The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: FlatAllTheWay on May 31, 2014, 07:35:44 AM
-
If FE theory is science-based, then intellectually honest FE proponents must be open to the possibility that evidence of a round earth might come to light that would convince them to change their minds. Although I am completely convinced the earth is round, it's theoretically possible that I could be convinced otherwise. Any of the following evidence could change my mind:
1) A photo of the edge of the earth taken by someone who claimed to have traveled there.
2) A photo taken from space showing a flat earth.
3) Any formula that calculates astronomical phenomena (eclipses, phases of the moon, sunrise/sunset times), etc. based on flat earth geometry.
4) Any person from any aerospace company in the world who has evidence of the RE conspiracy.
5) Any person from any aerospace company in the world who simply claims the earth is flat.
So my question is, what evidence would convince FE people that the world might really be a spheroid?
-
5) Any person from any aerospace company in the world who simply claims the earth is flat.
What if a janitor from NASA says that the Earth is flat? :D
-
You are never going to convince a flat earther that the earth is round. They are going to say that any evidence you may present is fake. At least (IMHO) that seems to be the mindset of the administrators and "regulars" of the FE's on this website, so you might as well give it up.
I am still of the opinion that this website is all an act and is really the "One big hoax and one big joke" that most people think it is. However I think you will have to agree with one critic (on another subject about a particular bad book,though) said "It's so stupid, it's funny !" Cheers !
What if a janitor at the NASA Johnson Space Center Museum in Houston says that space travel is impossible, man has never been to the moon, and the earth is flat ? :D
BTW. I'm just here for the fun of it, too ! :D
-
1)
Some believe there is no "edge".
2)
Pictures are flat.
3)
Geometry = Geometry, there is no special case of flat Earth geometry.
4)
I'm sure there are plenty. Is that enough for you?
5)
They'd lose their job.
As always, you'll get more specific answers if you focus on more specific questions.
I would believe the Earth is round if you tied a camera to a balloon and sent it up far enough to see the shape, and then showed me the video.
-
I would believe the Earth is round if you tied a camera to a balloon and sent it up far enough to see the shape, and then showed me the video.
Such videos have been posted here in the past, to cries of "fake!", "the lens is distorting the horizon!" (even when it's clearly not), etc.
-
Here's a good one, (http://) unless RedBull is in on it too....
-
I said for you to do it yourself. Surely it can't be too difficult.
Besides, I've seen those things go as high as 110,000 feet with no horribly visible curvature noticeable.
-
I said for you to do it yourself. Surely it can't be too difficult.
Besides, I've seen those things go as high as 110,000 feet with no horribly visible curvature noticeable.
What's from keeping you from doing it yourself? ;)
Yeah, it doesn't seem difficult at all, I've thought about doing it myself, but just haven't had the cash/time available.
-
I said for you to do it yourself. Surely it can't be too difficult.
Besides, I've seen those things go as high as 110,000 feet with no horribly visible curvature noticeable.
What's from keeping you from doing it yourself? ;)
Yeah, it doesn't seem difficult at all, I've thought about doing it myself, but just haven't had the cash/time available.
I have 1,700$ in the lock box next to my bed - but more important things to buy and do with that money.
I already know the Earth is flat. Show me a balloon-camera that went high enough to even be able to tell the shape.
Sometimes it seems like you roundies wouldn't be here at all if you weren't at least a little bit doubtful of your model.
Otherwise you're just wasting your time.
-
I said for you to do it yourself. Surely it can't be too difficult.
Besides, I've seen those things go as high as 110,000 feet with no horribly visible curvature noticeable.
What's from keeping you from doing it yourself? ;)
Yeah, it doesn't seem difficult at all, I've thought about doing it myself, but just haven't had the cash/time available.
I have 1,700$ in the lock box next to my bed - but more important things to buy and do with that money.
I already know the Earth is flat. Show me a balloon-camera that went high enough to even be able to tell the shape.
