Flat earth proof - looking at the deception - inconstitencies

https://www.google.co.il/search?q=earth+curvature+from+airplane&biw=1024&bih=573&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lgKPVYHYKMvWU8Hzg9AC&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgrc=HLunTYvt4rrToM%3A

look at this picture - see the curvature.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

look from 1:39-2:00.
now look at this - higher altitude(even if it wasn't higher) almost non-curvature and I say almost because there is no curvature but if rayzor the liar will find with his lying-software a curvature it must be much smaller than the first photo.

every curvature is due to camera.

SEE THAT AND SEE THE DECEPTION - EARTH IS FLAT.

another photo with exaggerated curvature and inconsistencies regarding other photos - there is no curvature only camera.
Thanks to mikeman.

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/040/237/i02/world-view-vista.jpg?1403622057

by the way, the funny thing is that you can claim by the photo of mikeman that the earth is flat because it show only coin shape not horizontally curvature even nasa can't produce horizontally curvature.
you actually can imagine by the photo of mikeman (Which the curvature caused by the camera) that the earth continue eternally.

If you actually knew anything about photography you would know that the field of view of the camera can change the apparent curvature of the Earth.  Also, if you knew anything about geometry you would know that no horizontal curvature is expected on a round Earth.

If you actually knew anything about photography you would know that the field of view of the camera can change the apparent curvature of the Earth.  Also, if you knew anything about geometry you would know that no horizontal curvature is expected on a round Earth.

I know this tactic - you take the flat earth claims and invert it to Round earth claims.
I say the curvature cannot be determine because of the camera, and I show you how the curvature is not-exist at all at some photos because in reality there is no curvature.
And now you take my claim as and invert it to globe earth claim how impressive.

What is the law that determine that there is not horizontally curvature in ball isn't it paradox ?

by the way, as I see it now you actually said the true - THE CAMERA CAUSE THE CURVATURE - SEE I KNOW ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY AS YOU SAID.
There is no curvature.

I know this tactic - you take the flat earth claims and invert it to Round earth claims.

Oh, you mean the tactic you use when you claim that ships sinking below the horizon somehow proves flat Earth?

I say the curvature cannot be determine because of the camera, and I show you how the curvature is not-exist at all at some photos because in reality there is no curvature.
And now you take my claim as and invert it to globe earth claim how impressive.

That's not in debate.  Look at this image:


That image was taken with a wide field of view lens at a low angle.  That's why it looks curved.  That's why the curvature seems so inconsistent.

What is the law that determine that there is not horizontally curvature in ball isn't it paradox ?

(not to scale)

The horizon is the same angular distance below eye level in all directions from the observer at a given altitude.  The horizon being below eye level results in it looking curved.

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 01:48:57 PM

I know this tactic - you take the flat earth claims and invert it to Round earth claims.

Oh, you mean the tactic you use when you claim that ships sinking below the horizon somehow proves flat Earth?

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 01:48:57 PM

I say the curvature cannot be determine because of the camera, and I show you how the curvature is not-exist at all at some photos because in reality there is no curvature.
And now you take my claim as and invert it to globe earth claim how impressive.

That's not in debate.  Look at this image:


That image was taken with a wide field of view lens at a low angle.  That's why it looks curved.  That's why the curvature seems so inconsistent.

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 01:48:57 PM

What is the law that determine that there is not horizontally curvature in ball isn't it paradox ?

(not to scale)

The horizon is the same angular distance below eye level in all directions from the observer at a given altitude.  The horizon being below eye level results in it looking curved.

Exactly!!!!!!!! this is a progress you have mike.
The camera create the curvature there is no curvature at all.


I don't understand so now you say I should see the curve ? but you said I can't see it round earth ? what the... I should see horizontally curve in globe earth but even nasa cannot demonstrate it because of their stupidity.

see now the deception mike is going to be aware that there is conspiracy:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Redbull knew like mikeman that the camera has fish-eye lens but afterall they decide to make it look like the curve - CONSPIRACY OR NOT CONSPIRACY=DECEPTION OR NOT DECEPTION.

Exactly!!!!!!!! this is a progress you have mike.
The camera create the curvature there is no curvature at all.

