1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  2. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    It was in the screenshots that Ian posted.
    Jon McIntyre hasn't read this thread.
    It was my first hypothesis and Ian passed that on several days ago, before we'd completed the full analysis. In that sense, I think his response was justified.

    But, like I've said, posting it here is kind of irrelevant and off-topic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2016
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Perhaps a simpler visual explanation of why his location is wrong. He claims that it lays on a line from Tennet Mountain to Fryingpan and Greybread. i.e. it's on this line here:

    20160923-092617-o4ruj.

    However if you draw a line from Tennet to Greybeard
    20160923-092815-ory4r.
    It does pass right next to Frying Pan, however it does not match the line he drew
    20160923-094931-uhrbk.
    Instead it's about 800 feet NW of his indicated spot
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    He isn't reacting to people saying his location is wrong. Afaict he never read the thread that far.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's a handy link:
    http://www.earthpoint.us/TopoMap.aspx

    Click on on "View On Google Earth", and you get high res topographic maps in GE. They update when you move the view or zoom in/out
    20160923-111314-52ht4.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    I just thought I'd have one final look at this, since it appears this photo is a pretty decent answer to the question "where could one conduct a Wallace experiment?"

    Mountain tops. Three of them. And not necessarily with the one in the middle "in the middle".

    We've looked at the geometry of this photograph for the spherical Earth, and it works out.

    Now what if we look at it for the flat Earth?

    fullsizeoutput_14.

    Because the summit of Greybeard and the point 20 feet or so up the tower above Fryingpan are basically the same, we can work out the angle the observer's camera would be at if the Earth were flat: in this case, given the above figures, it's 0.0216 degrees. This results in the observer being 79.35 feet below the summit of Greybeard, or at an elevation of 5334 feet - about 150 feet lower than he actually was.

    In a nutshell: his own photo is a very excellent 'Wallace-style' debunking of the flat Earth. :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    A video addressing the video in the OP has also been posted on youtube, apparently independently researched, and reaching the exact same conclusions:



    Kind of sums the whole thing up pretty nicely, for those who are more into their visual presentations.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Active Member

    Another debunking video on this subject. This one was made by a geodetic surveyor. It's long and slow moving. Turn on 2x speed.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    Jon McIntyre, the creator of the video in the OP which claimed to be proof of a flat earth, has recently uploaded another video in which he looks at mountains in Oregon and Washington using the same technique.

    This time, however, he concludes that the earth is a globe (from 23:55).



    Proof, therefore, that it isn't always the case that "once you've gone flat, you never go back." ;)

    (PS He deleted his own video, as well as a followup, but another ex-flat earther - though still geocentrist - has mirrored it.)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Jon McIntyre

