[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_earth_is_an_egg

I do not dispute that the Earth is far from circular in those photos. However, looking at the midground should make it abundantly clear that a fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

If this was made with CGI with the preconception of a sphere, then why would the world look so non-circular? It's not like animators can't draw circles.

[JohnAdams1145]

That page is probably not made to foster an actual debate. It's just one to troll globetards with a shoddy argument that both sides probably acknowledge is weak. Sort of like the 100 proofs that Earth is not a globe. Most of them are trash, and even some FEs agree on that.

If you want an amazing piece of garbage from the author of the 100 proofs, check it out:

It is certain that the theory of the Earth's rotundity and that of its mobility must stand or fall together. A proof, then, of its immobility is virtually a proof of its non-rotundity. Now, that the Earth does not move, either on an axis, or in an orbit round the Sun or anything else, is easily proven. If the Earth went through space at the rate of eleven-hundred miles in a minute of time, as astronomers teach us, in a particular direction, there would unquestionably be a, difference in the result of firing off a projectile in that direction and in a direction the opposite of that one. But as, in fact, there is not the slightest difference in any such case, it is clear that any alleged motion of the Earth is disproved, and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

[Tom Bishop]

fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

Seems like that is the point of the article.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

Seems like that is the point of the article.

What purpose does it serve, then, other than to discredit Flat Earth? I can't understand.

[JohnAdams1145]

It's a non-serious argument. The FES doesn't acknowledge the existence of the ISS. It's sort of like the ones we would make about seeing the curvature in the horizon or expressing incredulity at the Sun being so close.

[Tontogary]

Using photos taken from an object in orbit, that the TFES denies exists or,  can possibly exist, to use as “proof” to deny a RE.

If the photos are not real, ie CGI as they must be if there is no ISS, then nothing about the picture can be relied upon, therefore it neither proves or disproves anything.

Truly a circular, if not hypocritical argument then.

[AATW]

fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

Seems like that is the point of the article.

I'm actually a bit confused about the point of it. If the point is "they used a fish eye lens, ergo that proves they faked the curvature" then that raises a bunch of other questions:

1) The photos are taken from the ISS, a space station you claim doesn't even exist. So the whole thing is CGI anyway, right?
2) Why the hell would they make a CGI photo and simulate a fish eye lens in it?
3) If it's not CGI then where is the photo taken from?
4) From elsewhere in your Wiki a curve is consistent with flat earth theory anyway https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs


There's no text on that page apart from the initial line to indicate what actual point it's making. 

[Tom Bishop]

Who said that the earth is always CGI in NASA's media? Using a fisheye lens on a flatter horizon is another alternative for creating a round earth and making it look like you are at an orbital altitude.

[AATW]

Who said that the earth is always CGI in NASA's media? Using a fisheye lens on a flatter horizon is another alternative for creating a round earth and making it look like you are at an orbital altitude.

Fair enough, but where is that photo taken from? You claim the ISS doesn't exist. So they can't be real photos, can they?
What exactly do you think those photos are?

[Tumeni]

Who said that the earth is always CGI in NASA's media?

Most every Flat Earther ever. Hundreds, if not thousands, of instances in YouTube comments and videos of the claim;

"NASA's images of the Earth are ALL CGI" or similar.....

You may not have said it, but I'm sure I've read it here, too.

So, do you accept the possibility that some of NASA's media is NOT CGI, then?

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Hold on. So the idea is that it was not CGI, but taken close to the ground, with the fisheye used to fake curvature?

Then why is there a black sky?

[Tontogary]

Hold on. So the idea is that it was not CGI, but taken close to the ground, with the fisheye used to fake curvature?

Then why is there a black sky?

And everything is very very small on the earth....

[juner]

That page is probably not made to foster an actual debate. It's just one to troll globetards with a shoddy argument that both sides probably acknowledge is weak. Sort of like the 100 proofs that Earth is not a globe. Most of them are trash, and even some FEs agree on that.

Try staying on topic in the upper fora. If you want to whine, take it to AR. Warned, next one is a week ban.

[Parallax]

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_earth_is_an_egg

I do not dispute that the Earth is far from circular in those photos. However, looking at the midground should make it abundantly clear that a fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

If this was made with CGI with the preconception of a sphere, then why would the world look so non-circular? It's not like animators can't draw circles.

Well a fisheye lens was used, its so obvious that you even acknowledged it.

The iss isn't real, its an underwater set. So the 'iss' you see is there (underwater), and the earth and darkness of space is simply cgi. Simples.

[Stagiri]

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_earth_is_an_egg

I do not dispute that the Earth is far from circular in those photos. However, looking at the midground should make it abundantly clear that a fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

If this was made with CGI with the preconception of a sphere, then why would the world look so non-circular? It's not like animators can't draw circles.

Well a fisheye lens was used, its so obvious that you even acknowledged it.

The iss isn't real, its an underwater set. So the 'iss' you see is there (underwater), and the earth and darkness of space is simply cgi. Simples.

You should check out some of the photos.

[AATW]

The iss isn't real, its an underwater set. So the 'iss' you see is there (underwater), and the earth and darkness of space is simply cgi. Simples.

And yet...it can be observed from earth somehow

[inquisitive]

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_earth_is_an_egg

I do not dispute that the Earth is far from circular in those photos. However, looking at the midground should make it abundantly clear that a fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

If this was made with CGI with the preconception of a sphere, then why would the world look so non-circular? It's not like animators can't draw circles.

Well a fisheye lens was used, its so obvious that you even acknowledged it.

The iss isn't real, its an underwater set. So the 'iss' you see is there (underwater), and the earth and darkness of space is simply cgi. Simples.

Tom will want your proof it's a set. The burden is on you.

[Tumeni]

The iss isn't real, its an underwater set. So the 'iss' you see is there (underwater), and the earth and darkness of space is simply cgi. Simples.

Well, that's totally inconsistent with my own empirical observations of it. I've watched it go by, sometimes twice in one evening, exactly as predicted, with both occurrences separated by exactly the stated orbital time. It can't be anything other than an orbital object.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_earth_is_an_egg

I do not dispute that the Earth is far from circular in those photos. However, looking at the midground should make it abundantly clear that a fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

If this was made with CGI with the preconception of a sphere, then why would the world look so non-circular? It's not like animators can't draw circles.

Well a fisheye lens was used, its so obvious that you even acknowledged it.

The iss isn't real, its an underwater set. So the 'iss' you see is there (underwater), and the earth and darkness of space is simply cgi. Simples.

I fail to see the connection between those statements. How exactly does the use of a fisheye lens prove it's an underwater set again?

[AATW]

The iss isn't real, its an underwater set. So the 'iss' you see is there (underwater), and the earth and darkness of space is simply cgi. Simples.

Well, that's totally inconsistent with my own empirical observations of it. I've watched it go by, sometimes twice in one evening, exactly as predicted, with both occurrences separated by exactly the stated orbital time. It can't be anything other than an orbital object.

This was covered a while ago - NASA publish a web site where you can find out when you can see it at your location.
If they are faking it they're making it very difficult for themselves by publishing something like that which is testable if you know what you're doing.