Sometimes it seems like you roundies wouldn't be here at all if you weren't at least a little bit doubtful of your model.
Otherwise you're just wasting your time.
http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html) - Balloon Camera showing shape.
-
I'd believe it if I could see it or do an experiment myself. And I am not going to waste 200$ in an experiment which is probably going to fail...
-
http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html) - Balloon Camera showing shape.
Any picture/video used to prove earth curvature without including a straight edge as a reference to gauge the curvature is pathetic and not worth an ounce of frog piss.
-
http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html) - Balloon Camera showing shape.
Any picture/video used to prove earth curvature without including a straight edge as a reference to gauge the curvature is pathetic and not worth an ounce of frog piss.
How do you explain the sun setting continuously round the world?
-
How do you explain the sun setting continuously round the world?
Are you starting a new thread?
-
http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html) - Balloon Camera showing shape.
Any picture/video used to prove earth curvature without including a straight edge as a reference to gauge the curvature is pathetic and not worth an ounce of frog piss.
BEHOLD THE ROUND EARTH!*
https://i.imgur.com/Os76MJi.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/Os76MJi.jpg)
https://i.imgur.com/aiqPpCN.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/aiqPpCN.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Os76MJi.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/aiqPpCN.jpg)
*Straight edge has been added. Please be aware that these images have been photoshopped/doctored. The only changes made during this transition was the addition of the straight red line at 8 pixels. I do believe these images are now worth more then an ounce of frog piss.
-
Wide angle lenses can make the horizon curved, even at ground level.
-
Wide angle lenses can make the horizon curved, even at ground level.
The images do not follow the distortion pattern of a wide angle lens. Especially as the greatest curve is very near to where the center of image is which would receive the least amount of distortion.
-
I said for you to do it yourself. Surely it can't be too difficult.
Besides, I've seen those things go as high as 110,000 feet with no horribly visible curvature noticeable.
What's from keeping you from doing it yourself? ;)
Yeah, it doesn't seem difficult at all, I've thought about doing it myself, but just haven't had the cash/time available.
I have 1,700$ in the lock box next to my bed - but more important things to buy and do with that money.
I already know the Earth is flat. Show me a balloon-camera that went high enough to even be able to tell the shape.
Sometimes it seems like you roundies wouldn't be here at all if you weren't at least a little bit doubtful of your model.
Otherwise you're just wasting your time.
http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~msterenb/nearspace.html) - Balloon Camera showing shape.
The pictures are vastly inconsistent with the RE reality, Mike.
The balloon on that page has been boasted to have gone up to 30 km high! What a great distance! Right? Not really. That's 98425.1969 feet.
I've heard countless times (by RE enthusiasts and otherwise) that you must be at a MINIMUM of 120k feet to see ANY amount of SLIGHT curvature of the Earth.
Here's another picture of the Earth from ~30,677 meters. (100646.325 feet)
(http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/meteo_03_20/m21_3331419751.jpg)
Eric Morrow and I used a meteorological balloon to bring a small payload with a HD camera to an altitude of approximately 30 km and photographed the curvature of the Earth.
- From your page. They are lying. You'd figure a geologist would know enough about the Earth to know that that amount of curvature at that altitude is impossible.
-
Then how about from 370km? I've been trying to do some research on exactly where you can start to see the curvature of the earth. What I've read varies quite a bit. I'm sure for cameras the lense will make a difference for sure, being wide angle or zoomed. I'm also researching to see if that team that released that balloon has any more photos, looks like they do but Flckr really does suck now and isn't pulling up all the pictures on the connection I currently have. https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/)
(http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20061231-NASA-ISS007-E-7304-Earth-Pacific-Ocean.jpg)
-
Then how about from 370km? I've been trying to do some research on exactly where you can start to see the curvature of the earth. What I've read varies quite a bit. I'm sure for cameras the lense will make a difference for sure, being wide angle or zoomed. I'm also researching to see if that team that released that balloon has any more photos, looks like they do but Flckr really does suck now and isn't pulling up all the pictures on the connection I currently have. https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/)
(http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20061231-NASA-ISS007-E-7304-Earth-Pacific-Ocean.jpg)
I've heard 120k + (ft.), but that's just hearsay. Stratos was enough to disprove that to me.
