A discussion on TFES forum

[teo123]

So, can you finally explain me how can the wide-angle lenses make the parallel shadows appear to intersect at random points on the ground? If I try to draw diagrams, I still end up with a conclusion that they can't. What do I get wrong?

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't know what you're trying to ask, but lines don't only converge on the physical horizon. If you're looking down at the ground, they appear to converge in that direction (under the ground). If you're looking up at the sky, they appear to converge in that direction (behind the clouds).

Are you talking about NASA photos again? I already made images explaining that.

[teo123]

Are you talking about NASA photos again? I already made images explaining that.

Well, yes, I am talking about the NASA photos again. Yeah, I've probably misunderstood what the distortion diagrams actually show. I assumed they showed how would a grid in your math notebook look like if looked through the lens (so that you can see the coordinates of the points in the original image). Are they?

I don't know what you're trying to ask, but lines don't only converge on the physical horizon. If you're looking down at the ground, they appear to converge in that direction (under the ground). If you're looking up at the sky, they appear to converge in that direction (behind the clouds).

I am a bit confused now. Aren't the vanishing points always at your eye level, regardless of the direction you are looking at?

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, yes, I am talking about the NASA photos again.

This is the post (in this thread) where I explained those: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1829&p=19576#p19540

I assumed they showed how would a grid in your math notebook look like if looked through the lens (so that you can see the coordinates of the points in the original image). Are they?

Yes, that's one way to think about it.

I am a bit confused now. Aren't the vanishing points always at your eye level, regardless of the direction you are looking at?

Why would they magically do that? What do you think "eye level" means?

They converge in any direction the parallel lines are retreating from you. Up, down, left, right, etc.
They may not finish converging within your view, though.

[teo123]

Why would they magically do that? What do you think "eye level" means?

Well, I think eye level means basically the horizon line (the difference usually being imperceptible). I probably misread this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point#Vanishing_line
So, how do you manage to turn off your faulty intuition when reading about and thinking about such stuff?

[teo123]

And why do you think Earthlings is a trustworthy documentary but A Funny Thing That Happened On The Way To The Moon isn't? I mean, both of them are asserting massive conspiracies.

[EquALLity]

And why do you think Earthlings is a trustworthy documentary but A Funny Thing That Happened On The Way To The Moon isn't? I mean, both of them are asserting massive conspiracies.

Earthlings has video evidence that is similar to other video footage taken of factory farms.

It's not a conspiracy theory in the same way that those other conspiracy theories are, because it's not asserting that the government is systematically lying* and that all scientists are lying/delusional. It's just saying that animals are treated inhumanely, and there is evidence to back it up, as well as logic. It's not really a stretch of the imagination to imagine that corporations would treat animals cruelly to maximize profits. The entire purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits, and corporations have no ethical compass. So why would a corporation spend extra money to give large amounts of space for animals, for example?

*Of course, sometimes the government does lie, and that's not much of a stretch of the imagination to believe either, because it can make sense it some cases (from the perspective of government). However, there is no reasonable motive for scientists to engage in a conspiracy like that, and there's no motive for government to either.

I thought you didn't believe in conspiracies anymore? Or do you still not, and you're just asking?

[brimstoneSalad]

So, how do you manage to turn off your faulty intuition when reading about and thinking about such stuff?

You just have to trust credible sources, and assume that you're wrong, and understand that you don't understand it.

Look into quantum physics: You won't understand everything in your life. At some point, you just need to admit some things are too confusing and just believe the experts layman explanations of them.

And why do you think Earthlings is a trustworthy documentary but A Funny Thing That Happened On The Way To The Moon isn't? I mean, both of them are asserting massive conspiracies.

How is Earthlings asserting a massive conspiracy? It shows videos of bad things happening in animal agriculture. Many of which are standard practice, and you can read about on industry sites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking
Many of these abuses are common knowledge to anybody who is familiar with industry standards or who does basic research. It's public information, and there's no massive conspiracy to hide this.

I think you're confusing advertising propaganda with a conspiracy. Advertising companies want people to remain ignorant and believe the fiction of happy animals on beautiful farms, this is just advertising (it's no watergate, where they're trying to destroy the evidence, they just want to distract people from it).
The comparison you could make to NASA is the link of space exploration with national pride to stoke emotions for funding and public support -- they want the U.S. population to believe America's reputation somehow rests on its space program. They also strongly suggest that space exploration is the cutting edge of science and important for our future, essential to international cooperation and peace, etc. There's plenty of emotional appeal you can criticize about NASA (and the more significant criticisms of wasted federal funding which could probably do more invested in other fields) without suggesting the whole thing is a conspiracy.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's not really a stretch of the imagination to imagine that corporations would treat animals cruelly to maximize profits.

The thing is you don't even have to imagine it: it's publicly available information from industry sources and universities (their agriculture departments, where they teach this stuff as common practice).

and corporations have no ethical compass.

Corporations are made up of people who have ethical compasses (companies are full of whistleblowers on other issues), the trouble is that a lot of people are ready to discount nonhuman animals as having much if any ethical consideration, under the excuse that "god gave man dominion over animals", or belief that they aren't sentient, or that it's necessary to kill them.
When we regard or rationalize something as necessary, it's very easy to turn off the conscience.

*Of course, sometimes the government does lie,

Some governments make a habit of lying and disseminating propaganda. This depends on government corruption and censorship (without which it's functionally impossible for the government to maintain a lie long). Lies always leak, but if the media isn't allowed to report on the leak, it can be contained.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruptio ... ions_Index
This is not terribly reliable, but it's in the right ballpark. The various blue shaded countries have governments that are generally trustworthy.

Now politicians are another matter entirely, they lie profusely, but it's easy for an individual to lie when motivated to do so (we don't have such reliable whistleblowers popping out of our brains and informing the press).
Political parties are less inclined to lie, but they can be delusional like the clergy or any religion (any party, and both Democrats and Republicans in the states, but on different issues). This is distinct from scientific consensus, where there are mechanisms in place to control for bias and a tradition of following evidence rather than dogma.

because it can make sense it some cases (from the perspective of government).

Military secrets, and those essential to national security, are hard to keep too, so what they do is limit the information to those who need to know, and spread numerous lines of misinformation: e.g. "Our secret base has 2k people and is located in Brazil" "Our secret base has 5k people and is located in Argentina" "our secret base has 500 people and is located in Chile"
Because the real information will inevitably leak, the only way to hide it is a huge volume of misinformation so nobody can figure out which is real.

I don't think I've seen any of these effective tactics employed at NASA or within the Animal Agriculture industry.

[Red]

Some governments make a habit of lying and disseminating propaganda. This depends on government corruption and censorship (without which it's functionally impossible for the government to maintain a lie long). Lies always leak, but if the media isn't allowed to report on the leak, it can be contained.

You mean like North Korea?