I have now decided : The Earth is actually FLAT...!

Post Reply New Topic

My issue is that the people are using fisheye lenses on the external cameras
Felix baumgartener used fisheye lenses on his helmet and the camera attached to the pod he jumped out of,
On the adam savage video fisheye lenses were used on the cameras that looked out of the plane windows.

The audience is never told that the images they are looking at are distorted.



I've said it before about the horizon but I'll repeat it again:

If a skyscraper is invisible at 60 miles distance....

when you look at the horizon....

How much distance is there on that photograph from the left side to the right?

Conservatively you could say thirty miles,

OK now let's say you go up 30,000 feet. The horizon is still flat.

Take another photo of the horizon , the distance from the left side of the photo to the right side is going to be at least a hundred miles,
If the earth curves as much as a skyscraper in sixty miles then the horizon should be curved at 30,000 feet because the horizon now represents hundreds of miles.

So I'm basically taking the curve in one direction and applying it to the left/right curve that should also be at the horizon.

I spent some time on the Flat Earth Society forum debunking flat Earth, and astronomy is my special interest so I will take a crack at this. By all means give me your reasons for believing in flat Earth, because it's very easy and quite fun to debunk.

Here is the problem with that argument: every image ever taken is distorted in some way because a sphere cannot be projected onto a plane without distortion (which is also incidentally why it's impossible to make a flat map of Earth without distortions). Imagine you take a panorama and you print it on the inside of a hollow sphere, if you stood inside of it then it would look like you are where the panorama was taken. The full possible 360 degree field of view can be represented as a sphere like this. When you take a photo that's like cutting a piece out of the sphere, but the piece you get will not be flat because that would be like cutting a piece off of a circle and having it be a strait line, it's just not going to happen. In order for any image to be without distortion it must be displayed or printed on something that is slightly curved. Screens and papers are flat though, and as previously stated flattening something that's curved will always cause distortion. Granted, this distortion is often too small to be noticeable on images taken with a narrower field of view, but it's always there. I could prove it if anyone wants me to. My point is, if people had to be informed every time an image was distorted then they would be told that about every image ever.

By the way, there are ways to find the true curvature of the horizon regardless of the field of view. The catch is that it requires a rudimentary understanding of photography, optics, and geometry. If someone can give me a video of a high altitude balloon that you believe is genuine then I will prove that there is real curvature. I have done it many times, even in videos posted by flat earthers themselves that supposedly prove flat Earth.

I have an experiment that I can do which I can use to prove that the horizon goes below "eye level" that I have the means to preform if anyone wants me to do it and most the results here, I am calling it the horizon level experiment. Does anyone want to make a bet about what the results will be?

I also experimentally proved on the Flat Earth Society forum that the Sun is arbitrarily far away by me and someone on nearly the opposite side of the world photographing sunspots at the exact same time. We found that our images agreed on where the sunspots were, which shows that there is no parallax yet the Sun was just rising for me and just setting for him. How is that possible on a flat Earth? I am yet to hear and explanation.

You're trying to play down the usage of a fisheye lens by saying all lenses or all media shows distortion.

This is disingenuous as the fisheye lens is used mostly for artistic purposes, and is not recommended for pictures where there are straight lines

Check out number two:
http://digital-photography-school.com/5 ... heye-lens/


You are basically saying that a fairground mirror is just as good as a regular mirror!!

As far as the sunspot thing, are you referring to taking pictures of something on the sun -a solar flare?


Please read my previous posts in this thread and tell me how the horizon is not curved as much as the height of one skyscraper

Ihave already explained why it should be.

Not sure what you're saying, but I think what you are saying is this: "if the earth bends enough to hide a 1400 foot tall sky scraper straight in front of you after 60 miles then the earth should curve enough to be visibly curved when you look at a 60 mile segment of horizon. So if you took a snapshot out of the window of a high flying balloon or plane and were able to capture a 60 mile segment of horizon in the picture- that horizon line should be visibly bent[if you round earthers were right]".

I am not sure that perspective works that way, but let's say that it does.

