tennis ball experiment

I look at it, with one eye, two diameters away (14 cm vs 7 cm), and I realize it is a ball, as I see the curvature on the horizon (on its edge):



Whereas here, the airplane is more than 2 diameters away (28 km vs 12 km), but no curvature to be seen on the horizon:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MIG-25 - Earthviews - To The Edge Of Space - 92,500 ft

I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to say.
Are you saying the diameter of the Earth is 12km?

The field of view from left to right don't match each other. If the mig's camera had a wide angle lens the curvature would be more apparent.

The Earth has a diameter of about 8,000 miles, and that means that if you are 2 diameters away from Earth you would be 16,000 miles away.  That airplane is obviously not 16,000 miles up, to put that in perspective the International Space Station orbits at just over 100 miles above Earth's surface.  The Earth does not have a diameter of 12 kilometers, if it did then if you drive about 37.7 kilometers in any direction then you would circumnavigate the Earth and my car can easily cross that distance in under 30 minutes, yet I have to drive for hours to just cross the state of Utah (which I live in).  I don't know where you got the idea that the Earth's diameter is 12 kilometers, but whoever told you that is either lying or stupid.

Absolutely not to sound derisive, but it is kind of becoming apparent why it only took two weeks to convince you the Earth is flat.

Please, stop posting pictures of hairy balls, it is disgusting!

OK, stop.

I appear to be the only one here who has noticed he's not comparing like with like.
No matter how much you scale the ball up, or the earth down, there's one fundamental difference everyone is missing. The view of the tennis ball is at a totally different angle and viewpoint to that of the earth in the picture of the planes.
The tennis ball shot is equivalent to a view taken about 70 miles above the earth, looking downwards at an angle of about 45 degrees.
If you were to place the camera on the surface of the tennis ball and look at a view tangential to the surface where you stand (which is what we see in the picture of the planes) then you would see the visible edge of the ball as an apparent straight line surrounding you. Because the surface would curve away at an equal gradient in every direction. You could pan the camera all round and the edge of the ball would remain the same height. If you don't believe me, get a big ball and test it with a camcorder.
In the picture of the tennis ball, if you panned the camera around, the edge of the ball would not remain at the same height because the angle you're looking at the ball from is not tangential to the surface.
Interestingly, you can turn this around to show the same effect. Simulate the ball picture by mounting your camera pointing at the ground by 45 degrees. Then pan it round and - gasp - see the edge of the earth drop away at an angle! You will be a bit close to the surface to get the full effect, but just imagine if you could move further away...

Agenci, the only thing about your experiment, that I don't quite get is the reference to the diameter being 28 km and 12 km. What exactly do you mean by that? The Earth's diameter is not 28 km, so please elaborate and explain why you mention that in the first place.

So far not one competent answer. So you guys are really not that scary anymore. I thought I was dealing with competent government agents. But in all cases so far you seem like you're not working for the government or the government is wasting its money. I am quite satisfied. Thanks to all for your replies.

Congratulations to Dinosaur Neil for his efforts. He provided the best argument. I guess you can't do better than that, given that you are having to deny the truth. So I recommend to the government to only keep him and fire the others.

So my argument about how the Earth does not have a 12 kilometer radius and by extension your whole argument is false is incompetent then?  For a second I thought I might be dealing with a reasonably intelligent person, I see where I went wrong thinking that a flat earther had a brain.

Quote from: acenci on February 17, 2015, 09:56:32 PM

So far not one competent answer. So you guys are really not that scary anymore. I thought I was dealing with competent government agents. But in all cases so far you seem like you're not working for the government or the government is wasting its money. I am quite satisfied. Thanks to all for your replies.

Congratulations to Dinosaur Neil for his efforts. He provided the best argument. I guess you can't do better than that, given that you are having to deny the truth. So I recommend to the government to only keep him and fire the others.

So my argument about how the Earth does not have a 12 kilometer radius and by extension your whole argument is false is incompetent then?  For a second I thought I might be dealing with a reasonably intelligent person, I see where I went wrong thinking that a flat earther had a brain.

