^ Do you actually have some kind of point?

The moon is a holographic object with an angular size of 32 minutes and 1 minute = 1 nautical mile.



If you want to describe perspective, why not do it correctly?

^^^ The plot thickens...

The moon is still an object, a holographic one with a location, it has length, width and height. The atmospheric plane that contains the plasma used to display the moon is a gaseous fluid, a liquid crystal.

To the moon!

^^^ How is the hand large and far away, there's no vertical compression? There's also no refraction, the focus is too sharp for a loomed hand.

fail.

^^^ You lack perspective.

^^^

@HI-TEC99,

   Do better, I only need to identify two objects to fail the globe i.e. the horizon and a landmark of known distance. Image distortion including but not limited to severe distortion, artifacting and partial obfuscation are irreverent so long as a positive identification can be made.

You've got miniature spherical cows.

@HI-TEC99,

   Can you do better than 120x optical zoom that you can hold in one hand for under $1k? How many units can you produce and for what price? The game is super-zoom, can you play? Nikon is selling a first gen product in a space with zero competition.

Also Nikon seems willing to remove the infrared filter if you send it in, expect to pay for that as it's too small to DIY.

Quick question, if I'm observing a horizon at 50 miles with a modded P1000 at an elevation of 1 foot, how big is the ball?



Welcome to 50x super-earth, that 50x gravity is just crushing isn't it?

^^^ How else would you render the lunar surface? Without a computer you'd have to use 1960's movie special effects. NASA destroyed that technology and they claim it would be a painful process to build it back again.

^^^ I'm saying that 3 nautical miles is the maximum distance a 6 foot observer can see a 1 foot object and, that the sun is 32 nautical miles wide.

Did you know that Joe Rogan being so short, has his horizon closer than yours? The man literally lives in a smaller world than everybody else.

^^^ The angular resolution limit of the human eye is 1 minute, which corresponds to 1 foot at a 1/2 nautical mile distance. For a 6 foot observer, this equates to a horizon only 3 nautical miles away. This is that farthest the human eye can see.

Then add the limiting effects of the atmosphere to a locally illuminating 32 nautical mile wide sun.

The earth is large, the sun is small and we can only see so far.

@Cnut237,

   The moon is evenly lit.

The moon is a 32 mile wide disc of sonoluminescent electrical plasma in an upper atmospheric plane.

The image of the moon is reflected off of a concave mirror creating a projected hologram. The mirror is a golden glass-like oxide layer on a nickel-iron composite steel dome that covers the earth; the firmament.

edit:

Miles are in Nautical Miles.

1 minute = 1 nautical mile.

Mars is projected like the moon, it's [mars] angular size is 25.1 seconds.

^^^ Knowing the earth is flat isn't a belief. It's like discovering your spouse sleeps around and that you're a massive cuckold. You can't ever go back to believing their lies.

@HI-TEC99,

   The test relies on a landmark of known distance. I could pull the sensor from a PXL-2000 and still fail the globe with a lens made from coke bottles.

Proving the earth is flat with a P1000 is like exterminating a mouse with a rail gun.

Whitney (shot in Pixelvision) PXL 2000 -- https://youtu.be/bSu7NjC51Xs

The earth is not a globe, it fails a distance to the horizon test with a wide margin of error when a zoom lens is employed; the default is flat. The close-up of a basketball is a failed attempt a mockery, it literally shows a curve.



FDSS is bad, but it's the only one that works.

BTW I can fail the globe with any zoom lens that an angular resolution limit of less than 1 minute.

^^^ Don't be fooled by the green man, Mars is a 3,000 foot wide disc of electrical plasma.

Mars has rim and hexagon core, it looks like a coin:



The image is for the most part in focus and this is not the camera aperture.

@TECSHARE,

   Gatekeep much you sack of doorknobs? The fluid atmosphere is between the observer and mars, this my point you faggit and it's all relatively in focus. The atmosphere is classified as a fluid and the refraction would not be articulated if the camera was out of focus.

Also, in your example do you think it's possible to document the refraction above a candle on video if the camera is out of focus?

The P1000 rips all the Jesuit astronomers and liars at NASA a new asshole when you point it at the night sky;  the stars and planets are not what we're being told and shown.

@HI-TEC99,

   I'm gonna call you out on that one.