Felix Baumgartner Pictures prove Flat Earth

We all remember the day Felix Baumgartner supposedly leaped from the edge of space, parachuting down to Earth from a height of 39 km.
Here's a still image from the official, NASA-approved video:



Now, at 39.000 meters, curvature should be clearly visible. In addition to this, the surface blow Baumgartner is clearly quite flat, so discerning the curvature should not be difficult at all. However, in this picture, the curvature of the Earth is obscured by the use of a fish eye lens. How convenient.
However, the fish eye lens which keeps us from seeing the event as it actually unfolded can be removed using Lens Correction tools. I went to the trouble of digitally correcting the image, and now we get...



Ta da! Does this look curved to you? Of course it doesn't. The horizon is flat as a pancake - as it is in real life.
Hopefully this will be enough for some of you see the wool that has been pulled over your eyes. The real world is out there, folks - you just have to look harder to be able to see it.

Source, though probably unnecessary: http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

So explain in detail measured distances and the path of the sun.

So explain in detail measured distances and the path of the sun.

Lets not derail the thread. This is about the curvature of the horizon, a very different field.
Why don't you explain Dark Matter? Why don't you explain the Fermi paradox? You have very big issues with your "model" that you can't explain, and yet to blunder in here and demand answers as if it would discredit the entire Flat Earth model.
At least try to argue about the subject at hand.

It looks exactly like a sphere with 40 000 km circumference should look like from mere 40 km above the ground.

It looks exactly like a sphere with 40 000 km circumference should look like from mere 40 km above the ground.

Have you done any research whatsoever? Even astronauts admit that curvature should be visible at only 10 000+ meters. That's not me talking, that's them. Look it up, I even provided a source to start with.

Quote from: FalseProphet on June 27, 2016, 02:56:18 PM

It looks exactly like a sphere with 40 000 km circumference should look like from mere 40 km above the ground.

Have you done any research whatsoever? Even astronauts admit that curvature should be visible at only 10 000+ meters. That's not me talking, that's them. Look it up, I even provided a source to start with.

Maybe you can see it even at 10 km height, but you had to see more of the horizon than this little bit.

I have not done "research", I just rely on my spatial imagination.

So you photoshopped it.  Also at that height with that little bit of horizon you may not see much of a curve.  One other thing if you believe the earth is a disk wouldn't you see the curve of the edge anyway?

We all remember the day Felix Baumgartner supposedly leaped from the edge of space, parachuting down to Earth from a height of 39 km.
Here's a still image from the official, NASA-approved video:



Now, at 39.000 meters, curvature should be clearly visible. In addition to this, the surface blow Baumgartner is clearly quite flat, so discerning the curvature should not be difficult at all. However, in this picture, the curvature of the Earth is obscured by the use of a fish eye lens. How convenient.
However, the fish eye lens which keeps us from seeing the event as it actually unfolded can be removed using Lens Correction tools. I went to the trouble of digitally correcting the image, and now we get...



Ta da! Does this look curved to you? Of course it doesn't. The horizon is flat as a pancake - as it is in real life.
Hopefully this will be enough for some of you see the wool that has been pulled over your eyes. The real world is out there, folks - you just have to look harder to be able to see it.

Source, though probably unnecessary: http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

And its clearly visible, so your problem is what exactly ?

Why did you crop the picture? One who is skeptical might suspect that you cherry picked part of the picture you thought worked best to support your hypothesis while omitting the rest.

We all remember the day Felix Baumgartner supposedly leaped from the edge of space, parachuting down to Earth from a height of 39 km.
Here's a still image from the official, NASA-approved video:



Now, at 39.000 meters, curvature should be clearly visible. In addition to this, the surface blow Baumgartner is clearly quite flat, so discerning the curvature should not be difficult at all. However, in this picture, the curvature of the Earth is obscured by the use of a fish eye lens. How convenient.
However, the fish eye lens which keeps us from seeing the event as it actually unfolded can be removed using Lens Correction tools. I went to the trouble of digitally correcting the image, and now we get...



Ta da! Does this look curved to you? Of course it doesn't. The horizon is flat as a pancake - as it is in real life.
Hopefully this will be enough for some of you see the wool that has been pulled over your eyes. The real world is out there, folks - you just have to look harder to be able to see it.

Source, though probably unnecessary: http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

How do you know that there was a fish eye effect? the image looks more distorted in the one you edited then the original!

