You just going to leave all those errors? Proofread much? If so, I'll start on the rebuttal.Gooberry said:
The lesson of this post, is never, never underestimate the dishonesty, or incompetence of pseudoscientists.
I’ve made that mistake with Erf before, working under assumption that the images he posts are of exactly what they say the are: but in this example, as with so many others; both he and the people on the video he shows are just scientifically incompetent, or intellectually dishonest, as I will show.
Erf produced this video in order to give evidence that “earth is flat”, and in part later to claim that we are asserting that refraction happens; the best part of that video is that it provably demonstrates both of those facts.
This is why I have asked Erf whether he still supports this claim, and whether he bothered to check the claim before posting it. His repeated refusal to answer that question, combined with this disproof below demonstrably shows he doesn’t bother checking his claims, and implicitly knows that the claims are invalid and makes them anyway.
This post will both refute Erfs claims, and point out the pseudoscience strategy he uses to make the claims. The video shows two things:
1.) Almost exactly the right amount of curvature for the viewed distance.
2.) Almost exactly the same type of refraction I’ve explained and reproduced with other evidence.
As Erf, or the video hasn’t bothered to check or make any measurements, and have simply unscientifically declared that the image “doesn’t look like there is curvature”, let’s do the science for him.
To determine what, if any, curvature there is, you need, given a known distance to the object you need:
1.) Known geometry about the object in question, enough to work out how tall it is.
2.) A comparison image with multiple points you can use to compare the image with the image you take, multiple points required to determine the refraction occurring.
3.) A detailed scientific comparison between the two to determine the changes in size/shape/cut off.
This video simply posts a comparison image, and leaves it there...
The video shows 5 images. Let’s deal with these one at a time:
1.) claim: “the image with the black cranes, boat, and gantry doesn’t show 60 feet of cut off”
This claim is BS. Not only is it BS, when the cut off is explained: it proves that you didn’t bother to even google the object you were looking at.
This image, is taken of downtown mobile, and the BAE systems boat yard (You can tell this because the gantry on the right even says “BAE Systems”. This is part of a larger “dry dock” complex, there are plenty of images on the internet of it, and some as you will see that explain exactly what you’re seeing…
Here is an image from the video and a comparison photo of a close up of the gantry. We can provide scale here, by copying and pasting the top bar of the gantry and attempting to use it to estimate how many times the width that gantry is high: and then comparing the two images to see if they are the same relative height:
The answer is no they are not: The “video” shows the gantry at 6 times its own height, with the real image showing 9 and a bit times its real height. Given this, we can actually estimate where the cut off is occurring (shown by the red line).
If the cut off was because of water: it would mostly look like the boat that is currently hoisted up out of the water because it’s in a dry dock.
The most interesting part of this is that as I will show: the height of the dock above the water (the concrete), is around 15 feet around the corner of the island: It looks like the cut off is around 4 times the height of the dock wall: so about 60 feet.
How much curvature did they claim was missing again???
You can cross reference this again with the image on the right-hand side: this is showing the dry dock, with the cranes sitting on concrete barriers so that they can actually be ABOVE the boat they are servicing. This corresponds nicely with the image on the left: the cranes stand well above the water line and appear to be on the water line in the other image.
2.) The images of the cranes is a really great one.
This is another example of Flat earthers and you not bothering to check anything that they post. Any simple google or even LOOKING at the image would reveal the curvature. The curvature, once revealed, indicates that the claims are desperate and unverified nonsense that anyone with a brain that bothered to check the images should have noticed
Let's try and establish some scale here… According to the port authority, the boom of the crane has a reach of 150 feet; we can use this to come up with approximate sizes: the bottom looks around 50% larger than the bottom part: so we can estimate 120feet and 80 feet.
In the “cut off image” the bottom part is the same size as the top part; meaning that 40 feet of the bottom of the crane is missing.
Add in the bottom of the dock: which we can see based on the car in the foreground is about 3-4 truck heights high, making it around 15-20 feet, gives us missing curvature of between 55-60 feet.
This image also proves that there is refraction going on. Look at the bottom portion of the image compared to the top. Measuring the higher portions for scale reference gives us the right numbers: but you can see what’s happening lower down; even though the bottom and top portions are roughly the same height in the video, the top of the horizontal bar is much higher up than it should be in a direct image comparison:
If the image was the same scale at the top as it was at the bottom: for example non-magnification, or constant magnification: the geometry of the cranes you see in the real image would mean that the horizontal bar at the bottom in the video should appear lower than it is.
This is demonstrable and visible proof of the refraction you have scoffed at; proven by a flat earth video, no less!
How can I tell that? Easily: look at the far right: I have copied and pasted the crane on the right; and drawn lines from the top/middle and bottom bars to it.
The top two bars are exactly in line: on the video image: looking through the atmosphere over water…. The bottom bar in the video is HIGHER than the bar on the closeup image.
It’s not simply magnification, that would change the top bars: The lower portion of the image is refracted more than the top: refuting your unsupported assertions that objects only ever appear lower, and measurably demonstrating that objects appear HIGHER due to refraction.
3.) The third image is of the USS Alabama the video says this should be hidden by 50-60 feet of curvature (based on its actual distance)
Again: no one bothered to check anything. You’ve just swallowed the claims verbatim and not checked the height and position of the ship. The video slapped a line high through the ship at at least 40-45m and asserted that this is where the cut off should be. This is again just BS claim by people too stupid or too dishonest to scientifically analyze their claims.
