Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    If people are banned even temporarily there is a big "banned" banner across their profile avatars on every post they made.

    He told me he wants to wait to respond from now on until he gets his presentation in order and finalized and presents it formally. (I'm just repeating what he told me)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I think that's an excellent idea.

    I'd like to see him summarize his experiment as coherently as possible, and re-present it.

    (sans CAPS of course)
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    The results are in!

    14202646_1655960151386041_4470337673522261843_n.

    Posted by someone involved, and shared by Sandor.

    Phew. Well I'm glad that's over and done with. Here's looking forward to life on the undeniably proven flat earth.

    Now I wonder what's for tea...?
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 4, 2016
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Where? Video?
     
  5. snaphat

    snaphat Member

    There's no video. But, Sandor reposted on his FB wall and it looks like the single image declaring no curve was enough for the flat earth community 211 likes and 122 shares ;-)
     
  6. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    That's it? Simply a declaration that he was right all along? No data at all was offered?
     
  7. DougW

    DougW Member

    This was always going to be the outcome!
     
  8. I see you're getting into the spirit of their Facebook page there...
    I think for clarity it's important to note that Sandor hasn't released his video yet. This was a "meme" (I hate that word) that someone else posted and Sandor shared. That said, I think it's clear that Sandor already thinks his video will in fact be some sort of ultimate proof of a flat earth.

    Damn you science and your methods that people don't seem to able to follow!!
     
  9. Kriss3d

    Kriss3d New Member

    Well I suppose the next step would be to have it verified by scientists right ?
    In either case, I still think the Wallace experiment would be alot more simple as it eliminates refraction and you dont even need to level your laser as you only need a straight line from A to C and simply see where it hits marker B
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    Well, between the whole "gang attack" on Sandor in this thread, I'm sure he should be able to filter the constructive criticism and enhance his experiment.

    We still don't have all the data, but from what he shared so far, at its best, Sandor's experiment was inconclusive, and should be enhanced and re-executed, and never used as proof of anything.

    He put his name out there, he invested money and time, but unfortunately the experiment (again, analyzing only the shared data) DO NOT PROVE either a flat earth or a globe.

    @Sandor Szekely , if you still read this thread, please think twice before putting your name and credentials out there on a flawed experiment. It will only hurt you and whatever you believe in. You started this whole idea by trying to recreate the Hawkins' experiment, but for reasons stated here by several people, yours also is not complete.
     
  11. Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That really does not seems to show anything different to what was previously discussed. The laser "measurements" after the first mile or so are not actual measurements, but just being able to see the light from the laser with a camera. There is zero reference to indicate how far this is from the center of the beam, hence the measurements are meaningless.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    We have the evaluated measurement points in the excel sheet and as well the pictures on the google drive (link in the description of the movie).

    You can see the direct laser beam hits on the boat and the persons - you mean beam divergence is accountable for over 2 meters of height difference?
    Come on! You know that no laser would be visible over 6kms distance with beam diameter of 4+ meters at daytime LOL
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No you can't. You have some light visible in the viewfinder, and guesstimate the height of the camera.

    Where is the center of the beam? If you are just plotting the bottom of an expanding beam then it's going to slope down.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  15. DarkStar

    DarkStar Active Member

    Doesn't seem to address any of the issues brought forward previously.

    The best part was SECONDS after saying "we saw no refraction" we see their 'zero' divergence beam:

    image.

    And then the boat disappearing:

    image.

    And lots of refraction and mirages:

    image.

    And THIS is their 'proof'

    image.

    A dude standing up in a boat can see the laser which is completely expected at that distance and Zero evidence of the *reliability* of this method is provided. In fact, we see the SAME thing when the laser is hitting the board so we KNOW it's unreliable.

    Mark me down as utterly unconvinced.

    Furthermore, look at the data:

    image.

    The laser is supposed to be pointing well upwards in the flat model but actually manages to curve downward!

    "We see no evidence of refraction"

    So that is either beam divergence or refraction or both. This alone renders the data useless or AT BEST, evidence for concave Earth :)

    (For a group that decries evil 'NASA CGI', sure had a lot of CGI)
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 5
  16. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I'd say so, from what can be seen of the extent of divergence at much lesser distances, earlier in the video.
     
  17. mm1145

    mm1145 Member

    one of the objection to the reworked experiment is that you can not see beam divergence. part of what you could see on the white board was how wide the beam had got and that could have been recorded. do you have any records of beam dirvirgaince at all maybe we could work it out? do you have the original equipment maybe a second experiment on land could be arranged to test beam dirviragince?

    I do not see why I 4+ meter diameter dirvirgiance at daytime would be unfeisiable could you explain your reasoning for your conclusion here as well pls. again if you have the original equipment a test of this could be aranged? you could also test your camra methoid see if you get what looks like a direct hit form a camra placed at the very edge of a widely dirveregd beam?

    I cannot watch the vidioes form where I am so can I ask what the method to determine the hight of the camera when you where getting hits was?
     
