I put this up to challenge Rob Skiba's assertion that his video proves a flat earth. His own video though becomes a proof for a globe earth • Rob Skiba proves the C...
Thanks for doing this. First of all, there never was an "assertion that his video proves a flat earth." In fact, if you go back and even just read the title of the video, and listen to what was said during the video, you will see that our objective was to prove what we were seeing was not a mirage. This we did. As for the various other issues you bring up, please see the several other related videos I did involving "atmospheric lensing" and how that affects images at a distance. In your future models, you may also consider adding in the significant amounts of refraction present in the atmosphere (especially over that much water and that much distance). Once you've modeled this on a sphere, then go and do the same thing over a plain and compare the two. Keep up the experiments brother. It's always good to test what we believe.
Thanks Rob, I guess the thing I can't reconcile is that in the 42 mile shot, the lake's edge is much sharper, than an hour or so later when the sun is heating up the water and making a hazy shoreline. On a globe earth this would make sense since the water's edge would be exactly halfway to the opposite shore, or 20 miles. That's why the lake edge is sharp and clear, and the buildings are barely visible through the haze. But in a greater sense, I fear we are creating an unnecessary chasm between faith and science, turning the true goal of every believer into a battle to convert men's minds instead of their souls. If you're ever in Cleveland, we should talk. I have studied both sides quite a bit and neither the Bible nor science have to contradict each other.
Rest assured all that water in the AIR makes a massive difference in what you end up seeing. And it does interesting things both on a ball and on a flat plain. There's another CGI guy named Iru Landucci who has done some great work on this showing with CGI what I did with practical lenses - the same effects of the lower portions of buildings disappearing being observed on a flat plain, with no need of curvature whatsoever.
I made a 3d model of the flat earth using the proposed measurements from the flat earth soc wiki and took varying shots from 'space'. Interestingly the earth still showed a curve as a disc would. However, I was then informed that it isn't a disc and is a plane. I'd love to know a source for how big, even in theory, either the disc or plane is in the interest of fairness for my 3d model. I've done similar experiments as this when presented with photos from space that 'prove' FE. I've recreated them all but then the goal posts are continually moved. For me these sort of tests really do put some serious dents in the FES claims. If you had any links to measurements I'd be grateful. Thanks
Hi Rob. The modeling over the globe and over the FE can both be found in the walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator The FE model is quite limited, as changing the refraction doesn't affect it, but I think that's a good start. Thanks for being curious and for sharing Your video. If I might have a suggestion for future, P900 has a manual focus mode. Locking it at infinity should help - not a ton as there's lot of fogging, plus the 83x lens isn't as resolving as some quality FF or m43 lenses, but still.
Appreciate this video for the way it compares Skiba's own shots in a way that confirmed what I thought I was seeing: more height of the buildings comes onto view as they get closer. Skiba's responses here seem to be lacking in substance. "Hey man, great work. I was just showing its not a mirage. We're all learning. How about you study refraction some more." doesn't address the issue of more height appearing as one gets closer. Skiba comes off as a huckster by not addressing the geometrical meaning of the images he collected. He does flat earth a disservice by appearing unable or unwilling to compare his images with each other or with the claimed mirage, which seemed to show even more building height, so that's a side by side that would be useful. "We're just some good ol boys drivin down the lake makin sure Chicago ain't a mirage." So I suppose if they had seen Bigfoot they wouldn't have mentioned it either.
u both left out the law of optical prospective and the atmospheric magnifying all the water that's present in the air! NOT CONSIDERING THESE TWO FACTORS WILL AND DOES LEAD TO AN INACCURATE AND THEREFORE WRONG CONCLUSION! ROB SKIBA IS RIGHT!
Again, great video. Thanks. Out of curiosity, what texture did you use and what res was it? Mine is fine when viewed from far away, but once you get close it looks like mush.
Yeah it's tough to get a nice resolution. I'm using ones that I found at NASA image bank. visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=74142 They even have ones in segments, so for this video, the northern hemisphere is mapped with a 43,000 pixel image.