The trouble is this: the ratio between 60 miles and the height of the skyscraper (1400) feet is the same as the ratio between the length of a meter stick and the height of a tiny object five millimeters tall.

If someone held up a meter stick in front of you in your living room, and that stick were warped by five millimeters it would not be obvious to you that the stick was curved. And even if you took a snapshot it wouldnt be obvious that the stick was curved because that amount of deviation is almost microscopic.

Likewise if a snapshot taken out of the window of an airplane shows a horizon curved by that amount the horizon would also register on your eye as straight. Its just too small a curve to be obvious.

Yes you got it right

How big would you estimate the horizon to be on the cityscape photo above? (From left to right)

I guess it would be very difficult to estimate unless you were familiar with Chicago

Actually I'm saying that a fairground mirror is just as good as a small piece cut out of a fairground mirror. If the piece were small enough then it's distortion could go unnoticed even though it's still just as curved as the fairground mirror it was cut out of.

If you take any image taken by a wide angle lens you can make it just like an image taken by a "normal" camera by just zooming in on the center, the distortion will still be there but it's just harder to notice. If you take an image with a normal focal length camera and then take another picture with a wide angle camera that you crop then there would be no way to tell the difference between them. The distortion becomes more obvious when you get further from the center, and wider angle shots have parts farther from the center (angularly) and so it is more apparent that it's distorted. I really don't know how to explain this any better. This is something that I needed to learn in order to do 3D animation because the virtual camera works the same as a real camera. This is the case because a sphere cannot be projected onto a plane without distortion, it's mathematically impossible.

And again, it's possible to use a bit of geometry to find the true curvature of the horizon. If you can provide a video taken at high altitude then I can do this and demonstrate that there is in fact true curvature.


Yes. I could provide the images if you want, me and the other forum user both saw the same thing at the same time despite being thousands of miles away. If Earth were flat then we would be seeing the Sun from completely different angles and our photos would be totally different. I am thinking of redoing this experiment with the Moon, I just need a willing participant who doesn't live near me and has a telescope.


Well, it is curved about half the height of the tallest building in Chicago and it hides most of the buildings in the city. I did the calculations for that exact picture once and figured out that it is pretty much what one would expect on a round Earth and it makes no sense on a flat Earth. Oh the irony.

Here is an image of the Sears tower from your image and another one from up close:



In your image you could only see the top half of the tower, the bottom half is being obscured by the horizon.

This is what the skyline of Chicago is supposed to look like when the horizon is not partially obscuring it:



In your image it's sort of missing the bottom half.



The way I see it, either Chicago was having a pretty bad flood that nobody ever heard about when that image was taken or Earth is round.

Gosh^.
you're good at this graphics stuff. I dont even know how to post still pics, or videos. Much less how to put a scissor onto an image!

I am so out of it that I still use VHS tapes.

Speaking of which...a funny thing happened a couple of nites ago when we started this discussion. I happen to play a VHS tape with a random jumble of programs that I had taped over the last couple of weeks, and I stumbled upon a PBS doc about cold war era air force experiments with sending test pilots up to the edge of space in big helium balloons (basically a precursor to the Space Program).

And guess what! No fish eye lenses!

The show featured footage taken by the balloon flyers, some from over 100 thousand feet up, with regular lenses. So I paid close attention to how the horizon looked on screen. Even hitting the pause button. I couldnt see any dramatic curving of the horizon line even at 100 thousand feet. Dont think that that proves anything. But if you crave seeing high altitude footage taken without fish eye lenses then you might wanna check out that PBS documentary.

Anyway...

To answer Slenker's question in his last post I would say that the segment of horizon shown within the frame of the picture is about ten times the height of the tallest buildings.

But also (as mikeman said above) the street level, and much of the lower floors of those buildings are cutoff by the horizon. It sure looks like at least a third of the tallest building on the left is hidden behind the curvature of the Earth. Which implies that the earth is..... curved.

But to answer your question: if the horizon is ten times the height of what we can see of that skyscraper on the left- and if what we can see is say- 2/3 of its famous 1400 foot height then that would mean that that segment of horizon is about two miles. But its hard to say precisely because the buildings I am using for reference are not standing precisely ON the horizon, but are a little bit beyond the horizon.

