Rothbard

This is a video by my friend bmlsb69 who demonstrates how the atmosphere can distort and magnify distant objects. Angular size, compression, magnification (lensing), miraging, refraction, and atmospheric opacity. There are so many issues to keep in mind.

You made me a, you made me a believer, believer! Original Video: First things first I'ma say all the words inside my head I'm fired up and tired of the way that things have been, oh ooh The way that things have been, oh ooh Second thing Second, don't you tell me what you think that I can be I'm the one at the sail, I'm the master of my sea, oh ooh The master of my sea, oh ooh I was broken from a young age Taking my soul into the masses Write down my poems for the few That looked at me took to me, shook to me, feeling me Singing from heart ache from the pain Take up my message from the veins Speaking my lesson from the brain Seeing the beauty through the You made me a, you made me a believer, believer (Pain, pain) You break me down, you build me up, believer, believer (Pain) I let the bullets fly, oh let them rain My luck, my love, my God, they came from (Pain) You made me a, you made me a believer, believer Third things third Send a prayer to the ones up above All the hate that you've heard has turned your spirit to a dove, oh ooh Your spirit up above, oh ooh I was choking in the crowd Living my brain up in the cloud Falling like ashes to the ground Hoping my feelings, they would drown But they never did, ever lived, ebbing and flowing Inhibited, limited Till it broke up and it rained down It rained down, like You made me a, you made me a believer, believer (Pain, pain) You break me down, you built me up, believer, believer (Pain) I let the bullets fly, oh let them rain My luck, my love, my God, they came from (Pain) You made me a, you made me a believer, believer Last things last By the grace of the fire and the flames You're the face of the future, the blood in my veins, oh ooh The blood in my veins, oh ooh But they never did, ever lived, ebbing and flowing Inhibited, limited Till it broke up and it rained down It rained down, like You made me a, you made me a believer, believer (Pain, pain) You break me down, you built me up, believer, believer (Pain) I let the bullets fly, oh let them rain My luck, my love, my God, they came from (Pain) You made me a, you made me a believer, believer ***************************** Don't forget that they are also moon landing skeptics.

I'm not saying don't be afraid ... I'm saying that we should fear the American government, not the North Koreans. This is silly propaganda with actors!

I talked to a Great Salt Lake boat tour company and I'm going to do this horizon test next week with a boat parked at 3.0 miles from my camera on the beach and then I'll have them move the boat further along the sun's reflection all with GPS. Hopefully, the boat will park right in the reflection and call out its GPS coordinates. The camera height will probably be at 4 feet with a distance to horizon at 2.45 miles (or if you believe in the silly standard refraction - 2.65 miles). It's going to run me about $300. Any suggestions of other things to do out there to make this test much better?

I know ... I should be out doing something better with my time. I took some footage from Wide Awake and compared it to my footage at 12.8 miles.

This is crazy "SAYS EARTH IS ROUND ... AND HE MAY BE THROWN INTO PRISON" (April 21, 1900 - Cook County Herald). http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn90060625/1900-04-21/ed-1/seq-1/

