41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Garlic bread and the curve of the earth.

« on: June 04, 2018, 04:28:06 PM »

Yeah, it's a real head-scratcher.

But don't worry, the Wiki has you covered, bro

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I think one way to debunk this would be doing the flight at sunrise/sunset. If you can fly a balloon right over the terminator line on Earth, you'd still see the curve on Earth on the side lit up, but that shouldn't be possible if the sun was a spotlight. If the sun was a spotlight, you'd see the circle of light curve away from you to the horizon on both sides (around the sun), you wouldn't see the actual horizon curve. I'll try to make an illustration later if I can. Not sure how to describe this any easier.

42

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: New 'Blue Marble'

« on: June 04, 2018, 04:23:23 PM »

Even if the earth was round, those images are not real.

Why?

They look utterly drawn and not photographed.

Why? What makes you an expert on how things are supposed to look?

43

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: June 04, 2018, 04:18:59 PM »

I've started to build a picture of hoax. See here. You are correct, it is much bigger than NASA.

Interesting article. To me, a conspiracy that large would be impossible to keep secret, much less even coordinate.

44

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: New 'Blue Marble'

« on: June 02, 2018, 05:00:25 PM »

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

And Himawari 8 has been taking gorgeous photos every 10 min for a few years.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: May 28, 2018, 08:04:29 PM »

Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6.5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

(not trying to derail, just trying to make sure that equations and discussion is correct.)

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observation of the ISS

« on: May 24, 2018, 02:09:36 AM »

What speed have you tracked it as moving?

Sorry for the late reply, Tom. The ISS actually passed over my house at 8:45 PM (ET) today and I measured its speed. It appeared in the sky about 12 degrees above the horizon, went about 70 degrees over the horizon at its max, and disappeared about 10 degrees above horizon on the other side of the sky. My measurements were done with my camera as I tracked it and kept track of the angle it was pointing at (my tripod has a gauge). My observations were pretty close to what NASA's site reported them to be: https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/view.cfm?country=United_States&region=Pennsylvania&city=West_Chester (Wed May 23, 8:42 PM).

This took place over 6 minutes.

180^o(because from horizon to horizon it's 180 degrees)-10^o-12^o= 158^o. That's 26.3 degrees/minute.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 22, 2018, 09:41:30 PM »

How about if you have people measure the angle and direction to the sun from each of these cities at the same moment?

Given that they're all looking at the same sun, you can then plot the positions of the cities using that data.

Even quicker, you can take the angle/direction information from a site such as suncalc.org, since this has always been verified as accurate.

Note: the data collecting would have to be done at a few different times, for thoroughness.

The reason I posted this is because it very clearly won't work (for a flat Earth; works fine on the globe).

See Sly Sparkane's excellent video for a demo:

https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/

That link is assuming certain things about perspective and the infinite nature of perspective lines. "How it should operate on a Flat Earth" -- Hogwash. Those people either have not read Earth Not a Globe, or have issues with reading comprehension. The perspective lines are treated to intersect a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

That is not how perspective works.

48

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 22, 2018, 09:36:35 PM »

Gav, do you have any evidence to support your side? We've given you sources and evidence which you conveniently rejected for no reason other than you refuse to believe it. But how about you? Do you have any tested, credible, verifiable evidence that hasn't been proven wrong? And not proven wrong by "oh I think this is how it should be" or "oh I don't think it is real because that's what my gut says," no. Proven wrong through experimentation, logic, math, etc.

what specific evidence are you after? What evidence do you want me to produce? What I've been shown in this thread is not evidence that proves anything?

Sorry for the late reply. What evidence do you have that round earth is wrong? that flat earth is correct?

And would you mind showing how the things you've been shown in this thread are not evidence?

49

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 22, 2018, 03:42:40 PM »

Gav, do you have any evidence to support your side? We've given you sources and evidence which you conveniently rejected for no reason other than you refuse to believe it. But how about you? Do you have any tested, credible, verifiable evidence that hasn't been proven wrong? And not proven wrong by "oh I think this is how it should be" or "oh I don't think it is real because that's what my gut says," no. Proven wrong through experimentation, logic, math, etc.

50

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: May 19, 2018, 05:38:11 AM »

More flat earth fake sats with employee interviews.  Bonus points for Antarctica

How can we prove the person actually worked at NASA?

51

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Repeat Bedford level test?

« on: May 16, 2018, 07:20:20 PM »

Is there any way to confirm what Rowbotham says is true?

52

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Repeat Bedford level test?

« on: May 16, 2018, 02:48:44 PM »

Tom, so what you're saying is, using your jellybean analogy, is that if the center of the camera was 6 feet above the surface, then the 4 jellybeans would also have to be exactly 6 feet above the surface?

Did Wallace not do this?

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 12, 2018, 02:55:25 PM »

Tom, what about observations over land rather than water?

54

Flat Earth Media / Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation

« on: May 08, 2018, 12:53:01 PM »

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

Can I get a source for this?

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If there are supposedly thousands of satellites orbiting earth, why hasn't the

« on: May 04, 2018, 12:18:01 AM »

Most satellites are in orbits above the ISS. The ISS is in one of the lowest possible orbits. No cameras on the ISS point "out," they all show Earth.

