I'm not an FE enthusiast by any means, but I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it- same with the sun after it had gone 'below the horizon'- zoom in flat lensed and up it popped! Thought I was seeing things.
I can't address any other points I'm afraid fren, it really was a very quick segue from usual research, it just stuck in my noggin for some reason.
Not trying to rock the boat (as it were), nor argue a convincing standpoint on FE, just thought it may interest you.
I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it
You can find just about any "camera" evidence you want for just about anything. I consider this to be meaningless. It is too easy to create any evidence you want.
As for the specifics of your argument however; the problem with finding those types of evidence is, light doesn't travel in a straight line. It can be bent by different densities of air/water (or by other diffraction gratings). You can find all sorts of anomalies like that because of these well studied phenomena (I myself have done those experiments).
Physics gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of this type. It gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of any type regarding FE. Physics says that FE is not possible. Do I trust physics? Not even a little bit, despite being a trained physicist. What I do think though, is that it gives a really good argument. Any argument in support of FE HAS to address the really good arguments from physics in a meaningful way or their arguments hold no water.
You can't just go around claiming something, and citing a source that has evidence of C_A origins (Eric Dubay) and expect anyone who has really studied the subject and done real experiments on the subject to give their word any validity when they can't even address the actual evidence in support of a globe.
Indeed, yes, nor would I try to mount an effective argument- it just popped into my head as a vivid memory and thought I'd offer it.
I could think of nothing more excruciating that having my grey matter tied in a dozen knots by trying to debate a proper physicist on the dimensions of our earth, science was never a strong point for me!
I think I read somewhere Dubay has Masonic connections too, an uncle(?), others look compromised too- I tend to research the people involved first if I'm not confident on identifying things as junk science, and yes, they look a bit sus.
Is the NASA footage they showed in the same vids suspect? I'm sure I've seen that in a couple of places- the support wires and VR objects etc. (sorry, slight segue).
I don't know if the moon landing footage was compromised. Even if true however, that in no way corroborates FE, nor does it negate the moon landing itself.
I haven't really analyzed the moon landing footage. I've seen it many times, but I'd have to do some serious analysis to determine its likely veracity. It wouldn't surprise me if some or all of it was faked. It could be faked for many reasons though, including that the real footage (assuming a real moon trip) would be evidence of aliens, or who knows what else.
Interesting. I was partially talking of the landing (which you are right, could have been retrospectively doctored for a multitude of reasons), partially of some of the space station footage where they're meant to be floating but are wearing harnesses. If the budget is big and we can do it, why would they need to fake something. Could well be just to mess with us as usual..
Found a short vid (ISS Live), not the best examples I've seen, Tim Peak dropped like a stone then tried to style it out but I can't find that one:
I'm not an FE enthusiast by any means, but I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it- same with the sun after it had gone 'below the horizon'- zoom in flat lensed and up it popped! Thought I was seeing things.
I can't address any other points I'm afraid fren, it really was a very quick segue from usual research, it just stuck in my noggin for some reason.
Not trying to rock the boat (as it were), nor argue a convincing standpoint on FE, just thought it may interest you.
You can find just about any "camera" evidence you want for just about anything. I consider this to be meaningless. It is too easy to create any evidence you want.
As for the specifics of your argument however; the problem with finding those types of evidence is, light doesn't travel in a straight line. It can be bent by different densities of air/water (or by other diffraction gratings). You can find all sorts of anomalies like that because of these well studied phenomena (I myself have done those experiments).
Physics gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of this type. It gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of any type regarding FE. Physics says that FE is not possible. Do I trust physics? Not even a little bit, despite being a trained physicist. What I do think though, is that it gives a really good argument. Any argument in support of FE HAS to address the really good arguments from physics in a meaningful way or their arguments hold no water.
You can't just go around claiming something, and citing a source that has evidence of C_A origins (Eric Dubay) and expect anyone who has really studied the subject and done real experiments on the subject to give their word any validity when they can't even address the actual evidence in support of a globe.
Indeed, yes, nor would I try to mount an effective argument- it just popped into my head as a vivid memory and thought I'd offer it.
I could think of nothing more excruciating that having my grey matter tied in a dozen knots by trying to debate a proper physicist on the dimensions of our earth, science was never a strong point for me!
I think I read somewhere Dubay has Masonic connections too, an uncle(?), others look compromised too- I tend to research the people involved first if I'm not confident on identifying things as junk science, and yes, they look a bit sus.
Is the NASA footage they showed in the same vids suspect? I'm sure I've seen that in a couple of places- the support wires and VR objects etc. (sorry, slight segue).
I don't know if the moon landing footage was compromised. Even if true however, that in no way corroborates FE, nor does it negate the moon landing itself.
I haven't really analyzed the moon landing footage. I've seen it many times, but I'd have to do some serious analysis to determine its likely veracity. It wouldn't surprise me if some or all of it was faked. It could be faked for many reasons though, including that the real footage (assuming a real moon trip) would be evidence of aliens, or who knows what else.
Interesting. I was partially talking of the landing (which you are right, could have been retrospectively doctored for a multitude of reasons), partially of some of the space station footage where they're meant to be floating but are wearing harnesses. If the budget is big and we can do it, why would they need to fake something. Could well be just to mess with us as usual..
Found a short vid (ISS Live), not the best examples I've seen, Tim Peak dropped like a stone then tried to style it out but I can't find that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VM0gXpGAk