You incompetent Government shill

So far not one competent answer. So you guys are really not that scary anymore. I thought I was dealing with competent government agents. But in all cases so far you seem like you're not working for the government or the government is wasting its money. I am quite satisfied. Thanks to all for your replies.

You said the diameter of the Earth is 12km. I don't think you're going to convince even a FEer. That makes the circumference of the Earth less than 40km. Are you really saying you've never been on any journey longer than that?

Assuming honesty, I think I've figured out the problem: if you google the diameter or radius of the Earth, you get 6,000km, or a few hundred over that. I guess it's possible to misread that comma for a decimal point, which would explain the error. Still, three orders of magnitude out is... a lot.

Oh, wow. You're right. How stupid of me. Sorry to everyone. I really apologize. I take everything back. I confused 12 km of radius with 12 thousand kilometers of radius.

Thanks especially to BiJane, for finding my mistake.

Also, sorry to mikeman7918, who was also right.

Now I might have to reconsider all my assumptions. There's still lots of NASA fakery for sure, but I need to find more proofs that the earth is flat. Well, this one was not a proof. I apologize.

What NASA fakery? Provide evidence please.

youtube.com

Google individual counts of the so-called fakery, there are responses to basically all of it.

Oh, wow. You're right. How stupid of me. Sorry to everyone. I really apologize. I take everything back. I confused 12 km of radius with 12 thousand kilometers of radius.

the only way you could make a mistake of this magnitude is:

• You've never traveled more than 12km
• You have traveled more than 12km and you circumnavigated the world
• You are insane
• You be trolling

Which is it?

Yeah, sure... the female astronauts with their perms, the air bubbles during the space walks... there are responses to them just as there is a "scientific" team "proving" that the twin towers weren't brought down by controlled demolition but by jet fuel.

What about the moon landing, do you also believe that the footage from the moon landing was real?

Yep. The fact you don't understand decreased/zero gravity and vacuum doesn't mean what happens there is wrong.
I mean, the simple question to ask is what's more likely. The million dollar conspiracy with quite a team behind it made an easily verifiable error that a few people online with zero qualifications could spot, or that those people on the internet made a mistake?
The ISS especially: you can see that in the sky if you use a telescope, and I mean see it in detail (google it). It's there, end of discussion.

If that footage doesn't show the moon landings were faked, then you're in denial.

Why do you claim to be an expert on vacuum physics? The video shows nothing of the kind. Use google, you're not the first to have posed such questions.

Come on, they put a firecracker under the "spaceship".

And you can see the astronauts suspended with wires.

Oh, and who was moving the camera while the spaceship left? They left someone on the moon?

Or they used a machine? NASA do have access to machines... Again, google is your friend.
The real question is, how likely do you think it is the massive conspiracy would make such trivial mistakes?

Quote from: acenci on February 18, 2015, 05:49:00 AM

Come on, they put a firecracker under the "spaceship".

And you can see the astronauts suspended with wires.

Oh, and who was moving the camera while the spaceship left? They left someone on the moon?

Or they used a machine? NASA do have access to machines... Again, google is your friend.
The real question is, how likely do you think it is the massive conspiracy would make such trivial mistakes?

In 1969 there was no video recorders for people to play back, in abundance like they can today.
I imagine that those trivial mistakes today weren't trivial mistakes at all in 1969, because technology was in its infancy compared to now and people were easily fooled by bad so called special effects compared to today, plus the film makers of the time probably didn't envisage their work being put under such close scrutiny, whilst also believing they were actually depicting what reality would be like and not realising the full extent of remote control technology having to be brought in to play when someone realised that they left a man on the moon to watch the so called astronauts ascend.

This is when some troubleshooter at NASA or wherever, came up with a Houston? remote control person who just happened to be expert on operating the camera ahead of time to cater for the perfect panning for the lift off from the moon, amid nice colourful fireworks.
Just like special effects can fool us today with the equipment we have for visual analysis, it could easily fool anyone in those days who didn't have any kind of mass visual analysis nor any real reason to doubt what they were seeing on less than perfect TV screens.

