Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    There are many questions pending about beam divergence and the idea of camera "direct hit", with some examples shown. Sandor seems to be bypassing them.
  2. Boxer

    Boxer Banned Banned

    Plotted the data just for fun, to me the measured values looks adjusted( yellow circle), with reporting bias or later altering, and of course without knowing the error they are meaningless. Also have to note the measured and the FE data line are diverging, trending away from each other, systematic error or the producer of data wanted close but not to close values for the desired output ? upload_2016-9-7_17-50-50.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016
  3. DarkStar

    DarkStar Active Member

    Actually that was initially Spectrar Ghost. I just kept pressing the issue :)

    And there is no evidence it's actually 0.08 mRad either - that is a claim that is highly suspect, especially in the light of how many other claims were made previously and the visual evidence we are given where the spot is often much larger.

    This kind of thing costs in terms of credibility:

    We are repeatedly assured that we're dumb and his 'laserist' is magical and can outperform hard physical limits - and then the numbers are silently changed.

    And remember, this spreading isn't like an even cone of light, it's more like rings:

    Mostly caused by diffraction of the beam and the resulting interference patterns. Complicated by all kinds of atmospheric distortions in the real world.

    But those rings are dimmer and you might not see them (especially in daylight) until you, oh say, point a lens towards it, focusing it down to a sensitive element (eye or camera). Causing a false positive.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. DarkStar

    DarkStar Active Member

    Oh? How are they controlling and measuring the actual refraction? asserting "We don't see any" isn't good enough - especially when we can very clearly see massive amount of refraction going on in the video just posted. That was kind of absurd and intellectually insulting.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Are those rings what is seen in my screenshot in post #514?
  6. snaphat

    snaphat Member

    Interesting. This IS actually highly suspect. Given all of the issues I summarized in my post, there is no way the data would have been this 'clean.' Single measurements in the presence of large non-controlled for variables, yet they managed to hit this close but then only slightly linearly diverge to a point? It seems as if the the 'estimated' height was used to compensate and match closely to fit the other line or some other data manipulation occurred. Either way, that trend looks completely unrealistic. Thanks for plotting this.
  7. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member


    No, it's the bar holding up the board.
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    The image of the laser hitting the boat is _MG_7136.CR2 (attached). It was taken at 6:52:55AM according to the EXIF, however Sandor claims it was taken at 6:57:22 (+4m 27s)



    This next image:

    Is from _MG_7119.CR2 (also attached), taken at 6:49:23, but claimed at 6:50:28 (+1m 5s)

    Attached Files:

    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I believe this may be due to the fact that all the "camera hits" were captured at the eye-height of a guy standing in the boat. This means any vertical divergence of the beam was eliminated from those measurements. As long as some part of the beam was visible at that height, it was considered to be the center of the beam. Would that cause what you're seeing there?
  10. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I'd rather see actual scientific measurements (on a BOARD) for a shorter distance vs. you guys trying to go further for now. Use a real boat (not rubber) with appropriate boards and SHOW all meaurements. Mount ALL cameras in one spot and keep them there. None of this "Joe is 6 feet tall so his camera was probably about 4 feet high" stuff. etc. Stop the boat every 500 feet and take multiple measurements at each stop. I think the experiment and presentation was made way more complicated then it needs to be.

    Oh and hold a wide white board UP to show us the divergence of the beam at each stopped and measured distance too.
  11. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    That's not my screenshot. It's this one:

    19 06 Sandor vid.JPG
  12. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    I know. You can see that bar's shadow in both though, and the bar itself in the inset.
  13. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    except for when he "bent his knees" to capture it.
  14. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    1 - get a higher board
    2 - measure more frequently
    3 - never measure with the boat in motion
    4 - repeat several times at different times of the day
    5 - guarantee that you can see the whole beam spread, measuring top, bottom and center.

