Search results

The one piece of information that I had not known about, in that article, was that all of the viruses in the WIV were "bookmarked" and that according to everyone familiar with the Institute, RaTG13 is really the closest fit. That's super easy to check, and the WHO delegation would have checked...

Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/soZKZTh

1) Why were you moved you reply to this post? 2) Do you recognize some of the qualities in that list of 10 in your fellow conspiracy believers? 3) Going with Mick's classification (see spoiler), do you think of yourself as a "reasonable believer", a "true believer", or an "extremist"? 4) Why...

I agree with that. The reason is that the typical viewing distance for the photograph is too long. I have given you the distance you need to view the image from (distance to the image approximately equal to the distance between the Carters' head at whatever size your image is), with the eye...

If the Arizona recount won't confirm the conspiracy theories, then the conspiracy theorists won't trust it. It reminds me of something that was said in the Jan 6 session of congress after they reconvened, possibly by Lindsey Graham, in response to the suggestion that congress should set up a...

I'm thinking: is it possible to reverse the experiment? Use a laser and a small obstacle such that from behind the obstacle, you can't see the laser = the obstacle throws a "laser shadow"; and then use a quadcopter drone with a camera to track the path of that shadow. This eliminates any...

This explanation is wrong. Look at a rectangle (perhaps an envelope or a credit card). Turn it sideways, this way and that. You can observe that its apparent size changes as you turn it. It appears largest whe the rectangle is oriented perpendicular to your line of sight (viewing it...

Your source contradicts that claim. k=1 or "geometric" refers to modeling Earth with a 6378 km radius; k=4/3=1.33 refers to modeling Earth with a k*6378km radius for the purpose of determing the correct angles. The quoted graphs show that atmospheric refraction is correctly modeled with a...

I'm sorry, I don't understand what the source of your screenshots is. What radar images are you watching, and where exactly is this?

Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/SAaWLSt

The kite shows it's really 2-point perspective. I do that because I need to do a 3D projection of the tilted 30° "picture frame" onto the "wall" that I am photographing, and that is the same kind of projection you do when drawing perspective.

No. Both reality and the photograph are outside of our eyes. The physiology of our eyes applies to both. It's irrelevant. For something to look like the world outside, it is enough for it to resemble something outside. It does not need to resemble the inside. You are trying to make this a...

Yes. You quoted me on the tranformation in post #37, and then I mentioned the cropping in post #38. I am offended that you'd say I left that out.

The previous post makes the "wide angle magnification" apparent. It's 1/cos(x) where x is the angle from the center. At 60°, the magification is 200%, so a 120° wide angle projection would have the objects at the edges appear twice as large in the image as a same size object in the center, at...

Fun fact: rectilinear projections have the property that straight lines in reality remain straight lines in the image. "Curves" don't come into it. My rebuttal was that if you crop the collection to a rectangle, you'd still get the original image. Here's the geometric proof: The center 30° is...

Let's begin with this. We agree on the 3D objection. A 2D image has no depth, so if that was "distortion", all 2D imaged would be distorted, making the term useless. That's why I assumed using one eye (no stereoscopic vision) and no head movements (no parallax). My claim is that a rectilinear...

That's a result of the camera being tilted down. I looked at the original image as a result. Have any of you noticed President Carter's shoe size? That's another "distortion" caused by the viewpoint and wide angle. It could "prove" to conspiracy theorists that the "distortion" does not result...

I feel that I am not getting through to you. This sentence is wrong, assuming perfect optics. Imagine a window frame between the observer and the scene. A picture represents the scene without distortion if we could put that picture in the frame and remove the scene and the observer could not...

The anime In/Spectre is not a conspiracy series per se (its setting is urban fantasy), but the main plot involves the inserting of fake theories into the public discourse to achieve the protagonist's goals as a central theme.

Yes, at the corners. Not at the main X and Y axes, the angles match there. Once you crop the transformed result to be rectangular (i.e. cut the extra bits at the corners off), you end up with the original picture.