Flat earth takedown

[JackRT]

All lens systems have a greater or lesser extent of "fish eye" distortion. A true fish eye lens does this quite deliberately in order to get a wider field of view. However there will be no distortion if the horizon line is located in the exact centre of the image. In all three photos above the horizon is located above centre so the natural curvature of the horizon is slightly exaggerated. If the horizon were below centre the natural curvature would be somewhat cancelled or in some cases actually reversed.

Or why the land covers about 70% of the globes surface in photos.

That is because high altitude photos of water are just simply boring.

 

[pitabread]

Or maybe he can explain how the red bull jump (at 19-20 miles high) is the same distance from earth as the iss (at 250+ miles high)

Pretty sure we went over this previously. There are no altitude figures in those pictures. I guess you forgot.

 

[pitabread]

All lens systems have a greater or lesser extent of "fish eye" distortion. A true fish eye lens does this quite deliberately in order to get a wider field of view.

Photography seems to be one of the many things flat Earthers have no experience with.

(On a similar note, I've actively searched for any flat Earthers with experience with astronomy and I cannot find any. Not a single one.)

 

[pitabread]

And you people only create and participate these topics for the purpose of continuing to make yourselves feel superior to those who disagree with you.

How ironic since the only reason flat Earth belief seems to exist is for the feeling of having "special knowledge" and looking down their nose at all the roundies.

 

[d taylor]

Which photo is from the ISS and which photo is from a weather balloon.

 

[pitabread]

Which photo is from the ISS and which photo is from a weather balloon.

If you're asking which has the higher altitude the first picture appears to. It has less fine topographic detail compared to the second picture, suggesting the second picture was taken at a lower altitude.

 

[JackRT]

Which photo is from the ISS and which photo is from a weather balloon.

View attachment 271464

View attachment 271465

Offhand I would guess that the upper photo is from the ISS but it would be much easier if both were of the same geographical feature and taken through the same lens.

 

[topher694]

Which photo is from the ISS and which photo is from a weather balloon.

View attachment 271464

View attachment 271465

You realize that is an entirely pointless question with the information given?

 

[d taylor]

Here is an interesting find weather balloon images.

On the link look at: Bottom view 35 minutes after takeoff.
Then scroll down and look at: Bottom view 1 hr after takeoff.

Notice the noticeable size difference in the land squares, with the two photos and see there maybe just a few miles difference in their heights an estimate 4, 5, 6, maybe 10 miles.

Launch 001: S01 - UCSD Near-Space Balloon

 

[d taylor]

One more link from this website.

UCSD Near-Space Balloon

 

[topher694]

Here is an interesting find weather balloon images.

On the link look at: Bottom view 35 minutes after takeoff.
Then scroll down and look at: Bottom view 1 hr after takeoff.

Notice the noticeable size difference in the land squares, with the two photos and see there maybe just a few miles difference in their heights an estimate 4, 5, 6, maybe 10 miles.

Launch 001: S01 - UCSD Near-Space Balloon

It would be worth your while to study some basic principles of photography.

 

[Strathos]

It would be worth your while to study some basic principles of photography.

As well as geometry, geology, astronomy, gravity, electromagnetism, cosmology, navigation, oceanography, meteorology, cartography, climatology, rocketry, dioptrics...

Heck, just pick a random one from here and there's a good chance it will disprove flat earth.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As well as geometry, geology, astronomy, gravity, electromagnetism, cosmology, navigation, oceanography, meteorology, cartography, climatology, rocketry, dioptrics...

Heck, just pick a random one from here and there's a good chance it will disprove flat earth.

I pick Accountancy. We all know money makes the world go round

 

[topher694]

As well as geometry, geology, astronomy, gravity, electromagnetism, cosmology, navigation, oceanography, meteorology, cartography, climatology, rocketry, dioptrics...

Heck, just pick a random one from here and there's a good chance it will disprove flat earth.

Touche

 

[Cis.jd]

I assume people took Physics back in highschool.

How can you just believe in flat earth after that? Just basic physics alone with it's forumals are all based on the sphere of the earth.

 

[topher694]

I assume people took Physics back in highschool.

How can you just believe in flat earth after that? Just basic physics alone with it's forumals are all based on the sphere of the earth.

Sir Issac Newton... Liar
Johannes Kepler... Liar
Albert Einstein... Liar
FE YouTube guy... Enlighten hero

 

[coffee4u]

One of the best rebuttals to FEN (flat earth nonsense).

Enjoy.

And why do you need to "take them down"? Are they doing something to you? How about leaving them alone.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And why do you need to "take them down"? Are they doing something to you? How about leaving them alone.

No.

 

[pitabread]

And why do you need to "take them down"? Are they doing something to you? How about leaving them alone.

If people post things on the internet to convey ideas then other people are going to respond. That's generally how this internet thing works.

If flat Earthers are too sensitive for a rebuttal (not that that is particularly difficult given how nonsensical flat Earth beliefs are), then maybe flat Earthers shouldn't be posting their ideas.

The minute they do so, however, those ideas are fair game for criticism.

 

[pitabread]

How can you just believe in flat earth after that? Just basic physics alone with it's forumals are all based on the sphere of the earth.

My experience is that Flat Earthers need to reinvent numerous disciplines including basic geometry in order for their ideas to "work".

And even in those cases they don't really work since it's not hard to find flat Earth ideas that are self-contradictory.

All of this is irrelevant since none of this is why flat Earth beliefs exist in the first place.