Agoraphobia Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Paul, what do you make of this one? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/peace-loving-aliens-tried-save-6235113 'Peace-loving aliens tried to save America from nuclear war,' claims moon mission astronaut Edgar Mitchell I take this honourable man at his word. His credentials --- http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mitchell-ed.html --- speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 His story of Aliens is probably as real as him being the sixth man to walk on the moon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Oh look. The chief fantasist is back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Using someone's mental illness to discredit impressive work they did previously is a bit low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Paul, what do you make of this one? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/peace-loving-aliens-tried-save-6235113 'Peace-loving aliens tried to save America from nuclear war,' claims moon mission astronaut Edgar Mitchell I take this honourable man at his word. His credentials --- http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mitchell-ed.html --- speak for themselves. Not much really? X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 If you look west from Port Erin beach it is about 84 kilometers to the top of Slieve Croob a 534m peak in County Down Northern Ireland.* Assuming a distance to the horizon in a standard atmosphere of 3.86 x height^0.5, if you were 2 metres from sea level you'd expect to be able to see anything taller than 414m 84 km away, so you'd just see the top part of the peak on the horizon. A bit like this: As you can see, you can't see the 369m peak just to the south of Slieve Croob. But if you turned and climbed up from the beach the 20 odd metres to Port Erin high street you'd then expect to be able to see any peak higher than 298 metres. So both Slieve Croob and the peak to the south would both appear above the horizon. A bit like this: Makes perfect sense on a globe. But explaining how you can so transform your view simply by moving 200m horizontally and 20m vertically is basically impossible on a flat earth. Awaits lots of claims of fakery and denial that have no basis. Gerry, before you reply please work out the trigonometry for viewing 534m and 369m peaks from 84 kms, and how these angles change as you raise yourself 20m. It is very basic maths and will help you to understand some basic issues with perspective and the horizon. *Please note on the day in question the Mountains of Mourne - further to the south were in cloud and not really visible, Slieve Croob further to the North was in clear if hazy view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 @Chinahand: I have witnessed similar myself, I have no doubts that your photos are genuine. The base of an object 52 miles away should be 550 metres below the horizon..you have taken into account in your calculation atmospheric refraction to allow the 534 metre peak to be theoretically viewable, that's fair enough I am not going to quibble as the very fact that you can see any of it means that there has to be either, not the curve we are told, or the light is indeed refracting in the required direction downwards for any of a 534 metre object to be visible at 52 miles away.. The 60 ft elevation photo, to me seems to have a clearer weather condition but without doubt the mountain range has lifted up considerably between shots. According to Trigonometry a 20 metre lift (on a ball with circumference of 25,000 miles) will give the visible horizon an extension of about 11KM, is this the answer? or is it perspective on a plane changing with the height? I would of loved to be there with a telephoto lens and zoomed in 60x, from both positions, this would of been interesting, would invisible boats on the horizon of appeared, or would the second peak of appeared as it does in your elevated photo? I don't know the angle your camera lens is viewing, I assume you had some sort of zoom on? but if I am correct I think the distance between peaks is approx 5456 metres, now if this is correct please consider what amount of land is visible from horizon up and compare to the distance between peaks? Edit,,,,K should obviously read M in photo.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Using someone's mental illness to discredit impressive work they did previously is a bit low. I should of said, the 6th Freemason to walk on the moon, not man.... I don't think he is mentally ill at all, I think he is a pawn, used to deceive us, the whole alien thing is just another psy op, any UFO's you see flying around is man made in my opinion, with human pilots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Using someone's mental illness to discredit impressive work they did previously is a bit low. I should of said, the 6th Freemason to walk on the moon, not man.... I don't think he is mentally ill at all, I think he is a pawn, used to deceive us, the whole alien thing is just another psy op, any UFO's you see flying around is man made in my opinion, with human pilots... Yes, every UFO is indeed either man made or not a craft. UFO doesn't imply alien at all. Largely because there aren't any here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Gerry, you need to explain your working - how are you calculating 5456m between the peaks? I think it is always better to simplify. The 84km dominates any calculation compared to the movement of the observer - 200m back, 20m up - or the peaks being closer or further away from the observer. So simply do a "spherical cow" simplification: Assume the two peaks are a sheer cliff 534m high exactly 84km away. Assume the observer is 2 m high and simply climbs a ladder 18m high, to put his eyes 20m above the horizon. Try to answer these questions: How far down from the top of the cliff will the observer be able to see standing on the beach (ie at 2m)? And what height above sea level will this point be on the cliff? How far down from the top of the cliff will the observer be able to see standing on the top of the ladder (ie at 20m)? And what height above sea level will this point be on the cliff? Firstly assume a spherical earth with no atmospheric refraction, then secondly assume a spherical earth with standard refraction. Finally try to do it for a flat earth. When you get your results - THINK. Which result looks like the photographs? Are you up for doing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Yes I will give it a go later as busy at the moment,,,, "Gerry, you need to explain your working - how are you calculating 5456m between the peaks?" How many degrees of the horizon do you think the 2 mountain peaks take up, we have the distance 84km, so the angle of the width of the peaks on the horizon only has to be less than 4° to get the 5456 metre distance between peaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 My memory is that the peaks were about a thumb at arms length apart - which is about 2 degrees. So half your estimate. I've looked on Google maps and they are 2-3km apart, so about right. Radians = arc / radius Arc = Radians x radius Arc = 2degrees/360x2xpi x 84 = 2.9 km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 For Spherical Earth: OK, taking into account the refraction of light in the atmosphere, which I don't fully understand yet, then the man on the 18m ladder can see the top 197m of the 534m wall.and from 2 metres, i.e not up the ladder, he can only see 76M of the wall. Exclude the theory of refraction and he sees nothing in both cases... For flat plane: Trigonometry would indicate he can see infinity from elevation or not.... But I think I know the answer why this is.... Does this answer your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Erm ... I get different results from you, Gerry. I've used the equation distance to the horizon in km = 3.86 x (height in metres)^.5 If you are 20m above sea level and the mark on the cliff is at 299m then you are 17.26 km from the horizon and the mark on the cliff is 66.75km which add together to 84.01km in total apart. So you will see the top 235m of the 534m cliff. If you are 2m above sea level and the mark on the cliff is at 414m then you are 5.46km from the horizon and the mark on the clif is 78.54, which again adds up to 84km. So in this case you'll only be able to see the top 120m of the cliff. Have I made a mistake? I am prone to them! ________________ I've linked to this excellent explanation of why light refracts through air before - I hope it is helpful to explain things to you. At its most basic light refracts when moving from something which has one density to another - think about light moving from air into glass. This is how glasses and magnifying lenses work. Well, air isn't uniformly dense. Pressure and temperature changes with altitude mean the air usually gets thinner with altitude. The change is far more subtle than moving from air to glass, but it is still there and these effects can be measured and modelled mathematically. The link does just that. It basically takes Snell's law and adds in the ideal pressure laws and then does the maths to see how these change with altitude and the lapse rate. This is very well understood science. You could easily do experiments to verify them in your garage without the Illuminati sabotaging them. But then again so is our understanding of the shape of the earth. You can understand it simply by going to Port Erin Beach and looking at the Irish Hills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Looking at your results I think you've used 88 km and not 84 ... is that the difference? Gerry, what do you think is the most parsimonious explanation of these photos? Does the simplest explanation really involve a vast conspiracy? Edited to add - they were taken a very short time apart - basically a walk up the beach. The weather conditions etc were entirely stable. There's definitely refraction occurring - but the lapse rate would have hardly varied in the time involved so the refraction would be effectively constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.