![6ix9ine - El Preso (feat. Lenier) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RQvGgosdeO8/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for doing this. First of all, there never was an "assertion that his video proves a flat earth." In fact, if you go back and even just read the title of the video, and listen to what was said during the video, you will see that our objective was to prove what we were seeing was not a mirage. This we did. As for the various other issues you bring up, please see the several other related videos I did involving "atmospheric lensing" and how that affects images at a distance. In your future models, you may also consider adding in the significant amounts of refraction present in the atmosphere (especially over that much water and that much distance). Once you've modeled this on a sphere, then go and do the same thing over a plain and compare the two. Keep up the experiments brother. It's always good to test what we believe.
Thanks Rob, I guess the thing I can't reconcile is that in the 42 mile shot, the lake's edge is much sharper, than an hour or so later when the sun is heating up the water and making a hazy shoreline. On a globe earth this would make sense since the water's edge would be exactly halfway to the opposite shore, or 20 miles. That's why the lake edge is sharp and clear, and the buildings are barely visible through the haze.
But in a greater sense, I fear we are creating an unnecessary chasm between faith and science, turning the true goal of every believer into a battle to convert men's minds instead of their souls. If you're ever in Cleveland, we should talk. I have studied both sides quite a bit and neither the Bible nor science have to contradict each other.
Rest assured all that water in the AIR makes a massive difference in what you end up seeing. And it does interesting things both on a ball and on a flat plain. There's another CGI guy named Iru Landucci who has done some great work on this showing with CGI what I did with practical lenses - the same effects of the lower portions of buildings disappearing being observed on a flat plain, with no need of curvature whatsoever.
Love your work Rob and always look forward to your videos :-)
I made a 3d model of the flat earth using the proposed measurements from the flat earth soc wiki and took varying shots from 'space'. Interestingly the earth still showed a curve as a disc would. However, I was then informed that it isn't a disc and is a plane. I'd love to know a source for how big, even in theory, either the disc or plane is in the interest of fairness for my 3d model. I've done similar experiments as this when presented with photos from space that 'prove' FE. I've recreated them all but then the goal posts are continually moved. For me these sort of tests really do put some serious dents in the FES claims. If you had any links to measurements I'd be grateful. Thanks
Hi Rob. The modeling over the globe and over the FE can both be found in the walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
The FE model is quite limited, as changing the refraction doesn't affect it, but I think that's a good start.
Thanks for being curious and for sharing Your video. If I might have a suggestion for future, P900 has a manual focus mode. Locking it at infinity should help - not a ton as there's lot of fogging, plus the 83x lens isn't as resolving as some quality FF or m43 lenses, but still.
Appreciate this video for the way it compares Skiba's own shots in a way that confirmed what I thought I was seeing: more height of the buildings comes onto view as they get closer.
Skiba's responses here seem to be lacking in substance. "Hey man, great work. I was just showing its not a mirage. We're all learning. How about you study refraction some more." doesn't address the issue of more height appearing as one gets closer.
Skiba comes off as a huckster by not addressing the geometrical meaning of the images he collected.
He does flat earth a disservice by appearing unable or unwilling to compare his images with each other or with the claimed mirage, which seemed to show even more building height, so that's a side by side that would be useful.
"We're just some good ol boys drivin down the lake makin sure Chicago ain't a mirage." So I suppose if they had seen Bigfoot they wouldn't have mentioned it either.
Thanks!
u both left out the law of optical prospective and the atmospheric magnifying all the water that's present in the air! NOT CONSIDERING THESE TWO FACTORS WILL AND DOES LEAD TO AN INACCURATE AND THEREFORE WRONG CONCLUSION! ROB SKIBA IS RIGHT!
Again, great video. Thanks. Out of curiosity, what texture did you use and what res was it? Mine is fine when viewed from far away, but once you get close it looks like mush.
Yeah it's tough to get a nice resolution. I'm using ones that I found at NASA image bank. visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=74142 They even have ones in segments, so for this video, the northern hemisphere is mapped with a 43,000 pixel image.
Cheers for the link. :)
its called refraction the heat and mist creates a microfinglass