Curvitre Picture

  • 85 Replies
  • 14400 Views
?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Curvitre Picture
« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2007, 06:36:54 AM »
I dont see any distinct difference in color besides that effect highlighting the hills that are in the background. So all that prooves is that this picture was taken at a body of water with land around the edges....
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Curvitre Picture
« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2007, 08:30:54 AM »
OP'er, is there a higher resolution of this picture?  And without lines drawn on it?

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2007, 08:36:01 AM »
still havent read a decent rebuttle to this claim
img]http://www.angustheitchap.com/Angus/Images/squish-1.gif[/img]
i got your flat earth right here...

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Curvitre Picture
« Reply #63 on: February 16, 2007, 08:55:42 AM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop's Daddy"
still havent read a decent rebuttle to this claim

Keep your pants on, moopy.

?

Tom Bishop

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #64 on: February 16, 2007, 09:23:33 AM »
Quote
Earlier you said that curvature of the round Earth can only be seen from 60 000ft. Now you're trying to prove flat Earth by saying that it looks flat at ground level?


The picture in the OP is also taken at ground level. I am informing him that it does not curve in that fashion at ground level.

Quote
And where are all the other FE'ers? Would be nice to see some real debate about the picture. I'm not saying it's not fun to read Tom's posts, but it gets old pretty fast.


The truth does get old once you hear it over and over, I agree.

?

Temaki

  • 100
  • Flat as his arguments.
Curvitre Picture
« Reply #65 on: February 16, 2007, 09:27:42 AM »
I, unfortunately, am going to have to agree with Tom. I've seen both coasts of America at ground level, and they don't curve like that. I have, however, been to the top of the Sears Tower in Chicago, and yes, the curvature of the horizon is there.

Also,

Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Disregard that, I suck cocks.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Disregard that, I suck cocks.

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #66 on: February 16, 2007, 10:01:32 AM »
Quote from: "RESOCR"
I dont see any distinct difference in color besides that effect highlighting the hills that are in the background. So all that prooves is that this picture was taken at a body of water with land around the edges....


Higher resolution wouldn't fix the problem, I can adjust the resolution myself.

The photo has been manipulated for the simple reason that that degree of a curvature DOES NOT EXIST at ground level and if you were far enough away from the horizon to view that degree of curvature, you would need a preacher because there isn't enough air that high up.

In fact I find it hard to believe any human being has stood on the earth's surface and witnessed a curvature first-hand.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


?

aa

  • 23
Curvitre Picture
« Reply #67 on: February 16, 2007, 10:59:16 AM »
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Quote
Do you live on a shore?  


Yep.

Quote
Tom, you constantly tell people to look out their window, but did it ever occur to you that there's things in the way of the horizon?


Hey, it's not my fault if your one bedroom apartment window faces a brick wall.


DAMN YOU!!!
The minimum altitude needed to convince a FE'er the Earth is round is directly proportional to paranoidness.

Unfortunately, this value lies in space.

?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
Curvitre Picture
« Reply #68 on: February 16, 2007, 11:56:14 AM »
Well, as Tom said, the magic number is sixty thousand feet. I imagine that on clear conditions, such as in that picture, why couldn't we see curvature there? Why does it have to be up and not out?

EDIT: Kinda got the answer for this, but would like to hear it anyway.
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #69 on: February 16, 2007, 12:44:28 PM »
RE winning thread...
img]http://www.angustheitchap.com/Angus/Images/squish-1.gif[/img]
i got your flat earth right here...

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13129
  • swiggity swooty
Curvitre Picture
« Reply #70 on: February 16, 2007, 01:24:42 PM »
Quote from: "RESOCR"
Well, as Tom said, the magic number is sixty thousand feet.


He only says this to perpetuate the idea that you can only see a curvature after you enter an air space that is restricted to military craft. It's not true, and we even had to correct him as to when military airspace started (at least in the USA), which he originally believed to be 45,000'. It's 60,000'. But that doesn't make a lick of a difference.

It's all in his head, and he makes these things up before considering the FE consensus and thus undermining the entire theory because he'll tell you to go read the FAQ, then just all of a sudden add onto it.

It's best that you ignore him.

?

xxbakasan

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #71 on: February 16, 2007, 02:01:42 PM »
I'm not quite sure why no one has posted this yet...



You lose, Tom.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13129
  • swiggity swooty
Curvitre Picture
« Reply #72 on: February 16, 2007, 02:09:12 PM »
Obviously, you didn't get the memo.

Pictures are not admissible as proof.

I'd say at least unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not fake.

?

spider

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #73 on: February 16, 2007, 02:15:13 PM »
so.. if the earth was flat wouldn't you be able to see farther than you can in that picture?

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #74 on: February 16, 2007, 02:20:08 PM »
Quote from: "RESOCR"
Quote from: "Tom Bishop"
Wide angle lens. That kind of curvature woudn't be apparent until 60,000 feet on a Round Earth.



60,000 feet=11.36 miles. That seems about right for visibility on the shoreline at clear conditions. (roughly ten miles on average)


The Earth is most definitely spherical.  That being said the curvature most definitely cannot be seen on the surface.  When you are 60,000 ft up the horizon is much much farther than 11.36 miles - and for that reason you can see the horizon curve.  

