Rocket Launch Video, no fish-eye lens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sQw_C5KLhFM#t=40s

You can see at the start of the video, the lens is completely "normal" and there is no visible curvature in the video when the camera is on the ground.

These pictures below show the curve - not perfect obviously but it is large enough to be seen. I tried to choose the spots in the video where it gave a level picture (Not tilted).
1.

2.

(As you can see, I was even being generous with the peak of the arc in the second picture)

According to this Wikipedia page- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon - the curvature is "there" at around 33,000 ft. but can not be seen due to refraction of light. Thus, a rocket that went up to 121,000 ft. proves that there is definitely curvature being shown in the video.

Very poor photo quality...
Yet another case of the double standard when it comes to RET evidence.
FET can be as shoddy as it likes.

Anyway; it is hard to tell, considering how shaky the rocket is, but I am fairly sure I saw some curvature in the video.
If we got rid of that annoying and  blocking red line; I am fairly sure we'd see it in your pictures as well.

Oh, and of course, we don't know what kind of lens was used. For all we know, it was taken with a fisheye lense.

Yes, the curvature was a bit hard to see. That was the original intention of the red line, to show it. Below are the pictures without the red line.





Also, it notes at the beginning of the video that a Flip HD video camera was used. These do NOT have a fish-eye lens.
Specs: http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/flip-ultrahd-2010-2/4505-6500_7-34179535.html

There would be no reason for them to put an additional lens on the camera anyway. If you are looking for further proof simply search "Flip HD Test" and you will see that there is no sort of distortion on the sides.

That last picture almost looks to me to have some curvature... I'm not sure, since it is at an angle, but still.
Really hard to tell.
The first one is facing the light, so I can't really see much.
Too bad they aren't higher quality...

Also; rereading your post made me realize that this was intended as RET evidence. Sorry about that.
Seeing a flat line made me think otherwise...

You realize this little rocket cleared 22 miles?  That's a little amateur rocket.

What more proof do we need that getting into outer space isn't that difficult?

I added my own line to the original pictures to show more of the curvature.

And here is a picture just after it breaks through the clouds.

Looks pretty flat to me.

You realize this little rocket cleared 22 miles?  That's a little amateur rocket.

What more proof do we need that getting into outer space isn't that difficult?

Getting to space is not that difficult. Noone has claimed otherwise. This picture shows exactly what one should expect to see from extremely high-altitude without the fish-eye baloney usually accompanying such videos. It should be added to a list of other photos (usually from high-altitude balloons for whatever reason) that show the true nature of the horizon at altitude. 

Quote from: Soulfien on April 13, 2012, 07:36:50 PM

You realize this little rocket cleared 22 miles?  That's a little amateur rocket.

What more proof do we need that getting into outer space isn't that difficult?

Getting to space is not that difficult. Noone has claimed otherwise. This picture shows exactly what one should expect to see from extremely high-altitude without the fish-eye baloney usually accompanying such videos. It should be added to a list of other photos (usually from high-altitude balloons for whatever reason) that show the true nature of the horizon at altitude.

22 Miles is not space.

I'm not seeing any curvature. Simply because you decided to place a curved line in a fuzzy horizon does not mean there is curvature there.

video shows the "lit" portion of our giant disc.
thank you for sharing

video shows the "lit" portion of our giant disc.
thank you for sharing

Why don't we see any lights from cities in the unlit portion?  Ever, in any picture where I've seen this as an explanation.

Why would you expect to?

Yeah, all I see is a disk.

Why would you expect to?

Why wouldn't I expect to?  If all we're seeing is the lit portion in these very high altitude photos, there should still be towns and cities beyond it with electricity and lights.

I should note I'm not just talking about this photo, where it could be difficult to see anything due to the angle.  But I've seen other photos with the same explanation used where it doesn't make any sense.

Looks pretty flat to me.

That is the point.  My picture in post #7 is only a few seconds after takeoff and show a very flat horizon and the lens is obviously not a fish eye.  The two pictures before it are near the end of the rockets accent and clearly show a curved, although fuzzy, horizon when compared to the straight line.

streetlights are visible from space?

streetlights are visible from space?

What do you think?

streetlights are visible from space?

Well NASA and most other space agencies do include the lights from cities, although most FE'ers deny they have ever been to space so what they think it "should" (lit up) look like is irrelevant.

Although it does make sense, considering how large and bright our cities can be.

streetlights are visible from space?

how can u refute this when you bang on about nasa all day long

Wait doesn't this picture of the Earth from space prove you can have satellites in space? Isn't that inconsistent with Flat Earth theory?

Wait doesn't this picture of the Earth from space prove you can have satellites in space? Isn't that inconsistent with Flat Earth theory?

Some FE'ers ascertain that satellites can "float" on top of the atmolayer in the same manner the Sun and Moon do.

Quote from: Locke on April 18, 2012, 08:03:06 PM

Wait doesn't this picture of the Earth from space prove you can have satellites in space? Isn't that inconsistent with Flat Earth theory?

Some FE'ers ascertain that satellites can "float" on top of the atmolayer in the same manner the Sun and Moon do.

Do tell us how they ascertained that. Is this yet another case of special pleading? Would you please provide a link to any FEer who posted that they had ascertained this outlandish claim?

i think what rushy means is that that sattelites are probably caught in the UA's force causing them to circle the giant disc, in the same way our moon, sun, stars are...

yet another win for space travel and disc earth thoery!

i think what rushy means is that that sattelites are probably caught in the UA's force causing them to circle the giant disc, in the same way our moon, sun, stars are...

yet another win for space travel and disc earth thoery!

So magic is all FET has, yet again? Sure looks like another textbook example of special pleading.

i think what rushy means is that that sattelites are probably caught in the UA's force causing them to circle the giant disc, in the same way our moon, sun, stars are...

yet another win for space travel and disc earth thoery!

If the sun, moon, stars, and satellites are all revolving overhead due to UA or any other force, then my do they all move at different speeds?  Also, what causes them all to keep such a predictable rate of rotation?  And, why is the sun such an oddball in that its orbit changes so much throughout the year?

Quote from: Ski on April 14, 2012, 07:23:29 PM

Why would you expect to?

Why wouldn't I expect to?  If all we're seeing is the lit portion in these very high altitude photos, there should still be towns and cities beyond it with electricity and lights.

I should note I'm not just talking about this photo, where it could be difficult to see anything due to the angle.  But I've seen other photos with the same explanation used where it doesn't make any sense.

High contrast.

Yeah, all I see is a disk.

If you can see the disc, why have you still never managed to accurately map Antarctica?