FE Question: Curvature Videos

[SPF]

There is no discernable fish-eye lens in the below time-lapse video. I know the typical response by FE proponents is to dismiss video out of hand with "fish-eye! cries. But in a video like this, where no fish-eye can credibly be argued, is the only possible response, "CGI!" ?

I assume for the FE model to be true, we must believe with 100% certainty that the below time-lapse is 100% fake. Yet, if we can't cry Fish-Eye, or CGI, what's left?


An astronaut recorded a time lapse video of Earth and it's breathtaking - CNN

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

When you're on the Earth, it's a two-dimensional plane. When you're above the Earth, it's a three-dimensional sphere. When you're far from the Earth it's a zero-dimensional dot, and when you're really far away it seems like nothing at all. The way you need to treat it depends on where you are and what kinds of things you're dealing with. The flat Earth perspective is only wrong when applied at high elevations and above, such as in that video. If I show you a video from down here, then the flat earth perspective is more convincing. From further away I might make a convincing argument for empty space.

Flat earth belief is only wrong in its application.

 

[SPF]

Flat earth belief is only wrong in its application.

If the earth is a sphere, then the FE belief is wrong in reality.

 

[JacksBratt]

There is no discernable fish-eye lens in the below time-lapse video. I know the typical response by FE proponents is to dismiss video out of hand with "fish-eye! cries. But in a video like this, where no fish-eye can credibly be argued, is the only possible response, "CGI!" ?

I assume for the FE model to be true, we must believe with 100% certainty that the below time-lapse is 100% fake. Yet, if we can't cry Fish-Eye, or CGI, what's left?


An astronaut recorded a time lapse video of Earth and it's breathtaking - CNN

Oh my... that must be real.. how could you fake that?

Sorry, don't trust anything from NASA. That video would be easy enough to fake from down here on earth with basic equipment and programs and some stock video.

What makes this so "new" or "real"? because it's by CNN... Oh, hold my drink while I laugh milk out my nose.

 

[SPF]

Oh my... that must be real.. how could you fake that?

Sorry, don't trust anything from NASA. That video would be easy enough to fake from down here on earth with basic equipment and programs and some stock video.

What makes this so "new" or "real"? because it's by CNN... Oh, hold my drink while I laugh milk out my nose.

I wonder if you're able to realize just how blinded you are by your presuppositions. You are an FE proponent, so when you see something like that you don't look at it, you don't analyze it, you don't even consider it to be possibly true. You dismiss it out of hand, without any support as to why it is faked. You dismiss it out of hand without showing how it was faked.

You are far less objective than the people I've seen post who believe the earth is a sphere.

 

[JacksBratt]

I wonder if you're able to realize just how blinded you are by your presuppositions. You are an FE proponent, so when you see something like that you don't look at it, you don't analyze it, you don't even consider it to be possibly true. You dismiss it out of hand, without any support as to why it is faked. You dismiss it out of hand without showing how it was faked.

You are far less objective than the people I've seen post who believe the earth is a sphere.

Photos, today, are proof of nothing...Cause NASA can afford to fake stuff and cannot afford not to.

Don't ridicule me for not believing your fake proof.

 

[SPF]

The point is that you dismiss them out of hand without even a second glance. You aren't objective, or thoughtful.

I just wonder what line of explanation you're going to come up with once the general public will be flying into space within the next couple of years....

 

[JacksBratt]

The point is that you dismiss them out of hand without even a second glance. You aren't objective, or thoughtful.

I just wonder what line of explanation you're going to come up with once the general public will be flying into space within the next couple of years....

Their track record speaks for itself. You cannot make that may blunders and fake photo shopped photos, present them as if they are real... then continually use a fish eye lens camera... and all of a sudden, some new guy goes up there and films pristine videos... Who is the blind one here?

This video would have been very easy to fake... dupe, crop, mask, whatever else they use in the digital photo industry now... to present something that everyone is supposed to take as real.

Today, it is very difficult to prove or disprove an image. You cannot use it as proof if it can be faked. Some things are much harder to fake than others... a curve on a surface is not hard to fake. It's not hard to superimpose an image of the solar panels of the ISS onto the image to show no distortion of their edges... as was the case in the past where the solar panels were curved by the fish eye lens.

Again, your video is not proof.