It's a brain teaser and I've been obsessed with it for a month now. I know ... I need a better hobby. @VonLud has also expressed his skepticism and that's all perfectly good and healthy. As to the picture at 1:15, that was Metabunk's picture. https://www.metabunk.org/curve/. Yes, anything along the red line would also be subject to the same angular size reduction (that's what I've been trying to say all along) but that wouldn't impact the results from my video as the shrinkage occurs along the red line. I've been discussing this with various commenters and so I'll be repeating myself here. I want to be clear that I'm not 100% certain of what I'm arguing and so I welcome the truth even if it contradicts my understanding but I believe I'm probably right. One thing to keep in mind is that these angular size corrections are not applicable in any other circumstance; it only applies to calculating the "hidden" amount. Maybe someone can think of a similar application? Plane surveyors wouldn't learn it as no one calculates blocking from a visual perspective not from at the spot on the ground application. Mathematicians probably wouldn't have learned it as well as we're essentially combining curvature drop, visual angles, the Pythagorean theorem, perspective, and angular size into one formula. I believe this is all new territory but relies on common sense. If you are at 6 feet and zoom in with the camera, the horizon will be 3 miles away from you under the dimensions of the globe. http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm. That 3-mile mark constitutes the top of the alleged bulge from the observer's perspective. That's an unquestionable fact. I can zoom in all I want but I will not see anything flat (like water) beyond the 3-mile mark. I think everyone here must agree with this first assertion (maybe some might claim standard refraction would make it 3.2 miles but that's really irrelevant here). Just like the picture of the man at 0:26. I can zoom in all I want on his head, but because he has a larger respective angular size, he will block the taller more distant wall. Again, I think everyone can agree so far. I think it's easier to think of Denali and the alleged bulge as 2D cutout pictures but at the same actual height but no depth. The supposed bulge height would, at 135 miles and a 6-foot observer, would be 3,038 feet high. If you instead imagine the bulge as a wall and place the 20,310-foot Denali cutout just a foot beyond the bulge wall, the wall would understandably block 3,038 feet. That's how the curvature calculators work but the hidden becomes 11,616 feet based on the angle from the observer. Now, presuming the world is flat, move the Denali cutout 5 miles, 10 miles, 100 miles, 132 miles beyond the wall. The wall remained stationary but Denali just shrunk to 2% the size it was at the beginning. Do you see how the wall would quickly block Denali? Look at the picture of Denali again in the video and see how the trees block roughly 1/3 of Denali. https://beyondhorizons.eu/2015/03/18/anchorange-to-denali-peak-or-mc-kinley-2185-km/. Remember at 135 miles, Denali would have an apparent size of only 500 feet (VonLud can correct me if he thinks it would be a different amount). Now, the trees blocking 1/3 of Denali makes perfect sense. There's no difference between those trees and the claimed bulge of the earth's curvature. You can zoom in on the trees and increase their angular size (along with Denali) but the proportion blocked by the trees will remain exactly the same. The only time the bulge wouldn't have a different effect is if the bulge wall was moved with Denali at the same distance. Then they would shrink together but that wouldn't happen with the globe. Maybe it's easier if you imagine the wall as 500 feet tall and unrelated to any bulge height to separate it from curvature. Can you see how Denali will shrink behind that 500-foot wall until it disappears (135 miles later) and it has nothing to do with curvature. With my calculation, I thought that it was necessary to transform the angular size of Denali at 135 miles away (at 4.4 degrees) into an apparent size but in feet instead of degrees. That was the point and I could be mistaken as to how I did that. So that if you took a picture, Denali at 135 miles would appear 500 feet tall next to a Denali that was 20,310 feet tall and that has nothing to do with curvature but only angular size. Anyways, hopefully you understand my point. It really gets you thinking because this is different.

https://www.space.com/17891-big-bang-theory-space-set-design.html Wireless weightlessness With only 20 feet or so (6 meters) of space station set to work with, Shaffner got together with the directors, visual effects supervisors and cinematographers to use unique camera angles and creative framing to create more 'space' than there really was. They also added a section to the rented module to allow other actors — the other station crew members — to enter and exit, giving viewers a sense that a sprawling outpost continued beyond the lab. "We really examined ways we could reimagine the spaces we added," Shaffner said. Part of that was made possible by the way they achieved the appearance of weightlessness. Rather than raise the roof and suspend the actors by wires, the solution came from below. "It was done by supporting the people from underneath," Shaffner revealed. "There was a very long, sort of skinny platform that a person could lie on and it would almost look like they were swimming through in weightlessness." The actors also deserve some credit, said Shaffner, for mastering the motions of microgravity. "They studied and really did a remarkable job with acting the weightlessness," he said. Attention to accuracy Having a real astronaut on the set offered a chance for some immediate feedback. Massimino reprises his role on the show for this and next week's episodes. "His response was immediate and really positive," Shaffner said of Massimino's impression of the spacecraft. "He was so blown away by [the set]. He said, 'Wow, you guys really did an amazing job! This really feels like it. This is really how big it is, it is not very big.'"

This is my new video on the angular size reduction calculation. Nothing new for my friends on conspiracyoutpost though.

The Big Bang show demonstrates how easily NASA can fake the ISS.

You're right, there's no difference in angular size shrinkage with the flat vs. globe model. By the way, you're the one who started my obsession with angular size and its effect on the globe/flat models. I have to either thank or curse you for that. In the video, I was trying to point out the perspective flattening horizon (something very few people comprehend or examine), that closer objects obscure more distant objects due to angular size only, and that a boat's alleged dropping over the curvature (or a building) is simply a boat decreasing in angular size until the waves (or atmospheric effects) in front of the boat obscure it. Maybe I'm the only one out there that finds these issues interesting. The video was actually an hour long with many diagrams I made and my angular size test of a dike to show that the dike between 1-6 miles decreased in apparent height by angular size shrinkage not by a curvature. I watched it and realized that you'd have to be as insane as I am to want to watch this full hour video on angular size. I also hope that more flat earthers will come to understand the issue because too many don't understand angular size and they wrongly claim that the bottom's disappearing on boats and buildings (like the Toronto skyline) is caused by atmospheric lensing. I don't think atmospheric lensing is as prevalent as most flat earthers believe.

My latest video on angular size

Another terrific video from our FE intelligentsia

Survivorman unwittingly stumbled onto something significant - no satellites.

Jeranism pointed this out today ... VERY interesting! I think it reached the goo. We can call it the space goo theory.