If you can't provide this information, the Earth can't be flat, it's really that simple, you can prove all of us wrong by providing two angles, it's literally that simple to destroy this 2000+ year old hoax, one simple star will prove everything you believe as correct. I look forward to your answer.

edit on 31-3-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

You cannot answer to:

“please tell me the azimuth and inclination of where I would need to look tonight in Sydney, Australia to see Polaris. If you can't provide this information, the Earth can't be flat,”

Because flat earth is a blatant lie.



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
is this image :



real - yes // no ??



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

Yup 14377 here I gave that last account up because the mobile I was on wouldn’t let me use

And I just answered your dozen questions I am edit you were right. You’re the man your logic is unfathomable and you destroyed me on the picture from the Concorde . I am all by your presence and wish someone would build a statue to your name .


Now let’s move on to the next example can you please address it ?

A man with your insight and intelligence should be able to tackle more than one angle .

Just saying



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Why would you think we have always had the exact same stars, the exact same constellations of stars, for thousands of years, if the Earth was speeding through space for thousands of years, all alone, while all the stars are light years away from Earth, speeding through space randomly, at the same time Earth flies randomly through space....?


Randomly? Who says?



The reason we have always had the same stars above Earth for thousands of years is simple - the same stars have always been above Earth, below the firmament, and they always will be the same stars, as well.


Is this firmament made out of magic glass?



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Nothin

Yup 14377 here I gave that last account up because the mobile I was on wouldn’t let me use

And I just answered your dozen questions I am edit you were right. You’re the man your logic is unfathomable and you destroyed me on the picture from the Concorde . I am all by your presence and wish someone would build a statue to your name .


Now let’s move on to the next example can you please address it ?

A man with your insight and intelligence should be able to tackle more than one angle .

Just saying


I probably should’ve taken the time to edit that post . 🤦‍♂️



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

I made my point clear. The video used settings, lens, and atmospheric conditions to create a undefined glowing blur of a sun while it was higher in the sun. The reason the sun looks like it became smaller is that it went from an out of focus blur in hazy atmospheric conditions to a defined shape in sharp focus with clearer atmosphic conditions at the horizon.

You


So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'? Any? Some? All? None?


Only a troll or idiot doesn’t understand a 2D picture is not real in the context its a lower captured image of a very real and complex 3D world. Photography/videography uses exposure, aperture, lens, focal point, focus, and depth of field to manipulate a 3D world on to a 2D imagine.

Much information is lost when a picture of the 3D world is distorted in to a 2D picture. Video equipment and settings shape what distortions take place.

One example. A fog or mist can have complex and visible swirls and visible currents. Take a picture of those delicate misty structures, those complex items are lost in the negative. There is no depth to a photo, so those complex swirls just become a uniform white blob in the picture.



originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nothin

I made my point clear. The video used settings, lens, and atmospheric conditions to create a undefined glowing blur of a sun while it was higher in the sun. The reason the sun looks like it became smaller is that it went from an out of focus blur in hazy atmospheric conditions to a defined shape in sharp focus with clearer atmosphic conditions at the horizon.

You


So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'? Any? Some? All? None?


Only a troll or idiot doesn’t understand a 2D picture is not real in the context its a lower captured image of a very real and complex 3D world. Photography/videography uses exposure, aperture, lens, focal point, focus, and depth of field to manipulate a 3D world on to a 2D imagine.

Much information is lost when a picture of the 3D world is distorted in to a 2D picture. Video equipment and settings shape what distortions take place.

One example. A fog or mist can have complex and visible swirls and visible currents. Take a picture of those delicate misty structures, those complex items are lost in the negative. There is no depth to a photo, so those complex swirls just become a uniform white blob in the picture.





a reply to: Nothin Now we beat to death your quote of: So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'? Any? Some? All? None? It doesn’t matter what camera tricks flat esrthers use. The below simple and elegant post kills the flat earth theory originally posted by: captainpudding a reply to: turbonium1 Because it's fun to watch you fail, please tell me the azimuth and inclination of where I would need to look tonight in Sydney, Australia to see Polaris. If you can't provide this information, the Earth can't be flat, it's really that simple, you can prove all of us wrong by providing two angles, it's literally that simple to destroy this 2000+ year old hoax, one simple star will prove everything you believe as correct. I look forward to your answer.





a reply to: Nothin You cannot answer to: “please tell me the azimuth and inclination of where I would need to look tonight in Sydney, Australia to see Polaris. If you can't provide this information, the Earth can't be flat,” Because flat earth is a blatant lie.






originally posted by: neutronflux It doesn’t matter what camera tricks flat esrthers use. The below simple and elegant post kills the flat earth theory Did you just change the subject, and completely ignore the questions to your previous statements? A random video with no context, with no indication of type of len used, with no indication if upper atmospheric conditions was making the sun look bigger because of haze and glow in the upper atmosphere, with clearer atmospheric conditions at the horizon making the sun look smaller and more defined.

and...

