Search results

it would be great if you could have a look at the PDF as well from what I can see, the author uses angles (plus some assumptions about the orientation of the aircraft), and assumes some fixed distance. I didn't notice any attempt to fix sight lines by identifying the terrain the camera is...

I don't think that's true. I expect that these perspective lines should meet:

the point I am getting at is that maths and geometry are tools much like a hammer is a tool, it can be the wrong tool for the job, or be used incorrectly to use maths/geometry, you need to make a model of reality. If you're buying apples, you might count them to get the number you want; a...

ironically, someone on their team was aware of it ... motion parallax along with the trajectory of the object with respect to the plane may produce a false appearance of high velocity. From Appendix A-4 (where the picture in my previous post is from): Their options are • stationary • short...

except it is heavily distorted look at the crane sticking out the left side of Platform Habitat whatever geometric transformation produced this warped crane from the straight crane shown on the left is not regular, you can't explain it with straight-line optics or any single coefficient of...

Working through this thread may help: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-moon-tilt-terminator-illusions.8165/ The thing not mentioned explicitly in that thread is that if you hold the ball away from the moon (in some other direction), you're looking at it from another angle than the angle...

They assume the object is circling with the aircraft for their Appendix A analysis, which means they assume propulsion going into the analysis, which makes the resulting conclusion of the object having propulsion circular. Metabunk has shown that the data fits a wind-driven object, but despite...

Section C basically says that it could be a wind-blown object except for its speed. If their speed determination is flawed, the analysis collapses. (Why would they assume that the object is "circling the ground"?)

compare: The results of this analysis support the conclusion that the object cannot be explained as any known natural phenomenon or by any known technology used for aeronautical propulsion. A wind-blown balloon (or trash bag) is not natural, and it has no propulsion. But it's not "worthy of...

No, people get confused over the red arrows, which don't correspond well to where the light comes from. First, the moon: it's a ball which is half light and half dark. Since we see mostly light, most of the dark must be on the far side; this means the light source is behind the camera, a little...

Here are some quotes from your sources: Dear Readers, Listed below are several posts that debunk flat Earth claims made by TigerDan925 on his YouTube channel... YouTube user TigerDan925 shocked his 26,000 followers recently by conceding a shocking point: Antarctica is a continent. It’s not...

Yes, thank you for that nice write-up! (I must've had Tony the Tiger in my head...) Note from that example and from the FOG test that the modus tollens never affects FEers: the FE map not working, and the Earth's rotation being measurable as predicted should be "Black Swans" against a flat...

didn't he also talk about his life circumstances changing, in his conversion video? it's also notable that Ranty went out and took lots of photographs himself; he was no armchair flat earther. i've always maintained that it takes more than words from a stranger to change a deeply held belief...

that's due to the "Behind the Curve" documentary Rick Zimmerman was the actual experimenter. Excerpts: [14/08/2017 23:54:54] *** Bob Knodel added Cami Knodel, GLOBEBUSTERS, Rick Zimmerman, Richard Blades, Robert Durham *** [14/08/2017 23:56:01] Bob Knodel: Hello Everyone and welcome to the...

Bob Knodel was just on the mailing list, the actual experiment was done by another Robert, I believe Rick Zimmerman. I might still have the emails somewhere group chat log.

"I want to keep driving my car to work and not have a bad conscience about the climate."

I like to think it helps establish a convincing picture of what reality is like, for those who might otherwise be tempted to go down that rabbit hole. Having this big number means you can shut down "what does the other side say" news reporting, which the media would often do with...

nah. the flat earther takes everything from mainstream science, points at one bit that doesn't make sense to them, and then claims "the mainstream is wrong" while rejecting any and all explanations. (If they have to concede an explanation, they trot out something else.) standard conspiracy...

is this what you meant to write? could you please provide a quote to support it?

That's exactly the "support" I'm having issues with. "reducing the number of counterexamples" only affects the truth of "all ravens are black" if you can reduce it to zero with some confidence. Reducing it from "potentially 30" to "potentially 5" is useless, and doesn't support anything.