It's a bit embarrassing to be on the same side as such ignorant arguments.
I myself am not a RE'er or FE'er more a OE'er with lumpy bits (Oval Earther with lumpy bits)

?

TomBishop

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #75 on: February 16, 2007, 05:13:26 PM »
Quote

 So you are going to tell me that the camera manufacturers gave me the wrong information about their camera?


yes of course they are in on the conspiracy. Government ruling requires them to publish false information. Duh!

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #76 on: February 16, 2007, 05:18:32 PM »
Quote from: "TomBishop"
Quote

 So you are going to tell me that the camera manufacturers gave me the wrong information about their camera?


yes of course they are in on the conspiracy. Government ruling requires them to publish false information. Duh!

roflroflrolf
but wait, if i go take a pinhole camera that i made myself and take a photo of a curved horizon its fake? no way

?

xxbakasan

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #77 on: February 16, 2007, 05:55:27 PM »
OK, so if pictures aren't allowed to be used, then how about video?



It may not be the best example, but it does show a ROUND earth.

Also, if the planet was flat, then there would only be one time in which the sun can be seen, and one for night time. What I mean is, the sun would only be visible from 1 AM to 12 PM, due to the fact that the planet were flat. There would be no dusk. From at 12 PM and 12 AM you would also be able to see the sun and the moon at the same time, in plain sight.

Here's another video:



Aristotle once said:

"There are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions."

This would only be possible if the Earth were round.

Finally, Aristotle also said that the shadow of Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse is round.

Your move, Tom.

?

Galalayo

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #78 on: February 16, 2007, 06:11:23 PM »
Quote from: "spider"
so.. if the earth was flat wouldn't you be able to see farther than you can in that picture?


to further prove this, expalin why I living in ontario canada, cannot see the rocky mountains as all that is west of me is the great plains, nothing to obstruct my view. If the earth was flat they woudl CLEARLY be visable to me on a clear day.

As an example, in australia you can see the mounatins on the coast when in teh desert, therefore it is only logical that with your flat earth model, I should be able to see the rockies.

?

Savas

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #79 on: February 16, 2007, 06:19:31 PM »
They believe it is all a conspiracy so remove the images and videos as they all are possible of being manipulated. So that only leaves mathematics and proof of concept.

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html

In basic proof of concept: Where I live is night time and on the other side of the earth it is day time that would mean that I'm ether on the other side of the flat Earth or the Earth is indeed round and I am simply on side that is not facing the sun. Or I'm on a different flat planet. Unless I'm missing something someone please explain.



IF I AM INCORRECT AND THIS BOAT IS TRUELLY SINKING I AM SORRY.

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #80 on: February 16, 2007, 07:11:25 PM »
camera pictures are easily distortable.  A lot of the people making arguments about the curvature in photos proving a round earth clearly don't know what they're talking about.

from wikipedia:
"the image produced by a wide-angle lens is more susceptible to perspective distortion than that produced by a normal lens"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-angle_lens

all pictures can be easily photoshopped, so I find it hard to trust any so-called "proofs".

 Also, learn to spell curvature, smart stuff.

?

ErikM

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #81 on: February 16, 2007, 07:21:15 PM »
If the photo was distorted by a camera lens, wouldn't it be distorted on both sides?  And if it was distorted on both sides, that would mean the line was at an even steeper curve?  I think people forget that cameras are made to be proportional, not off-balance.

Also Tom, in the picture you posted of a "FE horizon", there is actually a minor curve.

GG

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #82 on: February 16, 2007, 07:30:01 PM »
Quote from: "ErikM"
If the photo was distorted by a camera lens, wouldn't it be distorted on both sides?  And if it was distorted on both sides, that would mean the line was at an even steeper curve?  I think people forget that cameras are made to be proportional, not off-balance.

Also Tom, in the picture you posted of a "FE horizon", there is actually a minor curve.

GG


the photo is distorted on both sides, but the photo was taken at such an angle that the right horizon appears to start horizontal.  If the earth is round, it ought to be distorted on both sides also.

?

ErikM

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #83 on: February 16, 2007, 09:04:44 PM »
If the Earth appeared curved on both sides of a point of view, from every point of view, the Earth would be a strange figure with convexes all over it.

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #84 on: February 16, 2007, 09:07:48 PM »
Quote from: "Savas"
In basic proof of concept: Where I live is night time and on the other side of the earth it is day time that would mean that I'm ether on the other side of the flat Earth or the Earth is indeed round and I am simply on side that is not facing the sun. Or I'm on a different flat planet. Unless I'm missing something someone please explain.


Tnhey've failed to explain it. They got as far as the sun isn't a sphere of omni-directional light and is an oval spotlight instead. after that thye can't seem to explain how it go to from sphere to oval

it can all be read in the "Serious Question...." thread
his space means nothing.

Curvitre Picture
« Reply #85 on: February 16, 2007, 11:09:04 PM »
Quote from: "ErikM"
If the Earth appeared curved on both sides of a point of view, from every point of view, the Earth would be a strange figure with convexes all over it.


I think I lost what you have been trying to say

The curvature in the photo was caused by the distortion in the camera lens.  What you just said is one of the reasons why the Earth does not look like it does in the photo.