Are there any pictures depicting a flat earth?

Unretouched 35mm (full frame) resized scan. 55mm lens.

The odd thing about your picture is that the shore line has pretty much the exact same curvature as the horizon. 

Yes the shape of that wave making up the shoreline is strange isnt it..


I thought the sky was stranger.. in Geoff's photo - it's blue! 

Hey, I took some more photo's today from Rex Lookout and the earth certainly looks round in this one.
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7131/irum.jpg

But wait I thought it was concave.
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5855/k8va.jpg

Hang on I don't have any emotional attachment to the shape of the earth, so I will show the straight one to.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/1328/bup1.jpg

Hey, I took some more photo's today from Rex Lookout and the earth certainly looks round in this one.


But wait I thought it was concave.


Hang on I don't have any emotional attachment to the shape of the earth, so I will show the straight one to.

That's what it looks like if you use the 'img' tags (next to the 'url' button, on the left).

Good set of photos by the way, thanks yet again for putting an actual effort in!

Just an additional thought: visible area in a flat or round earth, if you were in the middle of the ocean in the crows nest of a ship, on a completely calm day, would be a circle with you at the centre, right? Actually, it would be a very shallow cone, with you at the point. What happens if you take a straight, vertical cut through the side of a cone? You end up with an arc. Much like what is seen in ausGeoff's photo.

Thanks for the tip on loading the photo's.
It is time for you guys to go to the beach with a straight edge. There is zero chance of anybody convincing me that the horizon is curved the experiment is to easy to do. Those photo's today are at over 400ft and they are still not good enough for you. So do as I did and get a very long straight edge so long it won't fit in your photo and have a look with your eyes.
And here is the game changer. I have an idea for an experiment to sort this out, it is going to take some time and a little engineering but I need to know at what height I will see curvature. I do not need to go this trouble just to have roundies move goal posts.
In the meantime you know I have to say this "Roundies show me curvature with a straight edge" and don't forget to put your name in the photo.
I don't mean to dig at ausGeoff again but his photo does not mean squat without a straight edge to compare it to.

I'm going to word my point another way, then I'm going to leave it alone: the horizon does appear to curve, if you have a wide enough expanse to look at. This curve gets easier to see the higher you go. This curve also means precisely squat in the RE/FE debate. This curve would exist just as easily on a FE (provided there was something creating a horizon effect) as it does on a RE. The only thing this curve tells us, is that we are at the centre of our little personal bit of visible earth.

Let me say it one more time: A CURVED HORIZON MEANS NOTHING. The fact that there is a horizon at all, however, is something worth talking about.

Why is it that distant objects that are higher remain visible when objects at the same distance but lower appear to go behind this horizon?
Why does a ship appear to sink as it travels away?
Why does land appear to sink if you travel away from it on a ship?
Why, when traveling over land, do mountains disappear bottom first in the same manner?
Why, when I measure the apparent height of a distant mountain, do my results indicate a round earth?

The odd thing about your picture is that the shore line has pretty much the exact same curvature as the horizon.

Why, specifically, is that odd? 

Because of the uneven profile of the sand, the waves were travelling further up the beach—as you can see on the right-hand side of the image.  The water's edge could well have been curved out or straight for that matter.


 

It is odd that you present a curved horizon in a picture, yet the shoreline has the exact same curve.  Perhaps you were being disingenuous when you presented it?  I just find it odd. 

I don't mean to dig at ausGeoff again but his photo does not mean squat without a straight edge to compare it to.

No offence taken.   

As I said, that's just a raw image straight out of one of my 35mm film cameras with a prime 55mm lens on it.  You'll have to take my word it's not been Photoshopped in any way, shape or form.

It is odd that you present a curved horizon in a picture, yet the shoreline has the exact same curve.  Perhaps you were being disingenuous when you presented it?  I just find it odd.

I'm sorry, but I think you're imagining demons that aren't there.  As I said above, you'll just have to take my word that the image is kosher.  If you choose to refute what the camera recorded, then that's obviously your prerogative, but I'm hoping the other FEs will accept that it's a genuine, unretouched, raw image.