This simply means that images of curvature are inconclusive.  It doesn't mean that there is no curvature.  This is why you can't use apparent curvature as evidence unless you have a level in the shot to measure if the horizon is at eye level.  I an airplane the horizon should be about 3 degrees below eye level according to math.

Quote from: modestman on June 27, 2015, 02:04:11 PM

Exactly!!!!!!!! this is a progress you have mike.
The camera create the curvature there is no curvature at all.

This simply means that images of curvature are inconclusive.  It doesn't mean that there is no curvature.  This is why you can't use apparent curvature as evidence unless you have a level in the shot to measure if the horizon is at eye level.  I an airplane the horizon should be about 3 degrees below eye level according to math.

This is a progress mike, there you have, you agree that the curvature is inconclusive I say - There is not curvature at all only the camera make it.
your claim about 3 degrees below eye level could you show how without a curve show a round earth ? WITHOUT A VISIBLE CURVE.

Please people see that I modified my previous comment for your pleasure.

Mike do you agree that you can't see the curvature while you on beach ? on shore height ?
so why the camera make it look like there is curvature ? because also in 120000 feet it make it look like that.
There is no curvature at zero height there is no curvature at 120000 feet.

here you go - Curvature at beach


https://www.google.co.il/search?q=beach+photos&biw=1024&bih=573&tbm=isch&imgil=93R6m92OjU3cLM%253A%253BDAeHJbJXIvIahM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.livescience.com%25252F38163-where-beach-sand-comes-from.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=93R6m92OjU3cLM%253A%252CDAeHJbJXIvIahM%252C_&usg=__o5V3SuD1PKnCRNqdAkytf4uJErg%3D&ved=0CC8Qyjc&ei=ABOPVezEKsj2Usj8j9gN#imgrc=93R6m92OjU3cLM%3A&usg=__o5V3SuD1PKnCRNqdAkytf4uJErg%3D

only because of camera and the same curvature you see at 120000 feet in some cameras - some show much more smaller curvature and some show none.

so you understand there is no curvature.

The curvature is only inconsistent when the camera is not pointed strait forward or directly at the horizon, which by the way are not the same direction.  If a camera is pointed directly forward the horizon will always apear strait but on a round Earth it will be below the center of the image, and if pointed at the horizon the horizon will appear to be as curved as it actually is, although the field of view of the camera effects how much of the curve you can see.  The inconstancies are only there when the camera is pointed in other directions.  Such things happen for the SAMs reason that there is no working flat Earth map: a sphere cannot be perfectly projected on a plane.

The curvature is only inconsistent when the camera is not pointed strait forward or directly at the horizon, which by the way are not the same direction.  If a camera is pointed directly forward the horizon will always apear strait but on a round Earth it will be below the center of the image, and if pointed at the horizon the horizon will appear to be as curved as it actually is, although the field of view of the camera effects how much of the curve you can see.  The inconstancies are only there when the camera is pointed in other directions.  Such things happen for the SAMs reason that there is no working flat Earth map: a sphere cannot be perfectly projected on a plane.

I showed you photos of so-called curvature from beach height that the camera was directly at the horizon, so you agree that the camera create a curvature that don't exist ?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 27, 2015, 08:01:27 PM

The curvature is only inconsistent when the camera is not pointed strait forward or directly at the horizon, which by the way are not the same direction.  If a camera is pointed directly forward the horizon will always apear strait but on a round Earth it will be below the center of the image, and if pointed at the horizon the horizon will appear to be as curved as it actually is, although the field of view of the camera effects how much of the curve you can see.  The inconstancies are only there when the camera is pointed in other directions.  Such things happen for the SAMs reason that there is no working flat Earth map: a sphere cannot be perfectly projected on a plane.

I showed you photos of so-called curvature from beach height that the camera was directly at the horizon, so you agree that the camera create a curvature that don't exist ?

Just draw a line between the upper left corner and the lower right corner of the image and another kind between the upper right corner and the lower left corner of the image.  Where the lines cross is the center of the frame.  It's also possible that the image was cropped ca, meaning that the center of the image won't neseserily corespond to where the camera was pointing.