Wide-angle lenses should never be used when you're trying for an accurate example of Earth's curvature. Then again, they're geologists, not photographers.
-
Then how about from 370km? I've been trying to do some research on exactly where you can start to see the curvature of the earth. What I've read varies quite a bit. I'm sure for cameras the lense will make a difference for sure, being wide angle or zoomed. I'm also researching to see if that team that released that balloon has any more photos, looks like they do but Flckr really does suck now and isn't pulling up all the pictures on the connection I currently have. https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/)
(http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20061231-NASA-ISS007-E-7304-Earth-Pacific-Ocean.jpg)
You are getting desperate now, with your NASA shot.
I had a look through https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/) and curvature didn't seem apparent. Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot!
-
Then how about from 370km? I've been trying to do some research on exactly where you can start to see the curvature of the earth. What I've read varies quite a bit. I'm sure for cameras the lense will make a difference for sure, being wide angle or zoomed. I'm also researching to see if that team that released that balloon has any more photos, looks like they do but Flckr really does suck now and isn't pulling up all the pictures on the connection I currently have. https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/)
(http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20061231-NASA-ISS007-E-7304-Earth-Pacific-Ocean.jpg)
You are getting desperate now, with your NASA shot.
I had a look through https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/) and curvature didn't seem apparent. Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot!
If only there existed some sort of computer program that would allow you to draw a straight line across for comparison, so that we could analyze the pictures in detail. I guess we'll never know the answer. :-\
-
Then how about from 370km? I've been trying to do some research on exactly where you can start to see the curvature of the earth. What I've read varies quite a bit. I'm sure for cameras the lense will make a difference for sure, being wide angle or zoomed. I'm also researching to see if that team that released that balloon has any more photos, looks like they do but Flckr really does suck now and isn't pulling up all the pictures on the connection I currently have. https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/)
You are getting desperate now, with your NASA shot.
I had a look through https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/meteotek08/sets/) and curvature didn't seem apparent. Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot!
Not sure how I'm shooting myself in the foot, maybe you could explain further.
I've done a little bit more logical exploration and believe I discovered the reason why the curvature of the earth is not as apparent in the photo provided by th3rm0m3t3r0 and the other photos posted on the flicker page.
Below you can see one of the images provided by the flicker team with a straight line showing a slight curvature.
(http://i.imgur.com/aSWZQK0.png)
Now the discrepancy other then what the height of the images taken was, is quite obvious but easily overlooked. So the above images horizon line is made up of clouds, not the earth. This means that the horizon could be more then 40,000 ft off of the ground giving us only a view as if we were only 45,000 ft (plus or minus) off the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_height (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_height)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Thunderstorm_formation.jpg)
As has been stated most say you must be quite a bit higher above ground while some claim you can see it at that height of a jetliner. But with this in mind it easily makes logical sense that the image would show much less of the curvature of the earth.
By the way, my foot feels just fine ;)
-
We would need to know the height at which the photos were taken. Still, you have to admit, it looks pretty straight...
-
We would need to know the height at which the photos were taken. Still, you have to admit, it looks pretty straight...
Well, on a human scale the Earth is nearly flat. Slightly curved of course, but nearly flat. ;)
-
We would need to know the height at which the photos were taken. Still, you have to admit, it looks pretty straight...
I believe the photos were taken right around 98,000 ft. So 98,000 - 40,000ish for cloud cover gives you a relative height of 48,000ish. That explains the lack of curvature that was originally brought to our attention when the image was originally posted.
-
All this talk about the left-to-right curvature of the horizon is pretty much irrelevant anyway. Why is there a horizon in the first place?