  18. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned


    DATA, CALCULATION or DRAWING - NO self proclaimed OPINIONS like "guesstimate the height" PLS

    you know.. quote from Barksdale.. :)

    At C18 distance over 5kms we can see the BEAM DIRECT HIT on the persons in the boat.

    On the FE model: the laser beam should hit exactly at that 1.74 meter height as it does in real life!

    On the GE model the laser beam should hit at 3.45 meters high!

    How does the globe model account for that TRUE laser height? THere is NO DROP on the water surface!

    C18.
     
  19. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    Well Darkstar [..]

    When we talk about evaluation of the experiment then point to the exact C position that we are talking about!
    you just kinda throw big words around here with no meaning

    Understand my wording... I SAID: NO REFRACTION OF THE LASER BEAM

    laser beam pointing downwards... come on [..]

    [...]

    Well anyway I am just about to present the measurement to the geodezy university here - so there i might have a REAL DEBATE!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  20. Why was the whiteboard kept at at that landscape orientation, and not used in a portrait orientation? That would have allowed you more measuring height on the board. In fact, after day one why wasn't the whiteboard replaced with something larger, or a second one obtained? I understand the boat captain needed to be able to direct the boat using line of sight with the laser, but it would have showed the beam divergence for reference.

    Also, your measurements do indeed seem to show the beam possibly curving downwards. It may only be 4 or 5 centimetres as you say, but that only shows a bit of confirmation bias in my opinion. It's out for both models, metres for one, centimetres for the other. If it is a globe, it's off by a huge margin, how could that be? Well, we'll never know because the whiteboard was far too small to actually see all of the beam for much of it. I would have liked to see a measurement every 50 or so metres, one that shows the beam divergence completely.

    Conclusion:
    If you do another experiment at some stage, take the criticisms from throughout this thread, and improve the experiment. It's not you and other flat earthers that you are trying to convince, it's 99% of the western world. The burden of proof is high for a reason, although this particular experiment has quite a low burden of proof.

    From your most recent Facebook status:
    No, you don't!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned


    PLEASE!!!! I DON'T CARE ABOUT OPINIONS OKAY?

    "If we have data, let's look at the data. If all we have is opinions then let's go with mine" - Barksdale

    If you have a POINT or and EVIDENCE than DEFINE THAT EXACTLY:

    "the extent of divergence at much lesser distances, earlier in the video."
    POSITION REFERENCE NUMBER???

    okay I WILL NOT answer to any of these opinion based intrics - joke...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  22. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned


    I can't really figure out your comment, but I am sure we can not talk about the experiment without YOU looking at the video...

    yes, in the google drive (link in description) and the video
     
  23. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    I AM NOT TAKING ANY ARGUMENTS WITHOUT A SPECIFIC CLAIM!

    get it?

    "Also, your measurements do indeed seem to show the beam possibly curving downwards."

    ONLY FACTS PLEASE, my time (energy) is very valuable -- WHAT 5cms are you taking about??

    Watch the video again and repeat the part where I explain the DIRECTION of any possible refraction is UPWARDS..


    I am just not interested to go through all your claims "take the criticisms from throughout this thread"

    NO
    I see no positive critisism here.. nor real arguments

    HAVE any of you checked the measurement point evaluations already?? or are you all just talking in the air??

    WE HAVE DATA - THAT YOU HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED INTO


    By the way to you all:

    at POSITION C12 the GLOBE is already DEBUNKED

    GE expected height: 1.92 meter (6.3 feet)
    FE expected height: 1.50 meter (4.9 feet)

    BEAM AT : 1.5 meter (4.9 feet)

    check the excel sheet and the measurement picture C12.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  24. mm1145

    mm1145 Member

    ok I will watch the video later when I can.

    I have looked at the sheet and I see no meserments for beam spred (dirvigiance)
    I see meserments for
    Time
    GPS
    Distiance
    and laser hight

    my point is that the discussion here seamed to centre round sevral points 1 of witch is about the dirvirgiance of the beam could you use the same laser equipment on a non boat set-up and messer beam dirvigiance? that way you could confirm your assumption that there is minimual spread.

    in addition you could replicate the camera set-up and show that your method of messering the "direct hit" with the camra gets you the center of the beam not an extreme edge?

    in essence can you do additional experiments to validate the assumptions in your method?

    I apologise if my posts are hard to understand I am extreamley dyslexic and so this is not easy to get correct. can I ask you keep your replies easy to read to make to easer to have a descusion. espicley can you try not to caplitise words mid sentince as it makes it hard to understand.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  25. Go to 11:10 of your video!!

    Maybe you should check the video again, and I will explain, the measurements don't show any upwards refraction for the final test. Again at 11:10 in your video, if you pause it and look at the data you have in the top right,
    upload_2016-9-6_11-46-9.

    C4, and C5 match the globe perfectly no? C8 and C3 match neither! If the refraction is upwards as you explain, why are the real life measurements less than the expected Flat Earth ones? If it was upwards, wouldn't they be the other side of Flat Earth ones? Explain this please.
    Slightly out of context there @Sandor Szekely, what I actually said was,
    Not all criticism is positive, I think people were very impressed with the fact that you got out there and tried to do it. There's your positive criticism.

