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

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 02, 2014, 12:28:46 PM

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/

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. 

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 04, 2014, 07:19:59 PM

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?

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2014, 07:47:57 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 04, 2014, 07:19:59 PM

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,,,

Photoshopped images,,,,, if you can't make it fake it,,,

Something is wrong. That much is apparent.

Quote from: Goth on June 05, 2014, 06:10:52 AM

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/

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 05, 2014, 11:08:44 AM

Quote from: Goth on June 05, 2014, 06:10:52 AM

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.

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

-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.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 05, 2014, 02:54:59 PM

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

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

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?!

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.

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.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 06, 2014, 01:40:27 AM

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?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 06, 2014, 02:01:00 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 06, 2014, 01:40:27 AM

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: JimmyTheCrab on June 06, 2014, 02:01:00 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 06, 2014, 01:40:27 AM

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: JimmyTheCrab on June 06, 2014, 02:01:00 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 06, 2014, 01:40:27 AM

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.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 06, 2014, 11:06:55 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 06, 2014, 02:01:00 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 06, 2014, 01:40:27 AM

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.