-
All this talk about the left-to-right curvature of the horizon is pretty much irrelevant anyway. Why is there a horizon in the first place?
Because if you misrepresent perspective enough and invent some really special light, you can get the gullible to misunderstand perspective to a breathtaking degree.
We would need to know the height at which the photos were taken. Still, you have to admit, it looks pretty straight...
Yeah, but if the earth were curved drastically enough to be visible from the top of a hill, even this lot wouldn't have a society telling you it was really flat.
-
So my question is, what evidence would convince FE people that the world might really be a spheroid?
A reminder of the OP, which the flatties are ignoring.
-
The pictures are vastly inconsistent with the RE reality, Mike.
The balloon on that page has been boasted to have gone up to 30 km high! What a great distance! Right? Not really. That's 98425.1969 feet.
I've heard countless times (by RE enthusiasts and otherwise) that you must be at a MINIMUM of 120k feet to see ANY amount of SLIGHT curvature of the Earth.
Do you have any source for the 120,000 foot figure because, I remember FE'ers caliming that anywhere from 45,000 to 65,000 feet should be sufficient. Or do you just like moving the goalpost higher and higher?
-
The pictures are vastly inconsistent with the RE reality, Mike.
The balloon on that page has been boasted to have gone up to 30 km high! What a great distance! Right? Not really. That's 98425.1969 feet.
I've heard countless times (by RE enthusiasts and otherwise) that you must be at a MINIMUM of 120k feet to see ANY amount of SLIGHT curvature of the Earth.
Do you have any source for the 120,000 foot figure because, I remember FE'ers caliming that anywhere from 45,000 to 65,000 feet should be sufficient. Or do you just like moving the goalpost higher and higher?
I like you markjo, but I challenge you to find me one (just one) picture of the Earth from that height showing any amount of curvature at all. Even in Red Bull Stratos, when Felix opened the door, the horizon was a straight line (before they switched to the wide-angle lens camera). That's at about 127k ft. I believe.
-
I like you markjo, but I challenge you to find me one (just one) picture of the Earth from that height showing any amount of curvature at all.
Do you mean something like this?
(http://www.vmeverest09.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/on-the-summit-holding-a-picture-of-alix-and-me-again-note-the-curve-of-the-earth-on-the-horizon-behind-me-visible-to-the-naked-eye-21-may.jpg)
http://www.vmeverest09.com/ (http://www.vmeverest09.com/)
Of course you'll probably just claim that it was taken with a wide angle lens as well. Then I'll come back with the well known Lynch curvature report that shows how to rule out barrel distortion caused by wide angle/fisheye lenses.
http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf (http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf)
Gee, maybe I have been playing this game too long. :-\
-
I like you markjo, but I challenge you to find me one (just one) picture of the Earth from that height showing any amount of curvature at all.
Do you mean something like this?
(http://www.vmeverest09.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/on-the-summit-holding-a-picture-of-alix-and-me-again-note-the-curve-of-the-earth-on-the-horizon-behind-me-visible-to-the-naked-eye-21-may.jpg)
http://www.vmeverest09.com/ (http://www.vmeverest09.com/)
Of course you'll probably just claim that it was taken with a wide angle lens as well. Then I'll come back with the well known Lynch curvature report that shows how to rule out barrel distortion caused by wide angle/fisheye lenses.
http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf (http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf)
Gee, maybe I have been playing this game too long. :-\
So, you're claiming that it is possible to see the Earth's overall curvature in that picture?
Everest, Earth's tallest mountain peaks at 29,029 ft.
He doesn't look that high up from the clouds...
I've provided a picture in this thread taken at around 100k ft. I believe.
The curvature in that picture is nowhere near what we see in yours.
Can you tell me how/why that is?
-
I like you markjo, but I challenge you to find me one (just one) picture of the Earth from that height showing any amount of curvature at all.
Do you mean something like this?