The footage is like old Frankenstein movies. They scared us at one time. Now they make us laugh.
The same as James Bond movies of the time. They looked great and realistic to us, until you see the re-runs' now - like Jaws jumping from one cable car to another up a mountain. Comical as hell to watch, now - but at the time, it was basic awe.

Just like the moon footage. Aweseome at the time for the ever gaping amazed TV gawper, yet laughable when you look at it now.

The only difference is, it's easy to push the Frankenstein movies and the older James Bond movies to the back of your mind as simply being classics, because you knew they were films for entertainment purposes.
The moonlanding's would have equally been called classics if it wasn't for the fact that they were sold to the public as being real events. Classics' alright. Classic hoaxes.

Acenci, I have never heard of one thing that NASA says that the roundies will deny. They believe anything at all, as long as NASA is the source. 

As long as I am with smart and honest people I know that I am on the right track.

Do keep in mind that the FES are just taking the piss, and most don't actually think the earth is flat.  These are not honest people.  Hoppy especially.

It sounds like you already believe all sorts of bollocks, lets not add to that list.

Who ever said that people that do not believe in flat earth do not believe in other conspiracy theories?  There are plenty of people who think things like the JFK assassination, moon landings, Boston marathon bombings, etc have something much more to them than we are being told and still believe the Earth is Round.  I personally see some decent evidence with the moon landings being faked and there was an actual motive to that.  I am however not even 50% convinced of that conspiracy theory though, but there is a lot of doubt.  There are things that governments do try to conceal, they are actually not that great at doing it though.  Humans have a serious inability to keep secrets.  The Flat Earth conspiracy motives, ability to "fake" the vast abundance of evidence of a round Earth, and keeping it a perfect secret for such long time just doesn't add up. 
Flight times, weather patterns, GPS, Satellite TV/Internet, Sunset/sunrise, Actual area and shape of oceans and land masses, Southern circumpolar stars, Antarctic research stations, Seeing the ISS with a telescope, Solar/Lunar eclipses and their predictions, etc.  Almost all of these things can be checked out by anyone without much money or time invested in them.  Its just so hard to get my head around an entire global conspiracy for hundreds of years involving so many people to not have any random pilot, astronomer, flight attendant, Janitor at a research station, Meteorologist, Military person, etc. to have shown any evidence to the contrary that is actually verifiable. 

Congratulations to Dinosaur Neil for his efforts. He provided the best argument. I guess you can't do better than that, given that you are having to deny the truth.

Au contraire. You can't do better than that because I gave you a methodology of how to verify or disprove what I said. I'm not just saying "this is true, accept it" - I'm saying you can check whether what I say is true, please do it. Prove me wrong, by all means. Until you do, my argument creams yours.

The irony here is thy when you actually properly examine the evidence for the moon landings you have to conclude that they are real. Some of videos for example are simply impossible unless on the moon.

Other evidence such as amateur radio operators tracking the spacecraft just cement the truth in place.

People only claim fakery because they either don't understand the science involved or are too lazy to actually investigate all the facts.

People only claim fakery because they either don't understand the science involved or are too lazy to actually investigate all the facts.

And the usual appeal of believing a conspiracy theory: you are now on the inside, you apparently understand how the world really works and you are now special - not one of the sheeple.

Come on, they put a firecracker under the "spaceship".

And you can see the astronauts suspended with wires.

Oh, and who was moving the camera while the spaceship left? They left someone on the moon?

Scepti.

He has used the firecracker under a "spaceship" line as well.

Quote from: acenci on February 18, 2015, 05:49:00 AM

They left someone on the moon?

Scepti.

If only.   

Obviously not, since I am from Italy (ask your government colleagues webmasters for my IP address). I am flattered by your suspicion of me being Scepti, one of the smartest people I have met in my life.

You've met him? :O

Obviously not, since I am from Italy (ask your government colleagues webmasters for my IP address). I am flattered by your suspicion of me being Scepti, one of the smartest people I have met in my life.

You should stop hanging out with rocks, balls of hair and lumps of dirt. You know, socialize with something with a pulse and that can talk. You will meet someone smarter the first day you do it.

Also I still maintain you are scepti.