    Jon McIntyre Member

    Hey Rory,

    I deleted those two videos because I have come to the conclusion that visual observations without the proper math for refraction are meaningless. And I had some discussions with people who, yes, believe in flat earth and was led to some information about perspective that led me to question the entire endeavor of using long range observations to measure the shape of the surface of the earth. And yes I was very strongly leaning toward globe. And yes I invited adiopicku to re-upload my new videos. I only left my Mountain of Evidence video up because I put so much damn work into it and because I till have no freaking idea what the truth is and I won't accept "knowing" the truth other than through my own collecting of and analysis of empirical data. I see my Mountain of Evidence video like a piece of art regardless of the information contained within it. That was the first video I ever made and I spent probably 400 hours on the process so I'm not going to delete it. I like it. I like the music and the composition, etc.. It doesn't matter anyway. It's just a giant circle jerk of an argument so one video never makes any difference. The other two new videos were made quickly and I did not care about them and did not put the crazy amount of work I did into my first video. That is why I was willing to pull them from public view. I did not know about GPS on phones at the time I made that as I'd never had a reason to look at GPS on phones. My altimeter may have been wrong on my Mountain of Evidence video but my position as I put it on the topo map was accurate. I've hiked in that area a hundred times or more. I love hiking. I know those trails. I know where I was. And also when I backed up the ridge on a bearing toward Tennent Mountain which did not take long to get it into view I could look behind me and Tennent Mountain was there and then turn my head and there was Frying Pan Mountain in front of me. I was in between them. It was obvious. But maybe I did not drop down as low as I thought I did and maybe my cheapo altimeter was malfunctioning. It is possible. I don't know. And yes this is Jon McIntyre. I did not use my real name on that other thread because I did not want you guys to jump all over me for my first video. I wanted to only focus on Ben's video because I found it very intriguing. You may not believe this and frankly I do not give a damn but what I represent myself to be is who I am. I am not a flat earther and I don't know what I believe. And whoever said it was wrong. I read those comments. All of them in their entirety and sometimes repeatedly. Maybe I am an idiot for even considering, not that flat earth could be true because I have no idea about that, but more specifically that what we have been told about the nature of our world could be somehow inaccurate. Call me crazy. I don't care. I think it's possible. And please do not take this opportunity to start hammering me over the head about what an idiot I am for even considering that or piling all of the evidence you have to prove our world is as claimed. I have looked at so much evidence and I am still confused. As I said in the other comment thread, send me a simple measurement of the shape of the surface of the earth and my quest is over. Until then I will not stop until I have that measurement in a form I can trust 100%. And it has to be 100%. But I want to know through my own collection and proper analysis of data. I don't want a picture or video someone else took or a claim someone else made. No matter how much authority they have or how many people seem to be in agreement with the claim. I want to prove it to myself directly. I wish I was still in NC. I'd go back there and re-test the elevation and get the GPS coordinates. Maybe redoing a very similar test out here would be the answer but honestly I am not going to trust any test that is not measuring the surface of water and collecting all atmospheric data while making a very accurate refraction calculation. This way the test can be relatively short in distance and be compared directly against water which must conform to the globular earth. I have come to the conclusion that I do not trust long range observations. But no I'm not going to take down that damn video like so many people have screamed at me in comments to do. I put too much work into it. Don't even ask. And as I said it makes no difference. It's an incomplete observation as it lacks atmospheric data and calculations. It's only a starting point for arguments so it accomplished nothing. Anyway, that's it. I will be doing the new test I was talking about in the other thread. I just wanted you guys to help me design it right so it would be accurate. I suppose I was asking too much. I'm also looking at a laser level test with a very nice high end surveying laser level. It looks like another good test. I am determined to get the answer directly. Regardless of how foolish people think that is. I could give a damn. I look at a world in a perpetual state of conflict at almost every level. That seems beyond insane to me. Keeping an open mind and collecting and analyzing empirical data to answer a question in a personal way seems perfectly fine with me and I'm hurting nobody. That's all. And I really would appreciate help designing a test to measure the shape of the surface of water in a highly accurate way.
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    User Karrin Konczal has been merged with @Jon McIntyre, who has been banned for one week for having multiple accounts in violation of the agreed upon rules.
     
  12. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    note: paragraphs included in below quote added by deirdre:
    is it me, or are these two paragraphs completely contradictory?
     
  13. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    Hi Jon, glad to see you here, as I did think your original video was an interesting one, and it inspired me to look at other mountain ranges in the same sort of way. I made a thread on that, which you might find interesting: you can check it out here.

    Now looking at what you wrote above...

    1. I deleted those two videos because I have come to the conclusion that visual observations without the proper math for refraction are meaningless.

    One of the good things about those mountain range pictures is that refraction isn't really an issue. Of course, there may be some, but nowhere near enough to skew the results so that there was any way they could fit a "flat earth".

    2. I had some discussions with [some flat earthers] and was led to information about perspective that led me to question using long range observations to measure the shape of the surface of the earth.

    Maybe you could elaborate on that. Thus far in my experience, it seems flat earthers don't really understand perspective, and there seems to be a recent trend for thinking perspective drawings can be combined with profile diagrams to explain things. This, of course, is a pretty massive mistake.

    3. I only left my Mountain of Evidence video up because I put so much damn work into it.

    I think that's fine. As I'm sure you can tell from reading this thread, people here enjoyed working on it, and 'cracking the case', so to speak. I think it's just a shame that you didn't really address what people were putting to you, and make a follow up video on that.

    (Not all people, obviously: I'm sure you got some stick, and some people barking up the wrong tree - no pun intended - but I think the work here, and that done by a couple of others, independently (linked to here) is pretty watertight, non-offensive, and worthy of response.)

    4. My altimeter may have been wrong on my Mountain of Evidence video but my position as I put it on the topo map was accurate.

    And yet, as is clearly shown in this thread, the view you photographed is quite literally impossible to photograph from where you say you were. You don't even need to use or trust Google Earth to confirm that. Just draw a line from the position you put on the topo map, passing to the left of Fryingpan, and all the other mountains will be to the right of Fryingpan, not the left, as you photographed them.

    How, then, is it that you're still saying you had your position correct?

    (This question, I absolutely feel, requires an answer.)

    5. When I backed up the ridge on a bearing toward Tennent Mountain which did not take long to get it into view I could look behind me and Tennent Mountain was there and then turn my head and there was Frying Pan Mountain in front of me. I was in between them. It was obvious.

    Absolutely. I believe you 100% percent. But the same is true not only for where you thought you were, but for where you actually were as well.

    6. I am not a flat earther and I don't know what I believe. And whoever said it was wrong.

    Fair enough. I know I said that at one time - I felt that's how it was coming across, or maybe I read too much in between the lines - but I can take that back, and apologise.

    7. Maybe I am an idiot for even considering [...] what we have been told about the nature of our world could be somehow inaccurate.