In photos of the earth from the ISS, even the rate of curve varies greatly.. I don't think that they change their altitude this much:

The images are either distorted, from largely different altitudes, varied fish eye lenses, CGI or plane doctored images.. the only way you are going to get this much difference in the curve from the same relative height.

 

[lasthero]

Photos, today, are proof of nothing...Cause NASA can afford to fake stuff and cannot afford not to.

Photos are strong evidence of a lot of things. People are convicted on photographic evidence all the time.

So, if I presented you video that clearly showed the Earth was round that didn't come from NASA, you'd accept that?

 

[JacksBratt]

Photos are strong evidence of a lot of things. People are convicted on photographic evidence all the time.

So, if I presented you video that clearly showed the Earth was round that didn't come from NASA, you'd accept that?

Yes, they are, very often, for strong evidence. However, digital photography is easily manipulated beyond the physical variables of lens type, lighting, angle, exposure and camera position. Now with Photo shop and other tools, it is quite easy to fabricate an event that never happened.

Photos submitted as evidence take extreme expertise in order to be validated.

Can Your Digital Images Withstand A Court Challenge?

We do not live in a film world anymore. These points were not an issue with film. We now live in a digital age that changes everything we once believed about how photographs are treated in law enforcement. A “true and accurate representation” is no longer the only qualifier – and is a court challenge waiting to happen. The only question is when – and where.

 

[lasthero]

Yes, they are, very often, for strong evidence. However, digital photography is easily manipulated beyond the physical variables of lens type, lighting, angle, exposure and camera position. Now with Photo shop and other tools, it is quite easy to fabricate an event that never happened.

I could point out how you've never had a problem presenting photos as evidence in the past when you thought they showed there was no curvature. It's a pretty notable double standard.

So, straight question that you didn't answer before - are you just not going to accept any photos from NASA, or are you just going to dismiss any and all photos that show curvature? Is there any source you'd accept?

 

[JacksBratt]

I could point out how you've never had a problem presenting photos as evidence in the past when you thought they showed there was no curvature. It's a pretty notable double standard.

So, straight question that you didn't answer before - are you just not going to accept any photos from NASA, or are you just going to dismiss any and all photos that show curvature? Is there any source you'd accept?

I usually post them as a "but look at this" in comparison to a fish eye curve.

Also, remember how I said that some things are harder to fake than others... A curve is much easier to fake than making a curve look straight. Not impossible but much more difficult.

Also, to take a picture of an object that is in full sight, that should be beyond the curve... another very difficult thing to fake. Not impossible.. but very difficult to do. Much more difficult than making a horizon look like a curve.. which can be done anywhere......even standing on the ground.

 

[SPF]

Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

 

[SPF]

 

[lasthero]

I usually post them as a "but look at this" in comparison to a fish eye curve.

If you're going to take the stance that photographic evidence can't be acceptable because it could be faked, then you can't accept ANY photographic evidence. Not just the stuff you don't like.

Also, remember how I said that some things are harder to fake than others... A curve is much easier to fake than making a curve look straight. Not impossible but much more difficult.

That's just a bald assertion on your part. Why would it be easier to curve a picture than it would be to straight a picture out? Why exactly?

Also, to take a picture of an object that is in full sight, that should be beyond the curve... another very difficult thing to fake. Not impossible.. but very difficult to do. Much more difficult than making a horizon look like a curve.. which can be done anywhere......even standing on the ground.

Another bald assertion. You're just saying it's harder, not providing any reason why it would be. And even if I accept that it's harder, by your own admission it's not possible, so the question remains - why present any photographic evidence at all? It COULD be faked. What does one method being harder than another have to do with it?

And you're ignoring my question again - is there ANY photographic evidence of curvature that you would accept?

 

[JacksBratt]

If you're going to take the stance that photographic evidence can't be acceptable because it could be faked, then you can't accept ANY photographic evidence. Not just the stuff you don't like.

Like I said, it's much harder to fake some things than others...

That's just a bald assertion on your part. Why would it be easier to curve a picture than it would be to straight a picture out? Why exactly?

Because... using a simple cheap and readily available fish eye lens will curve anything and make any peripheral objects distort..
To take a curved surface and make it look perfectly straight would take a complex lens....

Another bald assertion. You're just saying it's harder, not providing any reason why it would be. And even if I accept that it's harder, by your own admission it's not possible, so the question remains - why present any photographic evidence at all? It COULD be faked. What does one method being harder than another have to do with it?

