British 19-Year-Old takes Earth Pictures Using a £30 Camera

It is a photograph showing the curvature.

Pray tell how that makes it a poor argument?

the curvature in it being minimal and hardly a reliable bit of evidence when there's as much potential error as there is when that many clouds etc are involved, and a one-pixel line can make it impossible to notice.

But you can see the curvature, right? No matter what you call the balloon.

But you can see the curvature, right? No matter what you call the balloon.

Lol. This kid sent a camera up to space on a helium balloon and the headline says it was satellite.  I could not make this up.

I consider the potential error to be non-existent. You think otherwise. Have you singled out other photographs, or do you only participate in the ones you deem to show minimal curvature? And even minimal curvature is proof of curvature, as I am sure you know.

You do not consider flat Earthers capable of defending their viewpoint? I fail to see your role in all this.

EDIT: Could be just me, but I consider taking the side of flat Earthers as support of flat Earth as it means you think FE is equal to RE. And that Dark Ages crap has no place in modern society. Though it does fit the current anti-intellectual trend.

Quote from: rvlvr on February 26, 2018, 08:35:10 AM

But you can see the curvature, right? No matter what you call the balloon.

Are all satellites filled with helium?

I'm not riled up, I made one post about the curvature in it being minimal and hardly a reliable bit of evidence when there's as much potential error as there is when that many clouds etc are involved, and a one-pixel line can make it impossible to notice. Just, as ever, it gets blown out of all proportion by a select few round earthers who think even the bad arguments are sacrosanct.

I don't see how angling the lense there produces the slight curvature.

But sure, the marble you presented is a better one.

Lol, it makes me laugh, the round earthers have all their feathers ruffled off Jane telling the truth (and I absolutely hate agreeing with Jane, it kills me a little on the inside)..but it's true, there is no curvature to be seen.

Honestly, if you look at it, seems the right side is a hair higher than the middle, them the left starts to rise a hair again. Is this squiggly earther theory?

Round earthers, if your case is so solid, why get so flustered?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2018, 01:16:38 PM

Lol, it makes me laugh, the round earthers have all their feathers ruffled off Jane telling the truth (and I absolutely hate agreeing with Jane, it kills me a little on the inside)..but it's true, there is no curvature to be seen.

Honestly, if you look at it, seems the right side is a hair higher than the middle, them the left starts to rise a hair again. Is this squiggly earther theory?

Round earthers, if your case is so solid, why get so flustered?

They wouldn't be here if they didn't have some doubt.

This is also true. Sometimes the way Jack or Rab argue it's almost like they are trying to convince themselves rather than everyone else.

Quote from: rvlvr on February 26, 2018, 08:35:10 AM

But you can see the curvature, right? No matter what you call the balloon.

Are all satellites filled with helium?

Quote from: Shifter on February 26, 2018, 01:34:56 PM

This is also true. Sometimes the way Jack or Rab argue it's almost like they are trying to convince themselves rather than everyone else.

Is this the same as a straight person who spends all their time on a gay website yelling at them because of them questioning inner feelings?

Except its not. Modern cameras even cheap ones are extremely precise, barrel distortion from the lens is is measurable extremely accurately, there is no reason for any sane rational person to say photos are hardly a reliable source of evidence unless they feel they have proof of Photo manipulation, and unless every single person who has ever sent a camera up in a ballon is all a part of the same giant mass conspiracy then they can't all be doing it

Lol, it makes me laugh, the round earthers have all their feathers ruffled off Jane telling the truth (and I absolutely hate agreeing with Jane, it kills me a little on the inside)..but it's true, there is no curvature to be seen.

Quote from: mike247 on February 26, 2018, 01:02:47 PM

Except its not. Modern cameras even cheap ones are extremely precise, barrel distortion from the lens is is measurable extremely accurately, there is no reason for any sane rational person to say photos are hardly a reliable source of evidence unless they feel they have proof of Photo manipulation, and unless every single person who has ever sent a camera up in a ballon is all a part of the same giant mass conspiracy then they can't all be doing it

I'm not talking about cameras, I'm talking about the photo presented here even without going into issues like distortion and manipulation. It doesn't depict curvature.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2018, 01:16:38 PM

Lol, it makes me laugh, the round earthers have all their feathers ruffled off Jane telling the truth (and I absolutely hate agreeing with Jane, it kills me a little on the inside)..but it's true, there is no curvature to be seen.

Oh god I need to change sides now 

Proof that space has concave curvature...

No, just not letting you stroke your own egos by passing off bad evidence as though it's unquestionable.
The fact that there are good arguments for FET does not mean you have to defend every random thing that gets thrown out. I haven't even mentioned the issues most FEers have, from lens distortion to questioned sources, though the latter at least doesn't seem to be relevant in this case.

The curvature is six pixels worth of cloud. Compressing it isn't going to change that. All that does is give you more freedom with where you put your line with reference to the edges. Look at the right hand side of the compressed image; it's all cloud, no clear view of the Earth. And the left is pretty indistinct too. This is not a good photo of curvature.



Fod god's sake. There are good arguments out there. All you do when you spend all your energy defending nonsense like this is discredit us in the eyes of FEers.

I consider the potential error to be non-existent. You think otherwise. Have you singled out other photographs, or do you only participate in the ones you deem to show minimal curvature? And even minimal curvature is proof of curvature, as I am sure you know.

You do not consider flat Earthers capable of defending their viewpoint? I fail to see your role in all this.

(and I absolutely hate agreeing with Jane, it kills me a little on the inside)..

Quote from: mike247 on February 26, 2018, 01:02:47 PM

Except its not. Modern cameras even cheap ones are extremely precise, barrel distortion from the lens is is measurable extremely accurately, there is no reason for any sane rational person to say photos are hardly a reliable source of evidence unless they feel they have proof of Photo manipulation, and unless every single person who has ever sent a camera up in a ballon is all a part of the same giant mass conspiracy then they can't all be doing it

I'm not talking about cameras, I'm talking about the photo presented here even without going into issues like distortion and manipulation. It doesn't depict curvature.

Incorrect!
It doesn't show much curvature and there should not be much curvature from that altitude and with that field of view - got any more to bitch about?

If it's bad evidence then prove it.  Prove that clouds are conspiring to cause the curve. 
You're the math wiz, show that clouds can vary in altitude by 6 pixels at 650km with a 35mm lens.  Spoiler: they don't.

While clouds, atmosphere, and space can be blurred in a high altitude image one thing is not.  Their colors.

Those of us with programs more advanced than mspaint can adjust color levels, brightness,  and contrast to make things clearer.