    I hope you and @Sandor Szekely can enhance the experiment like this. The previous one didn't show a flat earth, and also didn't show a globe earth.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Why? That would have put it down where the white board was.
  16. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Youre asking me why? I dont know!

  17. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Oh. Apparently the bent knees supposedly DIDN'T mean the beam was low enough to hit the board. That sounds unlikely. He wasn't THAT much taller than the board.
  18. snaphat

    snaphat Member

    I don't think so. There should be random (unpredictable) jitter and noise in real measured values given the variables. Look at the plot of the difference of the obtained values from nominal values for flat earth I put in this post. Notice what looks like a couple of patterns? Particularly, the first 6 data points, then the next 6 data points. Actual measured data in the presence of even precisely controlled variables would be rather unlikely to have results like this. As in, there should be random jitter, not patterns here.

    We know they were moving at high speed, and even currents themselves would be variable moving across the lake... yet, we have what appear to be patterns in the results...

    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And C12 :

    Claimed at MVI7083 +13:04. MVI7083 is at 6:36:08, so that's 6:49:12, but Sandor claims 6:50:46, (+1m 34s)

    Clearly there are some major discrepancies here.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I see it now. Thanks.
  21. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I see what you're saying now. Does look odd.
  22. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    well your calculation is all wrong... where is the value of starting laser diameter? is the 5000 supposed to be the radius?
  23. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Of course, lots of people are sloppy about setting the clocks on their cameras correctly...but you'd certainly expect better if someone was
    claiming to use those photos as some kind of scientific evidence...
  24. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    read the full experiment article on the LIDAR measurement in Hungary. The geoid heigh deviaton is MAX 2 centimeters in Hungary! that is less than an INCH

    As far as I can see, the fact that the camera can see the laser tells us nothing about the height of the beam at the point of the camera.

    1 a direct laser beam hit in the camera TELLS that the beam is in DIRECT level with the camera. You can argue the divergence, that was NOT accountable for 2.5 meters difference at C37 for example.

    2 we have laser beam hit ON the persons standing in the boat from tha Canon view at position A on the shore.
    take that at the bard extension. lol

    any other debunk claims?
  25. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned


  26. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    I have never said 0.3 mRad...

    OUR collimator is adjustable!

    NOW we had 0.08mRad - okay?

    please qute from me correctly
  27. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    the laser beam divergence was NOT 5 meters wide
  28. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    this is not correct statement - it is NOT "smoothed"
  29. DarkStar

    DarkStar Active Member

    At this point in the video:


    It is stated that the Air is ~17C and the Water is ~22C therefore "this means that the direction of any possible refraction would point upwards". And I wonder how this is justified from just two data points - and when & where were they taken and how and with what margin of error (what device, what method)? You need to (at least) measure the temperature of the air at points just below, at, and above the laser to find the approximate lapse rate that would be affecting the laser. But even this would be difficult as you need extremely accurate temperature readings (at least 1/100th of a degree C).

    This was in the evening correct (you show the sun setting near the end)? During the day the lower layers are heated by the Suns rays, which keeps it warmer. But once the sun begins to set this warming stops which is when thermal inversion layers are likely to form.

    We only need a thin layer of thermal inversion of about 0.114°/m at the laser level to cause the curvature to equal the Earth's curvature, and slightly higher than that and the laser starts to bend down.

    And since your own data shows the laser both falling below even the Flat Earth model and possibly bending down sharply at the end (from the chart made by @Boxer)


    this is a serious concern.

    What evidence do we have about accurate temperatures at the laser level at the time of measurements?
  30. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    On the photos you can tell the height of the laser by calculating the number of pixels above the board and comparing them with the board size. If you use a high resolution photoshop you can calculate quite precisely.

