[Yendor]

Slight, prominent, what difference does it make? Also, your line is touching the horizon in the middle, but doesn't in the ends...

Honestly, that was an own goal.

It must make a difference to you because you are the one who said, "my camera should have been a lot higher than 24km to see a curve this prominent." I just stated it doesn't look that prominent to me. I believe it is your goal to to convince yourself because you know in your heart that there is really not much curvature no matter how high you go.

[andruszkow]

You misread. I said IF the earth was a disc, I should have been higher to see a curve this prominent, given the location.

To me, that curve IS prominent considering I'm only 24km up and the earth is as massive as it is.

The real problem with you guys is that you look at figures nd say "fine 6000 km radius" but you don't realize how big that really is on a ball earth.

[Yendor]

You misread. I said IF the earth was a disc, I should have been higher to see a curve this prominent, given the location.

To me, that curve IS prominent considering I'm only 24km up and the earth is as massive as it is.

The real problem with you guys is that you look at figures nd say "fine 6000 km radius" but you don't realize how big that really is on a ball earth.

Fine, how about 400km up. This is one of the first images from the ISS that was taken with the new HD camera mounted to it. The picture is at an angle, but it sure does not curve much. It is funny this camera shows very little curvature, but later on in the video you can see a lot of  curvature. They probably forgot the fisheye lens, you think?

http://www.onenewspage.us/video/20150617/2988636/Urthecast-Unveils-1st-Videos-of-Earth-From-Outer.htm

[andruszkow]

Funny enough, the article describes how you're able to spot cars driving on highways with this camera. There's nothing indicating that this image isn't in current zoom.

As smart as you guys try to appear, you constantly cherry pick NASA material only, as if the people creating this so-called hoax on the scale you claim it is on, wouldn't have thought of the problem introduced in presenting an image showing no curvature.

You think you outsmart the people responsible of creating a hoax of this global magnitude, by screencapping an image from a video? Seriously?

From a scientific point of view, isn't there a teeny tiny possibility that you're wrong?

[Yendor]

Funny enough, the article describes how you're able to spot cars driving on highways with this camera. There's nothing indicating that this image isn't in current zoom.

As smart as you guys try to appear, you constantly cherry pick NASA material only, as if the people creating this so-called hoax on the scale you claim it is on, wouldn't have thought of the problem introduced in presenting an image showing no curvature.

You think you outsmart the people responsible of creating a hoax of this global magnitude, by screencapping an image from a video? Seriously?

From a scientific point of view, isn't there a teeny tiny possibility that you're wrong?

I know, right. It is hard to Find flaws in NASA's work. But they do make mistakes, you just have to search for them. After all the workers are only human. Of course I could be wrong, I'm only human too. Isn't it possible you could be wrong? I don't believe it is a zoom camera. I watched the video again and visited four other sites about the camera and I've not seen where it mentions a zoom camera.

[andruszkow]

Funny enough, the article describes how you're able to spot cars driving on highways with this camera. There's nothing indicating that this image isn't in current zoom.

As smart as you guys try to appear, you constantly cherry pick NASA material only, as if the people creating this so-called hoax on the scale you claim it is on, wouldn't have thought of the problem introduced in presenting an image showing no curvature.

You think you outsmart the people responsible of creating a hoax of this global magnitude, by screencapping an image from a video? Seriously?

From a scientific point of view, isn't there a teeny tiny possibility that you're wrong?

I know, right. It is hard to Find flaws in NASA's work. But they do make mistakes, you just have to search for them. After all the workers are only human. Of course I could be wrong, I'm only human too. Isn't it possible you could be wrong? I don't believe it is a zoom camera. I watched the video again and visited four other sites about the camera and I've not seen where it mentions a zoom camera.

Yes, they do make mistakes too. We've seen rockets explode during launch, for instance. The mistakes you refer to that they make, is only valid if you assume from the beginning that RE is a hoax (what would the point of that be anyway). The reason you can't cherry pick NASA as your only source (again, screencapping videos... Really!?), is because NASA no longer is the only source of space exploration. It's everywhere. Not only private markets, but households can do near-space experiments now.