Warning some F bombs! But he speaks truth.

Don't you know?! The earth is flat and rests on the back of four elephants, who themselves are standing on the back of a turtle :










_________

DISCLAIMER :
In case it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic / ironic.

objects do look like they are going behind the horizon but its an iilusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFhhCYYkILw

You may know about lenses but you have to admit its extremely misleading to use fisheye lenses at high altitudes when it completely gives a false impression. It is like looking into a fairground mirror, and your explanation of just looking at a part of the mirror makes no sense.
The average person has almost no knowledge of lenses and the mythbusters and Felix Baumgartener footage both give an obvious false impression.

could you provide a link to the PBS documentary with footage from 100,000 feet?

This video is suppsoed to be at around 100,000 feet and the horizon looks quite flat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

^
Am all thumbs computerwise.
Dont know how to do links. Lol!

But if you go to the website of PBS, and click on the TV series "American Experience", probably the first thing you will see will be the show "Space Men". That's the show. Click that and watch.

Ha look at this space walk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdKOOjPOy-g

At 4 hrs 11 minutes you see the grey thing on the left has bouyancy! Because it is filmed in a large swimming pool.

The grey thing doesn't react to momentum,it just keeps going in the same direction because it is floating.

The astronaut even bats the object down and it floats right back up again.

Alright, guys, from the looks of things, I need to make a return-appearance.

This whole Flat-Earth thing seems to continue to be in serious debate. I like jumping fences (both literally and figuratively). I have actually examined both sides of this Flat-Earth versus Round-Earth debate thing and, I have to say, neither "side" has it 100% correct. I also suspect that attempts to suppress investigation into Flat-Earth Theory has to do with Flat-Earth sharing and having the same acronym and being related to Free-Energy and the Financial-Elite. Strange as that may seem, this idea about spell-casting might not necessarily be so far off, something that becomes extremely obvious when you learn how Legalese manipulates the meanings/definitions/intent of language. Anyway...

Some of the Flat-Earther claims are that we never went to the Moon, that Outer-Space is actually Non-Existent, the ISS is a Hoax, Satellites are not Real, and various other tidbits, etc. The Globe-Earthers point towards NASA-footage of the Moon-Landing, Satellites and a Space-Station Orbiting in Outer-Space that you can see from your own House with Binoculars/Telescopes, full video-tours can be seen of the ISS to prove that it is real, and various other tidbits.

Now let's examine these claims for a bit and either some related eye-brow-raising information or discrepancies or inconsistencies.

The Moon-Landing : Out of all of the sources I have come across, one of them with a high-level of credibility is a man by the name of Dr. Steven Greer who founded the CSETI-Project and, according to his information, only one time did humans ever set foot on the moon, landing inside of a crater, but were "warned off" the moon by alien/extra-terrestrial presences, and the reason given was that the human-species were forbidden from any further space-exploration, due to humanity being part of a war-mongering "military industrial complex" culture. Thus, the idea that the moon-landing never happened can be laid to rest, although the footage of the alleged moon-landing still remains questionable, and may factually have been hoaxed via blue/green-screening.

The idea of outer-space being non-existent can also be laid to rest, how-ever, take a look at the following images and tell me how to explain these inconsistencies with the so-called pictures/photographs that were allegedly captured from a camera...

...examine each and every single one of them VERY CLOSELY and tell me how to explain some inconsistencies. For the last picture, Saturn is viewed from behind the surface where sun-light should be able to hit, yet appears to be glowing rather brightly for the "dark" side of a planet. Before that one, the previous image is also glowing rather brightly, without any real effect of a shadow being cast, and no stars are visible.

The middle image displays Saturn with plenty of stars in the background, the sun shining brightly, the angle of the shadowed part of the planet pointing in a completely different direction than what would be seen if the sun were truly off in the distance/direction as displayed in said picture, nor are any shadows of the planet itself cast onto the orbit-rings, and plenty of evidence pointing to this image being a CGI-Rendering.

