[dbamember]

Idea here. Why doesn't the FES get a go-fund-me page going (or do it internally) and send a camera package up in a balloon to; let's say 150.000 feet.
The curvature of the earth would be visible. You would have total control of the camera package. Parachute it back, use live video, both.
It wouldn't be too expensive, I would think that true FES folk would jump at the chance to settle a few arguments. Alternately; put together a
fairly powerful laser and bounce a laser beam off the surface of the moon. You could easily code the laser so the result would be indisputable. The reflectors were left there
on various moon missions.

[Longtitube]

You do know photo/video evidence is not trusted? That distortion is always expected, leading to images of a concave Earth, a convex ocean, a moon which isn’t at the place in the sky shown? And what would a laser bounced off reflectors on the moon do, assuming there are reflectors there, which is not believed?

[dbamember]

Well, I see all sorts of video and photo proofs used by the FES crowd to prove their points.
By the same token, your photo evidences, your video evidences; should be disregarded.
I'm sure you'll have some sort of reasoning as to why your video/photo evidence is acceptable
and all other sources are suspect. Precisely why I was thinking that you could accept your own
proofs..... or not?
My whole point is that you could do this and actually come up with evidence one way or another
that would be acceptable as "proof" to the FES crowd.
I mean- it seems as though every time someone asks for a way to prove a globe earth in a way that
would be accepted as legitimate, the question is evaded somehow. Video, pictures, physics, observations,
orbital predictions; all are either scoffed at or dismissed. Conjecture replaces legitimate science: "...well,
why couldn't it be this way?" Wouldn't YOU like to be part of a team that proves the earth is flat?
Other point- do you believe the speed of light is 186327 miles an hour (give or take)? bounce a laser beam off the moon,
it takes 3 seconds (more or less) to get back, you now know the distance to the moon

[Longtitube]

People come to this forum for all sorts of reasons. Some to argue for FE, others to argue for RE. Others still for reasons difficult to fathom. Debates take all sorts of angles on these lines but you might find it instructive to read the 7-page thread another member gave you a link for in your other recent thread.

Also the pinned thread at the top of this forum.

[dbamember]

Well, you know, I did read it. Tom Bishop immediately avoided the question being asked
by questioning how the orbital data was derived prior to the event, quoting obscure references,
just generally muddying the waters, so to speak. No one supporting FES came close to even
trying to explain the event in FES terms. If you were to ask me why certain things happen in the sky,
 I would do my best to explain it, in clear and well written English, without a bunch of flowery doubletalk
that has nothing to do with the question being asked. So again, referring to (this) original question- why
wouldn't FES support a fact-finding mission of the sort I propose (unless, maybe, the truth isn't the issue here).
Would the proffs generated by such a mission even be accepted by FE'ers? Again- if you disregard all photo
 and video proofs, are not your own also suspect?

[Jeb Kermin]

I'm not sure if it would help much.

Here's a hobbyist weather balloon that got to 110000 feet.



There would be a number of objections raised

1) Lens or image distortions

2) Bending of light

3) The curve is what they would expect from a "flat disc" model of the earth.  Since clouds are going to be obscuring a good portion of the view, you will not be able to show that only one side of the Earth is visible at once. 

Edit: I double checked that video - if you pause it at the right time, you can actually see the curve of the earth invert, when the camera is rolling around.  I think this is probably due to exposure, but it would be an example of something they would probably bring up.

[dbamember]

Well, Jeb- it works for me, but apparently, any video evidence is unacceptable here on TFES, unless
posted by a FE member. (Am I wrong here ? Can't seem to be able to get a straight answer).

[Jeb Kermin]

Well, Jeb- it works for me, but apparently, any video evidence is unacceptable here on TFES, unless
posted by a FE member. (Am I wrong here ? Can't seem to be able to get a straight answer).

From my reading of the posts, I don't get that impression, no.   But there is some truth in that pictures, especially still frames without context, can be deceiving.  And the truth is not always obvious or intuitive - for example special relativity is highly counter-intuitive. Another example, light refraction has been used to explain why Rowbathan observed what he did at the Beford Level.   It is true that light bends in some circumstances.   So,  examples like those show why it is difficult for someone not formally trained especially, to understand when/why/how these phenomena occur.

[Pete Svarrior]

Well, Jeb- it works for me, but apparently, any video evidence is unacceptable here on TFES, unless
posted by a FE member. (Am I wrong here ? Can't seem to be able to get a straight answer).

Consider reading the FAQ. Video and photographic evidence is given little attention to, regardless of who chooses to post it.

[dbamember]

Well, Pete, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement. I went to the FES wiki site to educate myself
a bit more as to how you do things here, if you do not trust video/photo evidence.
Clicked on "37 reasons why I'm a flat-earther; and what to my surprise do I see? A series of videos "proving"
the earth is flat.
Talk about hypocritical.
If video and photo does not work for Globers, it does not work for FES either.
And, by the way, on my other post (the one you locked) as soon as I asked my question, one of the FES guys
commented that "that's not the way it works here"..... how come he wasn't dinged for "off topic"?
More hypocrisy.....

[Pete Svarrior]

Clicked on "37 reasons why I'm a flat-earther; and what to my surprise do I see? A series of videos "proving"
the earth is flat.

I fail to see your point. Presenting evidence in the format of a video is not the same as relying on video footage for evidence.

You also seem to mix up the concepts of distrust and taboo. Not accepting video footage as crucial evidence is not the same as prohibiting anyone from ever watching a video. You're just expected to exercise critical thought in the process.

If video and photo does not work for Globers, it does not work for FES either.

I'm glad you agree with me on that matter.

And, by the way, on my other post (the one you locked) as soon as I asked my question, one of the FES guys
commented that "that's not the way it works here"..... how come he wasn't dinged for "off topic"?

He was.

Please read the forum rules. Specifically, the one about using appropriate channels for seeking help. Rambling about unrelated issues in the middle of a FE thread is not going to help your case.

Also, you seem to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is "one of the FES guys". It's a bit silly.

[dbamember]

You know what? I'll confine my posts to the ranting/raving/lunatic section.
It's taken me, what; 3 days to figure out that the last thing this site wants
is any scientific inquiry which might "rock the boat", so to speak.

[Pete Svarrior]

You know what? I'll confine my posts to the ranting/raving/lunatic section.

Cool, that's your choice. But you don't need to announce it in the middle of an unrelated thread.

It's taken me, what; 3 days to figure out that the last thing this site wants
is any scientific inquiry which might "rock the boat", so to speak.

A cursory check of this forum will reveal that threads here are overwhelmingly RE'ers critiquing FET through scientific inquiry. The boat is pretty rocky as is. It's just that most others can follow simple rules.

[talfearth]

I thought flatness could be proven with lasers and long enough paths of light. If you shine a laser onto a far away target it should be obvious right?