You're only seeing what you want to see.

[Yendor]

Funny enough, the article describes how you're able to spot cars driving on highways with this camera. There's nothing indicating that this image isn't in current zoom.

As smart as you guys try to appear, you constantly cherry pick NASA material only, as if the people creating this so-called hoax on the scale you claim it is on, wouldn't have thought of the problem introduced in presenting an image showing no curvature.

You think you outsmart the people responsible of creating a hoax of this global magnitude, by screencapping an image from a video? Seriously?

From a scientific point of view, isn't there a teeny tiny possibility that you're wrong?

I know, right. It is hard to Find flaws in NASA's work. But they do make mistakes, you just have to search for them. After all the workers are only human. Of course I could be wrong, I'm only human too. Isn't it possible you could be wrong? I don't believe it is a zoom camera. I watched the video again and visited four other sites about the camera and I've not seen where it mentions a zoom camera.

Yes, they do make mistakes too. We've seen rockets explode during launch, for instance. The mistakes you refer to that they make, is only valid if you assume from the beginning that RE is a hoax (what would the point of that be anyway). The reason you can't cherry pick NASA as your only source (again, screencapping videos... Really!?), is because NASA no longer is the only source of space exploration. It's everywhere. Not only private markets, but households can do near-space experiments now.

You're only seeing what you want to see.

I'll say one thing for you, you definitely live in a Pollyanna world. I hope you can continue to turn a blind eye to what's obviously wrong in the world around you, good for you.

[andruszkow]

Yes, what an amazing rebuttal, repeating what I said, but turning it around.

As I said earlier, I give up. I'm done arguing with people who instead of look at facts, and accept that some of us did something to provide actual results, keep pasting the same load of scientific bullshit, without any shred of practical experience in physics, electronics, or radiocomms. Your only experience are being internet soldiers, and in radically changing your beliefs, to cover whatever trauma you have experienced to your psychological health.

You all have the same profile, I've met countless of your kind (mostly war veterans), and its all the same, even your sources. Your gullible nature is being exploited, you just wont admit it, because admitting it would require dealing with your real issues and I feel sorry for you.

[Yendor]

Yes, what an amazing rebuttal, repeating what I said, but turning it around.

As I said earlier, I give up. I'm done arguing with people who instead of look at facts, and accept that some of us did something to provide actual results, keep pasting the same load of scientific bullshit, without any shred of practical experience in physics, electronics, or radiocomms. Your only experience are being internet soldiers, and in radically changing your beliefs, to cover whatever trauma you have experienced to your psychological health.

You all have the same profile, I've met countless of your kind (mostly war veterans), and its all the same, even your sources. Your gullible nature is being exploited, you just wont admit it, because admitting it would require dealing with your real issues and I feel sorry for you.

You don't know me, what gives you the right to make such false accusations about me. You my friend are a pompous fool going through life believing you know all the answers and never questioning anything. Your kind is the reason the world is in such bad shape it's in today. I hope you stay in your little closed in world and let the more intelligent figure it all out for you because you would simply get in the way. You should go find a Round Earth Society and join it because this is no place for you. You arrogant SOB.

[andruszkow]

Mission accomplished, and you fell for it. You only took note at the shallow insult, as expected, and not at what I actually stated. You never comment at the fact, or at the notion you have no practical experience. I have degrees to back up my claims and the experiments I conduct, which is the reason the world is actually evolving.

The sensitive nature of your reply just confirm everything I said. And yes, I'm arrogant. Welcome to a factual debate.

[Mardacz]

hello! i am new here. anyway, i've got an idea. let's start for example facebook event (to spread it between people) and send a balloon with camera from different parts of the earth in the same time. so we will have several recordings from the same time from around the globe. it should be pretty interesting what we will see (e.g.: what if we all will see the same moon?)...
i am just thinking, but it looks like interesting idea to me... i see it easy, to find about 20 people from around the world, who will be keen on spending money on this...