Why did you crop the picture? One who is skeptical might suspect that you cherry picked part of the picture you thought worked best to support your hypothesis while omitting the rest.

Cropping is a natural side-effect of Lens Correction.

Why does this issue keep coming up? IT IS ALWAYS a circle and NEVER flat.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66717.msg1779776#msg1779776)
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67101.msg1791834#msg1791834)

Correct images all you want, but HAS TO BE a circle - ALWAYS!

Go on YouTube and search for'mythbusters u2'
The thumbnail for the video shows a flat horizon at 100,000 feet

Go on YouTube and search for'mythbusters u2'
The thumbnail for the video shows a flat horizon at 100,000 feet

Curvature is largely influenced by camera angle.  You'll have to find something a bit more substantial than a pilot cam to prove your point. 

No,curvature is not influenced by camera angle at all

Curvature is largely influenced by camera angle.  You'll have to find something a bit more substantial than a pilot cam to prove your point. 

No,curvature is not influenced by camera angle at all

Not sure if serious.... You posted a pilot cam immediately after Blue_Moon's post? What exactly is your argument? I read your post as if it was said with sarcasm, but if that is the case then it seems there is no disagreement - curvature shown in photos can be influenced by camera angle. That doesn't prove or disprove a flat Earth though.

I must be missing something, like the point you were trying to make, or something else of importance?

I went to the trouble of digitally correcting the image, and now we get...



Ta da!

Could you "digitally correct" the image to show mars in the background?

Ex-Globe:
7:04. looks pretty round to me.

How do you know that there was a fish eye effect? the image looks more distorted in the one you edited then the original!

The fact that the horizon was already distorted while the capsul was still on the ground is a good indicator that the lenses were not on the up-and-up.

Quote from: BumbleStar on June 27, 2016, 11:06:44 PM

How do you know that there was a fish eye effect? the image looks more distorted in the one you edited then the original!

The fact that the horizon was already distorted while the capsul was still on the ground is a good indicator that the lenses were not on the up-and-up.

What's your problem?

High Altitude Photographs
Most pictures of the earth taken by amateur balloonists at very high altitudes are not doctored.

But, did Felix Baumgartner claim to have proved the globe? I don't know, but so many seem to think he is being deceptive.

so its ok for you to admit to doctoring a picture but it's not ok for nasa?

similarly, using videos and photos as evidence but not accepting them yourself?

unfortunately, that's not how debates work

I got to the trouble of giving evidence without citing nasa, most globe earth explanations use testable evidence



you using that photo gives people absolute right to disprove you by showing you one of the pictures of earth that nasa openly admit is a composite

FYI, regardless of lens type, the position of the horizon in the frame does affect the curvature of the visible horizon:


As I stated above, it is ALWAYS a circle. Its height below horizontal changes the higher you go.

How do you know that there was a fish eye effect?

Because if it was not Felix Baumgaartner would still be orbiting the planet.

If something is in the middle of the frame it is completely undistorted, whenever the horizon is in the center of the frame in the mythbusters video it is flat.
(The only time it's in the center of the frame is the internal camera,and you see the flat horizon behind the presenter)

If something is in the middle of the frame it is completely undistorted, whenever the horizon is in the center of the frame in the mythbusters video it is flat.
(The only time it's in the center of the frame is the internal camera,and you see the flat horizon behind the presenter)

Ugh just shut up already. The issue has been settled. The apparent curvature is a result of the fisheye effect, and the horizon at that altitude shouldn't look that curved anyway. Done. End of story, what's your issue and why do you keep going?

According to the science website curvature should be visible at that altitude

According to the science website curvature should be visible at that altitude

With a wide field of view...

Interesting that Adam says in that episode that he saw the curvature of the Earth......

Quote from: Ex-Globe on June 30, 2016, 03:32:07 PM

According to the science website curvature should be visible at that altitude

With a wide field of view...

Interesting that Adam says in that episode that he saw the curvature of the Earth......

Adam has never been mistaken before? 

According to the science website curvature should be visible at that altitude

You'd have to be there, or have a wide angle lens. If you had a wide enough angle lens, it would also have considerable distortion, unless it was super expensive. So it's not high enough.

Quote from: JoshPerplexed on June 30, 2016, 08:12:11 PM

Quote from: Ex-Globe on June 30, 2016, 03:32:07 PM

According to the science website curvature should be visible at that altitude

With a wide field of view...

Interesting that Adam says in that episode that he saw the curvature of the Earth......

Adam has never been mistaken before?

Why are you posting that?