Again, you can use a kids toy camera... or even a "Go Pro" and create a curved horizon, while you are standing on the ground.. even by accident... How can you ask how something else be more difficult.

And you're ignoring my question again - is there ANY photographic evidence of curvature that you would accept?

Haven't seen any. Probably because we cannot go high enough, even according to Neil the greasy Tyson, to see it in order to photograph it... It seems that the altitude at which we need to be in order to see it... is ever increasing.

I have seen some high altitude photos that raise questions as to how flat it looks with a conventional lens... even the one in the back of the capsule that the "red Bull" jumper used... when the door opened.. took a picture of a horizon that was flat.

 

[lasthero]

Like I said, it's much harder to fake some things than others...

You asserted that, yes.

Because... using a simple cheap and readily available fish eye lens will curve anything and make any peripheral objects distort..
To take a curved surface and make it look perfectly straight would take a complex lens....

Or a halfway decent photo editor. Heck, the free one that I have for my Chromebook can do it with some tweaking. I guarantee you Adobe could. Granted, if you try to straighten out a picture of the Earth so that the horizon is flat, it'll distort everything out of proportion, but that should tell you something.

Type in 'reversing fisheye lens' into Google. It's not hard.

Again, you can use a kids toy camera... or even a "Go Pro" and create a curved horizon, while you are standing on the ground.. even by accident... How can you ask how something else be more difficult.

It's not like the effect is complicated.

Haven't seen any.

Hypothetically. Just spitball. What would you accept?

Probably because we cannot go high enough, even according to Neil the greasy Tyson, to see it in order to photograph it... It seems that the altitude at which we need to be in order to see it... is ever increasing.

I assume you don't accept the satellites which take publicly available pictures of the entire Earth every few minutes, for...reasons.

I have seen some high altitude photos that raise questions as to how flat it looks with a conventional lens... even the one in the back of the capsule that the "red Bull" jumper used... when the door opened.. took a picture of a horizon that was flat.

And there we go. When it supports a flat earth - or you think it does - you have no problem with photographic evidence.

 

[JacksBratt]

You asserted that, yes.



Or a halfway decent photo editor. Heck, the free one that I have for my Chromebook can do it with some tweaking. I guarantee you Adobe could. Granted, if you try to straighten out a picture of the Earth so that the horizon is flat, it'll distort everything out of proportion, but that should tell you something.

Type in 'reversing fisheye lens' into Google. It's not hard.


It's not like the effect is complicated.



Hypothetically. Just spitball. What would you accept?



I assume you don't accept the satellites which take publicly available pictures of the entire Earth every few minutes, for...reasons.



And there we go. When it supports a flat earth - or you think it does - you have no problem with photographic evidence.

Why is it that you want, so badly, to pin a FE believer button on my chest? Would that give you closure? Would that help you sleep at night.. Or would that just give you more "right" to jab me with jibes and name calling.


Let me spell it out... OK?

I am not convinced of the shape being globe or Flat..

NO picture, trying to prove either has changed that..

It's very easy, in fact can be done accidentally, to shoot a picture of a horizon with a curve.. absolutely no further manipulation need to be done.

It is very difficult to shoot a view of a curved horizon, if that is the actual state of it, and show it to be flat, without digital manipulation.

So, no photograph has convinced me of either... Certainly not the fake fish eye NASA shots that they keep vomiting out and people keep standing on like they are some Holy grail.....

So, live out your fantasy of my view, what ever you want.. Ridicule me for not accepting obviously fake pictures and video that an 8 year old can do.. Stick what ever name on me that helps you have a good meal... enjoy your realm of unreality... you certainly don't want to risk having your eyes open to the real one...

 

[Kaon]

Photos, today, are proof of nothing...Cause NASA can afford to fake stuff and cannot afford not to.

Don't ridicule me for not believing your fake proof.

View attachment 263065

Were fish eye lenses used in these photos?

 

[JacksBratt]

NO Flatearther has tried to slam me for not converting to their camp....

Several solid globe believers continue to hammer me for not "Coming clean' and want to push me into admitting something that I don't believe.

Sorry for not complying with you guys.... Please find something else to do than this. If I fully believed in the FE... I would say so.. Do you want me to lie? Would that make you feel better? If so WHY?

You should really search out yourselves to see why it would bring you joy to hear me state this thing you long for so much.