[KevinIlProf]

Ok, now tell me how in a FE could we see this.

[JRowe]

Model, suit, person, green-screen.

[Tom Bishop]

Fish eye lense does not equal round Earth.  Nothing there proves anything but a fisheye lense.

Let me make this clear. It's actually very easy to verify curvature even on a fish-eye lens capture.

Pause the video on a frame where the horizon is in a horizontal position on screen, and exactly at the middle of the screen (at the midpoint of the vertical axis). Now look at the horizon. If it's curved on the frame, it's curved in reality. A straight line would appear as a straight line in a fish-eyed frame, if it's horizontal or vertical and in the middle.

Do you honestly believe that they did not use fish-eye lenses?  Look at this picture taken from ground level.  Clearly, the cameras are distorting the horizon.



Not all of the cameras had this type of lens, however.  Here is one that shows a fairly flat horizon.

[Orbisect-64]

Slightly off-topic Tom Bishop, out of curiosity, what does this picture represent?

http://s739.photobucket.com/user/jorroa5990/media/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26171216.png.html

—

[Tom Bishop]

Slightly off-topic Tom Bishop, out of curiosity, what does this picture represent?

http://s739.photobucket.com/user/jorroa5990/media/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26171216.png.html

—

It looks like he's trying to use the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate the distance from the earth where lines A and B intersect in space. It is unclear why, however.

[Rama Set]

Slightly off-topic Tom Bishop, out of curiosity, what does this picture represent?

http://s739.photobucket.com/user/jorroa5990/media/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26171216.png.html

—

Perhaps it is a parallax calculation?

[Thork]

Fisheye trickery. NASA love the old fish eye. These guys do too. Makes it seem high up.



The famous picture on the left. note how the scaffold bends above his head. And a non fish eye version on the right. Take the distortion out and we are back to a disc, not a ball.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, a disc. On a Flat Earth at very high altitudes one is looking down at a circle of light, and so some slight curvature is to be expected.

[Orbisect-64]

From what I remember in my photography days, a 55mm lens is said to be accurate and true.

NASA is likely using something down in the 14-24mm range, and sometimes it even looks like they could be going lower than 14mm.




The Horizon through a Fisheye Lens









NOTICE how the curve is seen low to the ground, and keeps the same curve as high as you go.







Correcting Fish-eye Effects









This photo is relatively the same height as the one at the top of the page. Would you believe this curve is also accurate when they're both around the same hight?






—

[markjo]

From what I remember in my photography days, a 55mm lens is said to be accurate and true.

For 35mm or equivalent film or sensor, then yes, a 50-55mm lens would approximate the view of a human eye (normal).  However, for different film/sensor formats, different focal lengths would be considered normal.

NASA is likely using something down in the 14-24mm range, and sometimes it even looks like they could be going lower than 14mm.

Without knowing the film/sensor format, then throwing around random numbers is rather pointless.