(http://www.vmeverest09.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/on-the-summit-holding-a-picture-of-alix-and-me-again-note-the-curve-of-the-earth-on-the-horizon-behind-me-visible-to-the-naked-eye-21-may.jpg)
http://www.vmeverest09.com/ (http://www.vmeverest09.com/)
Of course you'll probably just claim that it was taken with a wide angle lens as well. Then I'll come back with the well known Lynch curvature report that shows how to rule out barrel distortion caused by wide angle/fisheye lenses.
http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf (http://www.thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf)
Gee, maybe I have been playing this game too long. :-\
So, you're claiming that it is possible to see the Earth's overall curvature in that picture?
Everest, Earth's tallest mountain peaks at 29,029 ft.
He doesn't look that high up from the clouds...
I've provided a picture in this thread taken at around 100k ft. I believe.
The curvature in that picture is nowhere near what we see in yours.
Can you tell me how/why that is?
Photoshopped images,,,,, if you can't make it fake it,,,
-
Photoshopped images,,,,, if you can't make it fake it,,,
Something is wrong. That much is apparent.
-
Photoshopped images,,,,, if you can't make it fake it,,,
Something is wrong. That much is apparent.
Well here are all the original pictures from the expedition. I doubt they photoshoped them in the hopes one of us would one day use it as RE evidence :)
http://www.vmeverest09.com/ (http://www.vmeverest09.com/)
-
Photoshopped images,,,,, if you can't make it fake it,,,
Something is wrong. That much is apparent.
Well here are all the original pictures from the expedition. I doubt they photoshoped them in the hopes one of us would one day use it as RE evidence :)
http://www.vmeverest09.com/ (http://www.vmeverest09.com/)
Well, that doesn't change the fact that that notion of a curved Earth from less than 30k ft. (Probably more like 5-10k ft., because what we're looking at is clouds, not ground.) is utterly and astoundingly contradictory to anything I've ever learned about Earth's supposed curvature.
-
Seemed to convince the guy sat on the mountain taking the photos. Maybe he's wrong or paid off by The Conspiracy?
-
Seemed to convince the guy sat on the mountain taking the photos. Maybe he's wrong or paid off by The Conspiracy?
Or maybe our eyes are being fooled by an optical illusion effect here. All I know is that that picture goes against anything I've ever read, seen, or experienced. I never said he was part of the conspiracy. I'm also sure that these guys didn't even think about the shape of the Earth while climbing this mountain.
-
When are y'all gonna realise that the horizon would still appear curved even if the earth were flat? That is, provided there's some magical property of light or the atmosphere that creates the appearance of a sharply defined horizon in the first place...
-
I'm also sure that these guys didn't even think about the shape of the Earth while climbing this mountain.
It occurred to them when they got to the top :P
-note the clearly visible curvature of the earth on the horizon behind me - 21 May
-note again the clear curvature of the earth as you look at the horizon - 21 May
-Looking at the horizon, you could clearly see the curvature of the earth – much more clearly than I had seen it in 2004. It was beautiful, celestial.
-
I'm also sure that these guys didn't even think about the shape of the Earth while climbing this mountain.
It occurred to them when they got to the top :P
-note the clearly visible curvature of the earth on the horizon behind me - 21 May
-note again the clear curvature of the earth as you look at the horizon - 21 May
-Looking at the horizon, you could clearly see the curvature of the earth – much more clearly than I had seen it in 2004. It was beautiful, celestial.
-note the lack of curvature at 100k ft. and then consider other possibilities of what we're actually seeing - 5 June
-
A personal trip in a spacecraft around the Earth would convince me.
-
-note the lack of curvature at 100k ft. and then consider other possibilities of what we're actually seeing - 5 June
Did you just make that up whole cloth because it's more convenient for you? What kind of FE enthusiast are you?!
-
-note the lack of curvature at 100k ft. and then consider other possibilities of what we're actually seeing - 5 June
Did you just make that up whole cloth because it's more convenient for you? What kind of FE enthusiast are you?!
