Flat earth believers: what evidence would convince you the earth is round?

  • 52 Replies
  • 16801 Views
*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
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 don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42491
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/

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

Gee, maybe I have been playing this game too long.  :-\
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
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/

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

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 don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

Goth

  • 220
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/

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

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,,,

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Photoshopped images,,,,, if you can't make it fake it,,,
Something is wrong. That much is apparent.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

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/

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
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/
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.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Seemed to convince the guy sat on the mountain taking the photos. Maybe he's wrong or paid off by The Conspiracy?
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
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.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
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...
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
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
Quote from: the blog the photos came from
-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.
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
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
Quote from: the blog the photos came from
-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


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

A personal trip in a spacecraft around the Earth would convince me.

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Quote from: you know who you are
-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?!
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Quote from: you know who you are
-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.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
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.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

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.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
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.
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
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?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
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.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

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.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

11cookeaw1

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.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
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.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.