The draft of the ship is 11m, and it’s height from keel to the truck is just a shade under 60m, meaning the entire ship is 49m above the water line. (It could also be up to 1m higher than this: different images I have seen show the draft might markers - the white numbers on the front of the ship, showing it is higher out of the water)
The 1/4 line of the ship will be around 45 feet and the 1/3rd point of the ship will be a fraction under the 60 feet point.
I have an image of the ship, and it’s real-life counterpart for reference (actually 2): drawing a red line at around the ¼ and 1/3rd point give or take.
I’ve drawn comparison points (in green), a thin orange line JUST BELOW the waterline on the video image; and a pink, black and orange line from the truck, to three different points of reference. This is so we can compare sizes in one image with the other for scale in 3 different ways
What we can do, is what I’ve done in the second set of images: resize the ship until the comparison lines are the same size: and then compare where the water line is.
Note: despite Erf lying by repeatedly asserting this experiment “accounted for refraction” when it obviously doesn’t: using multiple points of reference does account for refraction, by measuring the ship from different points, it allows you to quantify the distortion of the ship due to refraction.
If we use the orange line as reference: the water is Faaarrr below the red line, if we use the black line, for some odd reason; the water line is a little closer: just a shadow below the ¼ line, which is closer.
The pink line, the water line is around the red line where the boat should be cut off; and appears to be showing a tiny bit less than the 50 feet of cut off or so expected.
Which is almost exactly the amount of curvature you’d expect at the distance to the USS Alabama (which is the closest of the mobile images), as the refraction appears to decrease as you go up (and as the image is the grainiest, especially when measuring the top portion which will reduce the perceived cut off), being a few feet from exactly the curvature that should be seen, it could be accounted by even small measurement error (such as if their camera is 6 feet rather than 7feet off the ground)
In addition, as I mentioned with the cranes before; there is measurable refraction: you can see it in the image: as the lines from the top to different positions on the boat do not scale the same way:
The bottom of the boat is measurably compresses compared to the top.
This is exactly how science explains how refraction over water works, and exactly how I have described it.
4.) The final set of crane images is harder than it looks.
Again, however; the claims made have made absolutely no analysis: they have literally ignored all the evidence that is perfectly visible in the comparison image that demonstrates the cranes are cut off by 60 feet.
I believe I have found the same images, but it’s impossible to find any images on the line of cranes that look the same, and have the same red/white pattern, as a result, I’ve decided to use the image the video provided; because you’re more likely to find that trustworthy!
In that image, we clearly see the cranes cut off below the red line on the image I’ve provided. Given the truck in the foreground as a reference, the distance in the image to the red line from the water, is about 5-6 trucks high:
Using this to calculate the hidden height appears around 60ish feet give or take is being cut off in this portion of the image.
5.)The final image, I tried to google exactly what boat was shown. It appears to be the boat “Grand Canyon II”, or a similar profile: a boat that appears to operate around the Gulf of Mexico and matches the image profile exactly.
I can’t tell what the height of the ship is, nor how much is hidden. But I can tell you one thing though; the flat earther that edited the video mistook the descending treeline as the bow of the ship.
The image is likely of deer river/bayview - as this appears to be the only location that matches the image (there Grand Canyon is likely to be docked at one of the servicing companies with docks at the location) - This is 10.7 miles away and when you actually look at the boat (or any similar boats), it’s obvious that there could very, very easily be 40 feet - 4 stories - cut off the boat in that image, given how tall the boat actually appears to be.
@erfisflat is obviously lying or flat out stupid when he claimed he “validated” the images shown. He has done no such thing, as everything I’ve noted is revealed with less than 5-10 minutes of basic google searching and looking at images.
As shown: EVERY claim he and the video makes is flat out false; and when you do the science, they are objectively false. Every image show the amount of cut off and curvature that would be expected on a spherical earth.
In addition, the video provides proof that refraction produces measurable effects which are identical to how I’ve described them.
This experiment proved that the required cut off due to curvature is almost identical to what you’d expect on a spherical earth: because the video and Erf spectacularly and embarrassingly failed to perform even basic analysis.
I mean come on; how stuoid do you have to be to decide not to google how tall the USS Alabama is? Or to not google what you’re looking at to know that you’re taking an image of a dry dock?
On what planet are you on where you think just looking at an image is justification for saying there is no curvature? When even a basic analysis demonstrates the curvature is right there in the image.
This was just an unfounded assertion: Erf wanted to believe it was true, so asserted it was true.
This is, in general, the flat earth strategy: throw out insane and incorrect claims with no justification or scientific validity or analysis: and simply rely on the actual scientific minded individuals to refute their claims: then instead of defending the poor claims they make, simply attack the analysis without any acknowledgement that the original claim has been destroyed which I’m sure is what erf will do now.
Burns, who formed and became chairman of the Blue Lives Matter caucus nearly a year ago, is the prime sponsor of H.B. 158, which would make assaulting a police officer a hate crime, resulting in a one-degree increase in the criminal penalty. He has also sponsored separate legislation, H.B. 1857, which would stiffen the penalty for fleeing or eluding police, especially in cases where an officer or member of the public is killed or seriously injured.