Here is a great demonstration of lens distortion:


It's 3 images taken with 3 different fields of view at a distance that the grid looks roughly the same size in all images.

Quote from: modestman on June 28, 2015, 10:54:55 AM

Quote from: mikeman7918 on June 27, 2015, 08:01:27 PM

The curvature is only inconsistent when the camera is not pointed strait forward or directly at the horizon, which by the way are not the same direction.  If a camera is pointed directly forward the horizon will always apear strait but on a round Earth it will be below the center of the image, and if pointed at the horizon the horizon will appear to be as curved as it actually is, although the field of view of the camera effects how much of the curve you can see.  The inconstancies are only there when the camera is pointed in other directions.  Such things happen for the SAMs reason that there is no working flat Earth map: a sphere cannot be perfectly projected on a plane.

I showed you photos of so-called curvature from beach height that the camera was directly at the horizon, so you agree that the camera create a curvature that don't exist ?

Just draw a line between the upper left corner and the lower right corner of the image and another kind between the upper right corner and the lower left corner of the image.  Where the lines cross is the center of the frame.  It's also possible that the image was cropped ca, meaning that the center of the image won't neseserily corespond to where the camera was pointing.

Here is a great demonstration of lens distortion:


It's 3 images taken with 3 different fields of view at a distance that the grid looks roughly the same size in all images.

so there is not curvature and the photo you posted is fake curvature do you agree ?

so there is not curvature and the photo you posted is fake curvature do you agree ?

If my "fake curvature" you mean lens distortion and if you are only talking about near sea level then yes.  There are ways to tell if there is really curvature in an image, and I plan to prove that high altitude balloons see curvature.

When the horizon looks perfectly strait, you know that the camera is pointed strait forward.  If the horizon is always at eye level then you will never see it below the center of the image and perfectly strait at the same time, but such things are expected on a round Earth.

Modestman,

I agree with you. They like to use deception to try and prove a point. They should be ashamed of their selves. Keep up the good work.

Yendor

How many times do I have to say this?

Inconsistencies are not deception if there is a scientific and easy to prove reason for the inconsistencies.

Your brain automatically corrects for field of view induced curvature, but cameras don't do that so the curvature looks different depending on the direction the camera is pointing.  There are still ways of determining if curvature is actually present, but it involves more then just looking for curvature in the image.

This is a portion of Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator ring with 27 km in circumference (~1500 smaller than Earth). Personally, I can't see a curvature in there. Can you?
 

This is a portion of Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator ring with 27 km in circumference (~1500 smaller than Earth). Personally, I can't see a curvature in there. Can you?
 

I can't see a 27 km in there either. Can you?
Naturally you've walked the 27 km to know it's all legit and does what you are told it does; Right?

Smash a few particles together and whoosh, you got a time machine. A black hole. A potential universe starter. A big bang.

I can't prove what I say no more than  you can prove what you say, but I'll tell you what. I'm not going to be a naive fantasy merchant and believe this utter utter shit. LHC. I can think of better names for it than "large hardon collider" I can also think of a better names for the "Higgs boson".

None of them are particularly nice, so I'll leave it up to whoever wants to guess.

It's called "The Large Hadron Collider" get it right. We don't want to hear about your homo sexual fantasies.

It should be doable to verify the circumference of the ring but it depends how much you want to bet on this.

It should be doable to verify the circumference of the ring but it depends how much you want to bet on this.

The only way you'll verify the circumference of that supposed ring, is to walk around it, inside - viewing everything, whilst also using a measuring wheel and wearing a decent comfortable pair of trainers. 

Are you seriously arguing the fact that breaking things apart makes them into their parts? Smash thing together, get parts of thing. Simple enough for you?

Are you seriously arguing the fact that breaking things apart makes them into their parts? Smash thing together, get parts of thing. Simple enough for you?

Why does this surprise you.  He thinks the earth is flat, clouds aren't real and fairies are.  At this point it's par for the course.

Are you seriously arguing the fact that breaking things apart makes them into their parts? Smash thing together, get parts of thing. Simple enough for you?

Is this to me? if it is, can you decipher it for me, please?