This blog is for nonprofit, educational purposes - media is incorporated for educational purposes as outlined in § 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Quick Debunk: YouTube Casco Bay-- Portland, Maine Curvature test #1

UPDATED - he claims he was 38 inches above the water so I have updated this with that observer height although it SURE looks a lot higher than that to me and I've asked for evidence of 38 inches.

However, I also found the distance to that building was only 4.83 miles so I've updated based on these two figures.

Here is the source video:


His claim is 6.38 miles -- I think that the specific building we use here is closer but I'll go with 6.38 miles for now.

UPDATE: That's actually 4.83 miles to the building



At this distance and from the approximately 38 inches above the WATER observation height we find that only about 4.7 feet should be obscured!

I took a frame from around 1:38 and another around 3:39 of the building itself and overlaid them.


And showing the scale match at 9:13 in the video because 'ForestDweller' challenged it without doing his research -- I scaled the building so the windows lie up and we can see the vertical features line up showing that the scale is valid.


'ForestDweller' also tells me I'm not allowed to do this because "I said it was out of proportion because you took it from a shot that was not at the same zoom" -- oh, you mean like those busses in HIS OWN VIDEO?  Yeah, that's how dishonest Flat Earthers are.  If I could do that stepped zoom in with the eeerk, eeerk, eeerk sound I would.


Voilà - there is your curvature.  Is that 4.7 feet (original guess was 6-6.7 feet)?

I dunno -- pretty close I would imagine.

This "Failure to MEASURE" is a common flaw with Flat Earther analysis, "looks flat to me" is good enough for them.

Is it good enough for you?

No, of course not.  Because you think your P900 is as good as a quality telescope...


Yeah, that is a super high quality image.  LOL

You can't make out shit in that pile of turd.

But yet you laughably claimed:

the p900 is basically a hand held telescope.  it has the highest magnification/zoom of any camera on the consumer market.  why are you denying technology? 
I researched lenses before buying this camera---because i already have a sweet lumix gx8  ---you cannot buy a lens which will give this camera, or any dslr the capability of the p900.  
Not even close.

That's a 1/2.3" sensor in your P900 which means you REALLY have a 357mm lens when it says "2000mm equivalent" but you forgot the 5.6 Crop Factor.  So If I shoot with a 400mm lens Full Frame and CROP IT WAY THE HELL DOWN, I get to pretend I have a 2000mm lens too!

Here is what a REAL telescope can do:


This is by Thierry Legault

Your P900 is a DECENT Point & Shoot camera with no interchangeable lens, no true manual focus, a very high crop factor, and a FUN zoom *RANGE*.  But it is a worthless TOY compared to any decent telescope.

Angular resolution is based on diameter (aperture) as related by the formula:

Angular Resolution(Θ) = 1.22 λ/D rad

Visible light peaks around λ = 0.55µm so you can figure

~ 46" (arcsec) for your eye at 3mm pupil
~ 2.516" (arcsec) for 55mm lens

At maximum magnification (357mm) the P900 has an aperture of f/6.5

D=f/N so D=357/6.5 and D ~ 55mm

So your P900 is about as good as a this 50mm telescope which costs $42:


Meanwhile...


Maybe you want to try a real telescope side-by-side with your $42 "telescope"?

Can your P900 do this?


Or This?


No -- it cannot.

It's NOT a telescope -- it is a Point & Shoot camera that gives you $500 images, not $25000 images.

No comments:

Post a Comment