"Perhaps I should have been more clear. You can't simulate the human perspective of gaining altitude in any computer simulation as it has it's limitations. Most importantly the fact that your eyes are unconsciously attracted to contrast, the real depth of field, and peripheral vision."
- You can simulate a camera of a video or a photo, and you can simulate in 3d the peripheral vision, by using a that special 3d google helmet (that I don't know if there is on sale nowadays). And depth of field don't matter enough here, if at all. Also the "unconsciously attracted to contrast" don't matter since the center of the camera, that matters, is on a straight angle all the time.
The thing it shows, and it's obvious if you think about the diference of a table to a sphere, is that, when someone is looking to the ocean for example (the ocean has to be curved or else Earth is not a sphere) the line of the horizon on a sphere can't reach the 90º degrees angle, never, don't matter the size.
And it is not just a little bellow 90º degrees that we would not perceive on real life, plus the thing that the line of the horizon goes FAST down with the gain in altitude.
By that video we see that, althought we can't analyze if it's right in the middle (I had the impression that it went down just a little bit), we can see that on amost 29 kms of altitude the line is still on 90 or a little less.
Someone here said something on the line of "even on that height we should not see any curvature yet on picture or videos (because of the lack of peripheral vision), so the line is still on that height", but it don't seens correct, on that height the line should have gone WAY below, or else Earth would have to be bigger (and she can't get bigger because of the angle of the Sun).
There is other test that can be done to solve the matter, but I don't know if I will do because I am dispointed by the lack of response on this forum right now. I was expecting more coments on both sides, but what I see most is some dumb, some doubter who don't want to do proper research, and the liers, like you. But I guess I understand why: you research a subject, you test on reality, you see it's real and that people are being tricked, yet, when you show it, people decide to believe on argument from liers and ignore it. So, if this is the reason, I can understand why so little responses/talks in geral, as the old members can see when it's futile to discuss further with certain kind of people.