    The autocad explanation in the video shows how we measured the FE 1.63 and the GE 2.6 meters. They are very different values and ONLY one of them can be TRUE.

    you can decide your self, what model fits the height of the laser on the picture. quite big difference. this is why we are comparing the GE anf FE expected height volumes.

    that is the proof

    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  31. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    that doesnt mean it is a direct hit. you can clearly see in all your pics the green light doesnt show up on dark clothing. so that splash on his white jacket could well be the bottom of the cone, no? you keep saying your divergence is minimal but your pics of splash belie your claims of divergence. that is the problem.
  32. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned


    NUDTZ non uniform density transition zone

    what part is not factual?? or you just don't understand it?
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  33. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    Your summary is just a joke right?

    actual proof of any?



    I suppose you know this quote - right?

    SO PLS Deirdre CONTROL the comments here... this is anything but a scientific discussion!

    I am only willing to discuss DATA!
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  34. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    why do you keep changing numbers. ? his quote of yours you said 2.5 meters. you are confusing the blip out of me.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  35. Boxer

    Boxer Banned Banned

    1 Just no, maybe others will elaborate but I dont take your correction bait. Is Trolling allowed here ?

    2 "lol" Is this a joke to you ?

    There is only one simple question here, why do you produced this level of smoke and mirrors after enormous amount of planning an help from metabunk community ? You only had one job, to hit a board with a laser measure it then plot the data. By the way I plotted your data, any comment on that ?
  36. snaphat

    snaphat Member

    These have all been covered. You ignoring criticism is not helpful.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  37. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    But in the one instance I checked it wasn't that the time of day was off. The timed interval was different.
  38. You need to calm down with the caps lock and derisory replies!

    You and Steve making up a phenomenon for the purposes of your video, and then him creating a Wikipedia page after the fact is dishonest and not factual. I understand that there are a lot of replies for you read through, but how are you going to react towards the folks at this Geodesy university if they also reject your experiment? You keep quoting Barksdale throughout this thread, you made a lot of assumptions throughtout your video (and therefore opinions), so you definitely should listen to the criticisms now and prepare your methods more thoroughly for your next attempt.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  39. DarkStar

    DarkStar Active Member

    Starting laser diameter? You seem confused about what is being calculated -- we're not calculating the theoretical minimum divergence (which depends on the axial distance, beam waist, and wavelength).

    We're calculating the angular size of the divergence value YOU stated as 0.08mRad.

    mRad is a milliradian -- this gives us 1/2 the ANGULAR divergence of the beam from the waist.

    To calculate the diameter (size) 'g' at distance 'r' given some full angle 'a' the equation is:

    g=2r tan(a/2)

    0.08 mRad is 0.00008 radians which is already the half-angle divergence for the beam

    2 times 5000 meters distance times tan(0.00008)

    2*5000*tan(0.00008) = 0.80 m

    Within some margin of error.
  40. Sandor Szekely

    Sandor Szekely Banned Banned

    the back of the boat does NOT rise from water level when the boat goes faster.

    OUR boat NEVER went fast like that boat in your video - that is logical right?

    OUR DATA is accurate well to the level that we can determine laser positions, like 1.6 meter to 2.6 meters.

    NO waves or boat movement or anything can cause a rise like that.

    REFRACTION is curving the beam UPWARDS. In our evaluation we experienced marginal refraction of the laser beam.

    "You were advised to measure with the boat flat, you were advised to keep people in as near the same position as possible, you were advised to have some method to show your measurements. "

    ammm what is this? like teacher to a kid you did that wrong?

    ahhh... yeah just hitting the keyboard from home...

    come on BE SERIOUS okay?

    about the image evaluation I answered in a comment just before, please check.

    DO NOT mix here the night time measurements - I told that already. DIFFERENT SETUP DIFFERENT STORY. We had a REFLEXION at the night measurement.

    BEFORE YOU PEOPLE STATE that we had "divergence problems" I NEED SOLID EVIDENCE FOR THAT!

    do I have to quote Barksdale here again?


    calculate something to prove me wrong! not just "I think so" and so on...
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.