    When you do, can you keep this thread posted on their opinions? You have to remember, as far as you're concerned, you already know that the earth is flat. You have to come at this experiment knowing that it's us and billions of others like us that you are trying to prove it too, not the other way around.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. mm1145

    mm1145 Member

    ok I see form the vid that you did somthign liek this at the begingin when you where doiing the colimation at the start but it seames you where oding it all by eye did your expert take any meserments at this point? and could you re do somthign like you did there but this time use a marker target bord to get a circle for the laser target at verious distinces? since you are using a mirror to bounce the laser back you can get quite a distince wothout haviong to havce a long straight

    there is clearley some spread because at 6.10 is the vid at what you discribe as the levling process (a process I asume took palce relitivley close to land) you can clearley see the laser beam is covering the guys hand fully
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2016
  27. Boxer

    Boxer Banned Banned

    [...] ribbon ruler instead of reference grid ? :D Seriously? What do we have here is the classical case of reporting bias.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2016
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Since you can see the beam in the camera, by your later logic this means that the beam is at 1.72m

    Sorry Sandor, these "beam in the camera measurements" are meaningless. You have no idea where the center of the beam is.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  29. That's a rather bad image, the CGI representation in the video actually uses a more appropriate measuring system. A portrait style board with height measurements the whole way up. And it actually takes CGI measurements constantly. If this type of method was at all possible we would be able to perfectly measure any refraction and beam divergence.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2016
  30. Boxer

    Boxer Banned Banned

    So after one mile they dropped the ribbon ruler as precision instrument and "measured"
    the beam height from pics from the shore ? And what is that funny (windows paint ?)
    circle, the beam center ? :D


    [​IMG]
     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Not really, as the beam rose above the board, after that they assumed if they could see the light from the laser with a camera on the boat then it was at the height of the camera on the boat. However other photos show that even with a small divergence the camera picks up the beam a considerable distance from the center.
     
  32. Boxer

    Boxer Banned Banned

    Well its kinda dishonest because seeing the scattered light around the beam source is nowhere means direct hit by the ....

    [​IMG]
     
  33. Boxer

    Boxer Banned Banned

    Strange, they have money for helicopters but cant afford a high enough reference grid board, I suspect a scam here to milk the growing FE community. And because they stopped measuring after one mile there is not much to argue here, just point out that they made a nice and shiny excel sheet from data out of their a... khm minds.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  34. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    19 06 Sandor vid.JPG
    18:38 in the video, AND an image which has previously been posted in this thread where divergence was noted.

    PS: At 19:06 in your video, we see a "direct hit" in the camera (several centimeters above the white board) when what appears to be the beam center is seen several centimeters below the top of the white board. This would seem to indicate that a "direct hit" (at this distance) is being detected maybe half a meter from the actual beam center. See screenshot.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  35. Boxer

    Boxer Banned Banned

    And the the flat earthers imaginary non Uniform density transition zone that they claim to account for obscuring things from bottom up, just conveniently happened to appear that day at the exact point where the curvature of earth should start to obscure their boat noticeably, around 5 km :D How strange,

    so they proved the Spherical earth but hey its just the NUDTZ (in the video spelled nuts :D ) at just on the right point , dont worry



    upload_2016-9-6_16-51-26.
     
  36. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    Thanks Bernard I know what 5cms is about now.

    In position C37 at a distance over 6kms (3.73 miles) we can see the laser beam direct hit in the camera in the boat.

    On the FE model: the laser beam should hit exactly at that 1.84 meter (6 feet) height as it does in real life!
    (we measured on the picture 1.79 meters here that is the 5 cms difference)

    On the GE model the laser beam should hit at 4.32 meters (14.17 feet) high!

    C37.



    C4 is the leveling position! We took measurements ONLY after this position

    C5 is matching both models (with our measurement picture evaluation precision)

    C5 time at 6:44:09 GPS 46.94281N 17.89571E distance meters 870
    REAL life 1,34
    GE 1,34
    FE 1,33

    C5.

    I say, if refraction occured it HAD TO BE upwards due to the conditions. We did not experience noticabe refraction. (as said in the video)
     
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You keep saying this. Please explain how you know this is the center of the beam (and not the bottom), given that the beam is a few feet high at this point.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. Boxer

    Boxer Banned Banned

    It seems somebody wanted to fake sources about the phenomena mentioned in the video, but he get caught, coincidence ?

    upload_2016-9-6_17-18-43.
     
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Where is this from?
     
  40. Boxer

    Boxer Banned Banned

    Its a wikipedia deletion Log you can find it here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...N.U.D.T.Z.&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype=

    The importance of NUDTZ is in the video at around 20 min they just refer to this undescribed and imaginary "scientific phenomena" as something proven, to explain why their ship started to disappear from bottom up, and in the meantime they tried to fake a wiki page for it, to make it credible.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.