Satellites are relatively small. Most working ones are the size of a car or so, maybe a bit smaller. Some are really big and the size of a bus. A lot of satellites, and nearly all debris, are smaller than a 1'x1' cube.

Space is VERY big. Like, CRAZY big. The distance between one satellite and its nearest could be several dozen kilometers. There's no way you'll ever see that satellite.

If most are above the ISS, and kinda small, and very, VERY far away, why should you see it?

Can you see people from a plane that's only 10 km up? Almost certainly not, unless you have a telescope or something. In fact, most vehicles aren't visible from that height. Objects the same size that could be dozens or hundreds (or even thousands) of kilometers away will be impossible to see.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Garlic bread and the curve of the earth.

« on: May 04, 2018, 12:11:32 AM »

I determined middle by connecting the corners. Draw a line from top left to bottom right, and the same from top right to bottom left, and the intersection is the middle.

Seems unreliable. It sounds like that would establish the centre of the image you're viewing, not of the area covered by the lens.

Well, it's not unreliable because it find the middle of the video frame.

We'd have to know if Tom cropped the video to determine where the real center is, then. I'm doubting he cropped it though.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Garlic bread and the curve of the earth.

« on: May 03, 2018, 02:15:03 PM »

I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.

You are wrong. This effect will be present in any camera lens currently in existence - a wide angle lens will exaggerate that effect, not introduce it. Also, how did you establish where the centre of the lens is in this footage?

Yes, I know that ANY lens will, but what I'm saying is that he did not use a wide-angle lens. If he did, there'd be extreme exaggeration. His lens had a very, very small fisheye effect. This can be known by looking at the horizon at the beginning of the video. There is almost no curvature unless the horizon is at the extremes of the frame. At the point of the video where the balloon pops, theres curve no matter where the frame is.

I determined middle by connecting the corners. Draw a line from top left to bottom right, and the same from top right to bottom left, and the intersection is the middle.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Garlic bread and the curve of the earth.

« on: May 02, 2018, 02:54:28 PM »

You went out of your way to state many times that the lens wasn't a fish-eye. While this much is obvious (you're clearly responding to an argument about very different kinds of "space" photography, but I'm not very surprised that you'd try to conflate these to make your argument sound "stronger"), you can very clearly see the extent of curvature change within seconds as the camera pans up and down.

You can also see moments at any altitude that share the same extent of curvature - even comparing "just barely off the ground" to "high up in 'space'"!

Gee, oh gee, I wonder why that might be. Since it's clearly not optics, as you so strongly asserted with 0 evidence, it must be that the curvature of the Round Earth physically changes depending on how we look at it.

Would you mind providing a screenshot of this? Some evidence? Perhaps a timestamp even.

I'm not wrong. If the lens was a fisheye then the curve would be going toward from the center of the frame no matter what, but this doesn't happen.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Garlic bread and the curve of the earth.

« on: May 01, 2018, 02:11:33 AM »

Tom Scott, famous youtube scientist person, recently uploaded this video onto youtube: , where he released garlic bread on a high-altitude balloon, strapped a non-fisheye lens to it, and sent it off into the upper atmosphere. While it did NOT reach space as it's so claimed in the title (Tom even acknowledges this in the beginning of the video), it did get WAY up there, about 35.8km when the balloon pops. In the video, numerous clips were shown where the earth's horizon was curved! When the horizon was in the bottom of the frame, the horizon still curved downward, not upward as it should if the lens was fisheye. Here's screenshots with the timestamps included: https://imgur.com/a/dzJq2MH (this one shows the curve just before the balloon popped at 35.8km). https://imgur.com/a/Xk0z04O (this one shows the curve just after the balloon popped at 35.5km).

Notice how neither photo has the horizon filling up more than half the frame, and yet the horizon still curves away from the middle, rather than toward it if it was fisheye?

Now, I know some of you will say "oh well where is the full unedited video. Why didn't he upload that? It MUST be fake then."

Well, here you go then:

And for MUCH of the time you can see curve. Not fisheye. Not some act of perspective. Real, authentic, curvature of the earth.

60

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: May 01, 2018, 01:52:51 AM »

These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.

Impossible. It is impossible to keep balloons moving in a steady, unchanged direction, like satellites do. Balloons will be moved around by the wind and blown in every direction, you cannot keep it steady. This is not only a problem for those tracking satellites (which thousands do every night), but also those using GPS, satellite TV, etc.

Now hang on there nick, let's play some devil's advocate.
You see, this is plausible in the flat earth model. Whatever force makes the sun and moon spin also could rotate the balloons.
Being lighter than air, they could sit on top of the atmosphere and rotate. (though pressure becomes a problem, they'd pop)
Also there's no wind in space.

Of course! How could I be so stupid?

In actuality though, balloons cannot replicate satellites.
Plus, if they can send up fake satellites that can hang in the air perpetually, rotating over the earth, couldn't they just send up real satellites?

Also a good point. Why can't they just put real ones up? Why go through the whole process of faking it?