[Tau]

They didn't exclusively use a fish eye lens. Plenty of views from other cameras that show the round earth. Can you account for those, without falling on "it was faked"? An let me know if you get a ray chart working. Because that photo looked like refraction to me.

Our general rule is that, due to the countless variables which can effect a picture and the tiny difference one would expect been a picture demonstrating RET and FET, pictures are meaningless. To put it more scientifically, the standard deviation in the curvature of a picture can be expected to be the same as, or greater than, the expected curvature. This is due to refraction, camera lens, weather conditions, etc.

[james_zombob]

And what if I went to your house and launched a weather balloon with a camera that you inspected, then launched it in view of you with an attached video camera to document the curve of the earth? Would you accept that? Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible? I read on another thread here someone posted but saw no response or rebuttal from the FEers. Been sittin there a while too.

[Pete Svarrior]

Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible?

For the love of Bambi, read the FAQ already.

[Ghost of V]

And what if I went to your house and launched a weather balloon with a camera that you inspected, then launched it in view of you with an attached video camera to document the curve of the earth? Would you accept that? Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible? I read on another thread here someone posted but saw no response or rebuttal from the FEers. Been sittin there a while too.

Firstly, if you came to my house with a weather balloon and a camera I would probably call the police and have you arrested.  Secondly, you can spout hypotheticals all day but until you prove it (without using a fish eye lense or other camera trickery) then you’ve got nothing. As it stands now, almost all photos of “Earth curvature” end up being proven as fish eye sorcery or complete fabrications done with video editing software. Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.

[Gulliver]

Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.

Surely you're mistaken. For one obvious counterexample read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0

He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth.

Didn't we just prompt you to check your facts?

[Ghost of V]

Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.

Surely you're mistaken. For one obvious counterexample read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0

He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth.

Didn't we just prompt you to check your facts?

"He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth" is just a passing rhetorical statement. It's a saying that has been commonly used since aviation. It doesn't mean anything more than that. People assume the Earth is round nowadays, so they figure this statement makes sense and applies... but it doesn't. Funny that Arthur Murray himself didn't say those words.

[james_zombob]

The FAQ is a jumbled mess as I've already said and it doesn't address those issues brought up in that thread. I could continue debate on that thread, but last I checked there wasn't a satisfactory reply. Also, the wxr balloon, you still didn't answer my question. Would you accept THAT evidence? Let's see how far your denial really goes...

[Gulliver]

Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.

Surely you're mistaken. For one obvious counterexample read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0

He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth.

Didn't we just prompt you to check your facts?

"He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth" is just a passing rhetorical statement. It's a saying that has been commonly used since aviation. It doesn't mean anything more than that. People assume the Earth is round nowadays, so they figure this statement makes sense and applies... but it doesn't. Funny that Arthur Murray himself didn't say those words.

So you have to resort to an "ad populum" fallacy. So did you review everything ever said by every pilot before you made your outlandish claim?

[Ghost of V]

So did you review everything ever said by every pilot before you made your outlandish claim?

Did you?

You've made several 'outlandish' claims on behalf of pilots as well, actually more than I have. Maybe you should follow your own example?

[Tau]

The FAQ is a jumbled mess as I've already said and it doesn't address those issues brought up in that thread. I could continue debate on that thread, but last I checked there wasn't a satisfactory reply. Also, the wxr balloon, you still didn't answer my question. Would you accept THAT evidence? Let's see how far your denial really goes...

I wouldn't accept it myself, because many of the variables which can affect visibility are independent of the camera and difficult to identify. There's only so much you can do.

As for the FAQ,

Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible? I read on another thread here someone posted but saw no response or rebuttal from the FEers. Been sittin there a while too.

Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth. The apparent effect of the sun rising and setting is usually explained as a perspective effect.

There's more in the actual FAQ, as well as links to further reading about day/night cycles. Feel free to peruse it at your leisure.

[Tau]

Even pilots admit that there is no notable curvature to the Earth when flying.

Surely you're mistaken. For one obvious counterexample read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/05murray.html?_r=0

He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth.

Didn't we just prompt you to check your facts?

"He became the first human to see the curvature of the earth" is just a passing rhetorical statement. It's a saying that has been commonly used since aviation. It doesn't mean anything more than that. People assume the Earth is round nowadays, so they figure this statement makes sense and applies... but it doesn't. Funny that Arthur Murray himself didn't say those words.