 

 

I am not claiming that you are deliberately trying to trick us.  I am simply proposing that maybe you knew about the lens distortion and tried to pass it off as having none.

tappet's photo shows his straight edge completely following the slight curvature of the horizon, yet people are trying to put focus on the curved horizon and lead people away from the curved straight edge.

You present a curved horizon, and the shoreline perfectly follows this curve.  I am not sure if you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes; I am just stating that it is questionable. 

I am not claiming that you are deliberately trying to trick us.  I am simply proposing that maybe you knew about the lens distortion and tried to pass it off as having none.

tappet's photo shows his straight edge completely following the slight curvature of the horizon, yet people are trying to put focus on the curved horizon and lead people away from the curved straight edge.

You present a curved horizon, and the shoreline perfectly follows this curve.  I am not sure if you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes; I am just stating that it is questionable.

Follows the curve perfectly?



Maybe you should use something more accurate than your eyes?

Wait, so the horizon, which is very far away, is not the exact same curvature as the shore, which is very close?  You seem to pick and choose your evidence as it fits your needs.   

It is odd that you present a curved horizon in a picture, yet the shoreline has the exact same curve.  Perhaps you were being disingenuous when you presented it?  I just find it odd. 

I am not claiming that you are deliberately trying to trick us.  I am simply proposing that maybe you knew about the lens distortion and tried to pass it off as having none.

tappet's photo shows his straight edge completely following the slight curvature of the horizon, yet people are trying to put focus on the curved horizon and lead people away from the curved straight edge.

You present a curved horizon, and the shoreline perfectly follows this curve.  I am not sure if you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes; I am just stating that it is questionable. 

I'm not presenting this as evidence of the curvature of the Earth.

Wait, so the horizon, which is very far away, is not the exact same curvature as the shore, which is very close?  You seem to pick and choose your evidence as it fits your needs.

Because the surf always moves up the beach smoothly doesn't it. Oh, and I'm not claiming that you are being deliberately disingenuous.

Let me say it one more time: A CURVED HORIZON MEANS NOTHING. The fact that there is a horizon at all, however, is something worth talking about.

This is the part where you are wrong. It is I who has been saying the curved horizon means nothing. You guy's were implying curved horizon means curvature of the earth.
Standing on this earth and seeing earth curvature is totally busted.

And to answer the OP's question.
Every picture taken of this earth while standing on this earth depict a flat earth!

Quote from: Scintific Method on February 16, 2014, 03:59:57 AM

Let me say it one more time: A CURVED HORIZON MEANS NOTHING. The fact that there is a horizon at all, however, is something worth talking about.

This is the part where you are wrong. It is I who has been saying the curved horizon means nothing.

You just agreed with me.

You guy's were implying curved horizon means curvature of the earth.

I wasn't, I've been trying to point out that it'll be curved whether the earth is round or flat.

Standing on this earth and seeing earth curvature is totally busted.

Directly seeing curvature, perhaps, but you can see the evidence of curvature. Read the rest of my post which you only quoted part of. Particularly the last line. Here, I'll help you:

Why, when I measure the apparent height of a distant mountain, do my results indicate a round earth?

And to answer the OP's question.
Every picture taken of this earth while standing on this earth depict a flat earth!

Really? I've seen a lot of pictures, some even posted by flat earthers, which show evidence of curvature. Your picture of the container ship run aground comes to mind.

It is your claim sinking ship proves round earth, not mine.

It is your claim sinking ship proves round earth, not mine.

I'm aware of this, although I have yet to see a satisfactory (plausible) alternative explanation of the sinking ship/building/mountain phenomenon.

Wait, so the horizon, which is very far away, is not the exact same curvature as the shore, which is very close?  You seem to pick and choose your evidence as it fits your needs.

You're missing the point entirely!  The shoreline—or the edge of the waves on the sand—has NOTHING to do with the horizon line!