Now let's go to the first two images, allegèdly taken from space-probes, and apply some skepticism... such as asking about the direction of the shadows, the existence of stars in the back-ground, how the allegèd "dark" side of the planet seems to be glowing or giving off its own light-source (whilst the "dark" side of the moon or other allegèd photos/pictures/film-captures of supposèd planets is always shown to be very black...)

Also, the ISS may be allegedly be visible, and shown to exist but, weather-balloons have not captured any footage of either any of the satellites, nor the ISS, despite the "fact" that the ISS is supposed to be visible from your own home via binoculars/telescopes. Additionally, footage of a Hot-Spot can be seen in some footage captured by Weather-Balloons, such as the following...



For those whom are not yet familiar with the history, the distance to the sun has varied distances of 450 millions of miles apart in measurements, depending on which school-book you use, and its year of publication. Additionally, biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake had discovered a similar phenomenon with the Speed-of-Light history, too. The value for the Speed-of-Light has different values depending on which year the books were published. This is a HUGE "rocker" for the "boat" called NASA-science. Why ? Even a SLIGHT change within the ACTUAL distance that Light Travels Per Second would basically mean that ALL "scientific-calculations/beliefs" have to suddenly be thrown out the window, and RE-calculated, such as the Age of the Universe (currently approximated to 13.8 billion years ago before Brane-Theory hypothesized Micro-Wave to Material-Existence), distance to the Sun (currently valued at 93.3 million miles away by main-stream NASA-science), and just about nearly EVERYTHING else that relied on Spectroscopy/Spectrometry.

NASA-Project : This is apparently more like a front that is used to funnel/channel Black-Budget Tax-Dollars into secret behind-the-scenes nefarious-activities. NASA has been so highly compartmentalised that very few people have any idea what the compartment next to them even does within its operations. For the rest of the REAL purposes behind NASA, I am just going to advise you to listen to all of Dr. Steven Greer's seminars, and he explains how it's related to hiding an intended future False-Flag of an Alien-Invasion (even though such craft and alien-looking creatures would actually be MAN-MADE and these creatures being human-programmed mini-androids with their own Artificial-Intelligence). The government would then be played like a puppet, presidents/politicians being tricked into believing that it's a genuine alien/out-side threat, who then goes on to make a speech about how NASA needs another 3$US trillion worth of your tax-dollars on a daily basis in order to fight off this next "terrorist" boogey-man (even though it was merely all staged).

Final Mention/s : I actually now have reason to believe that the earth could actually potentially be both flat and spherical simultaneously. The reasons for this are probably at a level of science that we do not yet understand within the realm of Quantum-Mechanics or perhaps even more advanced than the subject of Quantum-Physics. I think we can make a lot of progress here, and build some bridges, come closer to the truths about reality, instead of being divided and conquered into Republican-vs-Democrat/Atheist-vs-Christian-vs-Muslim/etc., type debates that only create walls/barriers/borders, and keep us separated, whilst all of the Financial-Elite keep going to the bank...



Just to give you an idea of the REAL power-structures in society...

Physics can't support a flat-earth concept. The very idea that of the earth being flat isn't even possible.

I've been at 40+ thousand feet and have seen the curve of the earth with my naked eyes.

Furthermore, for those who don't like science very much (which "Flat-earthers" seem to oppose science), every celestial body we know of in space is round or round-ish.

Earth is closer to an egg shape, than spherical.

Having been a seafarer (and still am at heart), I understand nautical navigation and the necessary understandings of the tides, etc. That said, there is no way the earth is flat.

Many souls have sailed around the world without the use of modern technologies and can bare further witness to the earth not being flat. I can bare that witness too.

Anyway, take it or leave it, the choice is up to you as to what you choose to believe.

Hollow, and we are on the inside surface. Everything in the day and night skies is an atmospheric phenomenon within the concave Earth caused by, er, the Holographic Principle. And quantum. Lots of quantum. (In sober truth, someone apparently convinced Hitler of this. He authorised experiments to spy on British ships by pointing instruments 30 degrees up in the sky.)