I didn't make it up.
It's reality.
-
Is this seriously even a question?
Commercial aircraft fly at around 30k ft..
Everest is 29,029 feet max.
The guy is also above clouds.
Use your head.
-
Is this seriously even a question?
Commercial aircraft fly at around 30k ft..
Everest is 29,029 feet max.
The guy is also above clouds.
Use your head.
We are just using the Zetetic method: the earth looks curved, therefore it is.
-
I didn't make it up.
It's reality.
But you did falsely ascribe it to someone who's climbed everest and described in true zetetic fashion, seeing the curve for himself and what it looked like.
-
Is this seriously even a question?
Commercial aircraft fly at around 30k ft..
Everest is 29,029 feet max.
The guy is also above clouds.
Use your head.
We are just using the Zetetic method: the earth looks curved, therefore it is.
In this case, direct observation has conflicted with direct observation.
One of the observations is wrong, or misunderstood.
I've been in more planes than the number of times I've been on Everest's peak, so I'm inclined to say that the man was mistaken.
Is that all you can do when you've been backed into a corner?
-
Is this seriously even a question?
Commercial aircraft fly at around 30k ft..
Everest is 29,029 feet max.
The guy is also above clouds.
Use your head.
We are just using the Zetetic method: the earth looks curved, therefore it is.
In this case, direct observation has conflicted with direct observation.
One of the observations is wrong, or misunderstood.
I've been in more planes than the number of times I've been on Everest's peak, so I'm inclined to say that the man was mistaken.
Is that all you can do when you've been backed into a corner?
The difference being, on a plane your field of view is somewhat restricted, so you can only see a small portion of the horizon; on the summit of Everest, your view is panoramic to say the least. Besides which, none of this makes any difference anyway, the horizon on a flat earth (assuming it somehow has a horizon, and not just an edge) would still appear to curve (left to right) in the same manner.
-
Is this seriously even a question?
Commercial aircraft fly at around 30k ft..
Everest is 29,029 feet max.
The guy is also above clouds.
Use your head.
We are just using the Zetetic method: the earth looks curved, therefore it is.
In this case, direct observation has conflicted with direct observation.
One of the observations is wrong, or misunderstood.
I've been in more planes than the number of times I've been on Everest's peak, so I'm inclined to say that the man was mistaken.
Is that all you can do when you've been backed into a corner?
Actually, I was satirising the Zetetic method for the useless shite that it is.
-
Is this seriously even a question?
Commercial aircraft fly at around 30k ft..
Everest is 29,029 feet max.
The guy is also above clouds.
Use your head.
We are just using the Zetetic method: the earth looks curved, therefore it is.
In this case, direct observation has conflicted with direct observation.
One of the observations is wrong, or misunderstood.
I've been in more planes than the number of times I've been on Everest's peak, so I'm inclined to say that the man was mistaken.
Is that all you can do when you've been backed into a corner?
Except this observation is backed up by photographic evidence, your's hasn't
In a plane your field of view is significantly restricted. Also have you actually taken any photos or tested the curvature against a straight line or anything like that. We've already shown several photos here.
-
Is this seriously even a question?
Commercial aircraft fly at around 30k ft..
Everest is 29,029 feet max.
The guy is also above clouds.
Use your head.
We are just using the Zetetic method: the earth looks curved, therefore it is.
In this case, direct observation has conflicted with direct observation.
One of the observations is wrong, or misunderstood.
I've been in more planes than the number of times I've been on Everest's peak, so I'm inclined to say that the man was mistaken.
Is that all you can do when you've been backed into a corner?
Except this observation is backed up by photographic evidence, your's hasn't
In a plane your field of view is significantly restricted. Also have you actually taken any photos or tested the curvature against a straight line or anything like that. We've already shown several photos here.
I refer you to page one of this thread.
I mean, I know you should have already read it, seeing as you're posting on page 3 like you've been here the whole time and all.