Also using a large camera aperture and focusing the camera to be in sharp focus on the horizon would give the sun a large hazy effect farther away it is from the sharp focus point. In other words when the sun is high in the sky. As the sun grows closer to the point of sharp focus, it’s going to look smaller and well defined. Stange in the video, the sun looks glowing and largely undefined while high in the sky. Then looks smaller and well defined as it comes to the point the lens is set for sharper focus. The video is nothing more than a testament that a 3D world is distorted when placed on to a 2D image. And the way the sun looks is dependent on atmospheric conditions, camera aperture, lens type, and how and where the lens is focused to.

My questions were: So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'? Any? Some? All? None?




Would it be possible for you to try to make a single response, instead of the multiple replies?
Do you agree that it is making the quotes above a mess?

Would it be possible for you to slow-down with all of the statements?
If we need to work through them one-by-one: how long might we be here for?

Have you seen me accept any of your statements yet?
Have you not noticed that we are not done with your first post to me, as my questions so far have only been about one small part of it?

Would it be possible to not get ahead of ourselves?

Can we now not question your reply to me, before moving-on?

Can we agree that we are still in the context of your original double-post reply to me, and then within the sub-context of only the first challenge, and questions that were asked of you?

My first challenge was:



So are there any 2D images that you believe are 'real'? Any? Some? All? None?


Your first answer was:




It doesn’t matter what camera tricks flat esrthers use. The below simple and elegant post kills the flat earth theory


Sorry: but that response was rejected, and not acceptable. Am not even interested in negotiating an understanding about it.

Your second answer was a series of 3 posts, quoted above.
Sorry: but it's too much material for me to respond to in this single post. But none of it is agreed-upon, and will need to be examined, and challenged, before we can move-on.

Within this sub-context: we might try to be more orderly, and therefore start at the beginning of this sub-context.

Shall we begin with your first statement of the sub-context?



..."...I made my point clear..."...


How can you declare that your point is clear, when we have yet to agree upon it?
Your first point was totally rejected. Total deflection, and mucho uncool. Red flag.

Can you see that that point, is out of context, with the current sub-context?
We are not even ready to discuss your point, until we examine your answers to the opening question of this sub-context.

So: how might you get me to accept your statement:


..."...I made my point clear..."...


?



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Nothin

Yup 14377 here I gave that last account up because the mobile I was on wouldn’t let me use

And I just answered your dozen questions I am edit you were right. You’re the man your logic is unfathomable and you destroyed me on the picture from the Concorde . I am all by your presence and wish someone would build a statue to your name .


Now let’s move on to the next example can you please address it ?

A man with your insight and intelligence should be able to tackle more than one angle .

Just saying


Thanks for admitting that.

Perhaps you missed it, but my last response to you on that profile, was that there was no further interest in communicating, nor exchanging with you here.
Sorry.
Goodbye.



posted on Apr, 2 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

One. You are trolling

Two. The video of the sun is only trickery of videography .

Three. Quote just one sentence that I have posted you think is a lie with supporting evidence.

Four. Your “questions” are directly answered. While your rant and do anything to avoid answering questions leveled at you. You practice intellectual dishonesty and intellectual malpractice.

Foour. Flat earth is a blatant lie, or you could answer the below question:
“please tell me the azimuth and inclination of where I would need to look tonight in Sydney, Australia to see Polaris. If you can't provide this information, the Earth can't be flat,”


For you Nothin is literal. And you do a good job playing the fool. With your ignorant pride blinding you to the fact your posts are plain ignorant backed by pseudoscience and lies.

And how could the earth not be at least six sided. So a “flat earth” in the context being a single flat plane is not even possible in a 3D world. So where are the other five sides of the earth In a flat earth model.
edit on 2-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 2-4-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join