Obviously, the profile of the waves is totally random and independent of the horizon.  I would've thought anybody would understand that simple point without the need for detailed explanations.  Are you claiming that somehow the two are interconnected?

And it's nothing to do with "picking and choosing" evidence.  The image—as you're seeing it—is exactly how it came out of my camera.
 

I am just saying that when I draw a straight line across the horizon and another across the shoreline, the two arcs look very much identical.  This leads me to believe that the photo could be distorted somehow, whether intentionally or not. 

Maybe you should use something more accurate than your eyes?

Thanks for superimposing the geometry on my image—although it'll irritate the flat earthers.  They detest empirical evidence that contradicts their beliefs LOL.

Too many FEs seem to be deficient in their understanding of optical laws and the propagation of light.  It's also becoming apparent that not many of them understand how cameras and/or lenses function either from some of the bizarre comments made about posted images.

That in itself is not a problem, but... to suggest I'm deliberately posting bogus image information (as jroa has done twice) is really not acceptable.
 

I am just saying that when I draw a straight line across the horizon and another across the shoreline, the two arcs look very much identical.  This leads me to believe that the photo could be distorted somehow, whether intentionally or not.

Or its a coincidence and totally irreverent to the subject matter.

I am just saying that when I draw a straight line across the horizon and another across the shoreline, the two arcs look very much identical.  This leads me to believe that the photo could be distorted somehow, whether intentionally or not.

Oh dear... you just don't get it do you?

Again, there is absolutely NO physical relationship between the shoreline profile and the horizon line.  And if you look at the geometry dephelis has superimposed on my image—rather than just using your eyes—you'll immediately see this.

And my camera was absolutely horizontal when I took this snap, again proven by the consistent 7pix drop at either side of the frame.
 

 

I am just saying that when I draw a straight line across the horizon and another across the shoreline, the two arcs look very much identical.  This leads me to believe that the photo could be distorted somehow, whether intentionally or not.

Really? How about you post your image of straight lines that make the two curves look identical, after all I am ...

not claiming that you are deliberately trying to trick us.

Quote from: dephelis on February 16, 2014, 01:12:17 PM

Maybe you should use something more accurate than your eyes?

Thanks for superimposing the geometry on my image—although it'll irritate the flat earthers.  They detest empirical evidence that contradicts their beliefs LOL.

Too many FEs seem to be deficient in their understanding of optical laws and the propagation of light.  It's also becoming apparent that not many of them understand how cameras and/or lenses function either from some of the bizarre comments made about posted images.

That in itself is not a problem, but... to suggest I'm deliberately posting bogus image information (as jroa has done twice) is really not acceptable.
 

I figured you probably wouldn't mind.

As for jroa, he has explicitly said that he is definitely not accusing you of that in any way whatsoever ... absolutely not ... uh-huh, that just isn't conceivable ... you definitely have the wrong end of the stick there. I'm sure if he really did think so he would have the cojones to actually say so rather than imply it in a completely underhanded and morally bankrupt way.

I guess when—like a lot of flat earthers—one continually disparages (anonymous) third-party images with little chance of retribution from the originator, it's a habit that translates to someone like me, a round earther, who posts one of my own images taken with my own camera.

If I claim it's a genuine, unretouched image taken with the optical specs I quote (which of course it is), then the FEs have two options.  Accept what they're seeing with their own eyes, or call me out as a liar (which in effect is what jroa has subtly implied a couple of times).  He attempted—and failed—to prove any visual discrepancies with my image, so the only path left to him was the good old ad hominem attack.

When FEs are confronted with incontrovertible photographic images, they end up well and truly backed into a corner.
 

I am just saying that when I draw a straight line across the horizon and another across the shoreline, the two arcs look very much identical.  This leads me to believe that the photo could be distorted somehow, whether intentionally or not.

A little late to the conversation, but here.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Just thought you should take a look.

Here's an "experiment" for you,..
try holding water on a ball.
Oh wait, I'm not done,
whilst spinning it at 1,600 miles and hour.

It does not fly off just like the dust on the moon surface does not fly out in space. You do know the moon is spinning right!!