    I mean, I do find it puzzling that someone with your level of intelligence would think that - but, also, I can understand from personal experience how we can come to believe certain things, or at least be open to the possibilities. I, for one, do hope that you take an active part in the flat earth discussion at metabunk. At the minute there's basically no flat earthers here that are capable of rational discussion, nor even anyone who's on the fence. I wish there were. It would be good to have you, and to look at things together (says I; I can't speak for anyone else).

    8. As I said in the other comment thread, send me a simple measurement of the shape of the surface of the earth and my quest is over. Until then I will not stop until I have that measurement in a form I can trust 100%. But I want to know through my own collection and proper analysis of data.

    As Deirdre pointed out, there's some contradiction there. And, again, to me it's a bit like demanding what is already evident - but then, I'm not a space-disbeliever, or think it's possible that, at a conservative estimate, tens of thousands of people are lying about space. Nor do I have doubts about any of the other obvious and numerous ways which show that the earth isn't flat, and, indeed, appears to be curved.

    Have you seen this thread, which is a good collection of the basic impossibilities of the flat earth?

    As for measuring the shape of the earth yourself...how about the 'North Star test', as outlined in that thread? You could do that where you are. You would only need a way to measure the angle to Polaris and the distance along the ground - a car, if you can trust that - and the rest is just very simple trig. It probably wouldn't take very many measurements to prove to yourself that the earth is curved.

    Then again...

    9. I am not going to trust any test that is not measuring the surface of water and collecting all atmospheric data while making a very accurate refraction calculation.

    If that's the case, why not redo the Bedford Levels experiment? There are places in California. You could start a thread on here for pre-experiment discussion. It would be easy to do and, best of all, refraction-proof, if done right.

    10. I'm not going to take down that damn video like so many people have screamed at me in comments to do. I put too much work into it.

    Here's my suggestion: if you can't believe what people have pointed out to you about your position, nor what the maps are telling you, when you're next in North Carolina go to the place where you took the shot, take a GPS reading, and maybe even figure it out old school by hand. Then post a short follow-up video.

    11. I will be doing the new test I was talking about in the other thread. I just wanted you guys to help me design it right so it would be accurate. I suppose I was asking too much.

    But you haven't proposed a test. And what you're looking at is something highly technical, that I don't think you quite understand the complexity of.

    Also, maybe a bit less of the "these strangers on the internet haven't immediately given me what I've demanded, therefore I'm going to tell them they've disappointed me" wouldn't be a bad idea. ;)

    (That other thread, for example: you got tons of information - distances, elevations, tower height, ideas, links to papers, etc, in very short response time. I thought it was pretty helpful, to be honest.)

    12. I'm also looking at a laser level test with a very nice high end surveying laser level. It looks like another good test.

    If you're not aware of it already, can I recommend the Lake Balaton laser experiment thread? Many pitfalls to be avoided, but if you're planning on doing something similar, a read through that should save you a lot of hassle and help you generate best results.

    13. I really would appreciate help designing a test to measure the shape of the surface of water in a highly accurate way.

    When you come back from your ban, start the thread, ask good questions, don't get peeved with people, and stay on track. Breathe a little, and remember that not everyone's online all the time with complex equations at hand waiting to devote themselves to answering your questions. It may take a few hours or even a few days.

    From my experience here, you'll be hard-pushed to find a more helpful, even-minded, rational and knowledgable bunch of people on the 'net.

    Good luck. :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
  14. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    Question: Is there any way to know for sure what the elevation of this mountain (and, by logical extension, any mountain) actually is?

    Hikingupward.com says 5342 feet, and peakbagger.com have it down as 5320-5360 feet (based on NAVD88), presumably because there's a contour line at 5320 feet, and they know the peak's lower than the next contour line would be (which doesn't feel very satisfying).

    It's not important; jus' wonderin'.
     
  15. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    A note on using peakfinder.org

    Peakfinder is a very useful tool when it comes to identifying mountain summits. But one thing I've noticed is that the posted elevations are often quite different to USGS and NAVD88 figures, which I believe are the most reliable.

    The reason for this is that peakfinder uses openstreetmap.org for its data, which is a system of mapping "built by a community of mappers that contribute and maintain data about roads, trails, cafés, railway stations, and much more, all over the world."

    In other words, it's a bit like wikipedia, and therefore editable by anyone, which makes it more prone to error.

    In a nutshell: peakfinder for indentifying mountains, but NAVD88 for elevations.
     
  16. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    AFAIK Peakfinder uses the STRM (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) elevation data, which is free and covers almost the whole planet, but is not as accurate as proper surveying techniques. The horizontal resolution is about 30 metres between points (and until recently more like 90 metres outside the USA), so on "sharp" peaks the data points can easily miss the actual summit.