So you have to resort to an "ad populum" fallacy. So did you review everything ever said by every pilot before you made your outlandish claim?

I think you might be confused as to what logical fallacies are. Vaux is suggesting that the writer was guilty of argumentum ad populum. He isn't himself guilty of it and I don't really understand why you're calling him out on it. If you disagree the writer was guilty of this fallacy, I'd be interested to see why.

If you really want to get into a discussion of logical fallacies (which I'm more than happy to engage you in), you are yourself guilty of onus probandi. This means that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof to force us to prove that this man didn't say he saw the curvature of the earth, when in reality the burden of proof is upon you to prove that he did.

[Gulliver]

The FAQ is a jumbled mess as I've already said and it doesn't address those issues brought up in that thread. I could continue debate on that thread, but last I checked there wasn't a satisfactory reply. Also, the wxr balloon, you still didn't answer my question. Would you accept THAT evidence? Let's see how far your denial really goes...

I wouldn't accept it myself, because many of the variables which can affect visibility are independent of the camera and difficult to identify. There's only so much you can do.

As for the FAQ,

Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible? I read on another thread here someone posted but saw no response or rebuttal from the FEers. Been sittin there a while too.

Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth. The apparent effect of the sun rising and setting is usually explained as a perspective effect.

There's more in the actual FAQ, as well as links to further reading about day/night cycles. Feel free to peruse it at your leisure.

Cool. So now you want us to reject the aether as the apparent cause of the sun's rising and setting (See Rushy's post, for example.) and embrace "perspective". Didn't someone use the word "jumble" lately to describe the FE FAQ?

Oh, and by the way, the FAQ's gif is obviously wrong. It shows the Sun over the Equator, so it does not match the reality that everywhere, but the poles, get equal periods of light and dark on that day. I guess that's just more jumble, huh?

This means that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof to force us to prove that this man didn't say he saw the curvature of the earth, when in reality the burden of proof is upon you to prove that he did.

Do tell where I made that claim? I really thought that Vaux made the first (and unsupported) claim that pilot admit that they can't see the curvature. Why would you consider that claim my burden to "disprove"?

[Ghost of V]

This means that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof to force us to prove that this man didn't say he saw the curvature of the earth, when in reality the burden of proof is upon you to prove that he did.

Do tell where I made that claim? I really thought that Vaux made the first (and unsupported) claim that pilot admit that they can't see the curvature. Why would you consider that claim my burden to "disprove"?

The problem is: the pilot didn't say that he saw the curvature. The article did. Please find me a quote where Arthur Murray says anything about curvature.

[Gulliver]

So did you review everything ever said by every pilot before you made your outlandish claim?

Did you?

You've made several 'outlandish' claims on behalf of pilots as well, actually more than I have. Maybe you should follow your own example?

Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.

[james_zombob]

Jumble is a good word. First it's a ether now it's perspective.

[Gulliver]

Jumble is a good word. First it's a ether now it's perspective.

Oh, you've just started to see their problems. Consider as well that their "Zetetic Process" can produce only results that are beyond contradiction.

"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

[Ghost of V]

Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.

I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.

[Gulliver]

Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.

I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.

So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,

[Ghost of V]

Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.

I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.

So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,

You asked if you made an unsupported claim. You implied that Mr. Murray, a pilot, said that he saw the curvature of the Earth. This is untrue. The article made this claim, the pilot did not. You made an unsupported claim... now, support it with evidence or stop wasting our time.

Need me to dumb it down any further?

[Gulliver]

Please do tell me where I made an unsupported claim. I'll gladly retract it until I do. Sorry about that.

I already have. Please do reread my posts if necessary.

So you have nothing. Got it. Thanks anyway,

You asked if you made an unsupported claim. You implied that Mr. Murray, a pilot, said that he saw the curvature of the Earth. This is untrue. The article made this claim, the pilot did not. You made an unsupported claim... now, support it with evidence or stop wasting our time.

I make no assurances that you've inferred correctly. The reference documents Murray as seeing the curvature of the Earth. That is the counterexample to your outlandish claim that pilots admit otherwise. I've cited my reference. That supports my claim.  That's simple, straightforward, and easy to understand.

You, on the other hand, provide no evidence to support your outlandish claim.