[pier_du_fwa]

So I am not a FE and am not here to troll or pester or otherwise I believe in mutual respect and the scientific process. The question I have is how can you refute evidence such as this



Low budget homemade rockets going high enough to clearly show curvature. Why has this society not repeated the same simple experiment and given a decent explanation of this. They all cannot be cover ups, if there are literally thousands of homemade videos getting uploaded every other week from hobbiests, drone fliers etc that show curvature.

What could be a possible argument against this evidence?

[Science Supporter]

Yeah, there are tons of videos at 80k+ showing curvature very clearly. I remember like a month ago I watched this guy sent lasagna to space as a joke to help PewDiePie. He was able to get footage at 95k feet with very visible curvature. This is a random, average citizen. Not part of NASA, the government, just a random YouTuber with 2 million subscribers who probably doesn't even know the Flat Earth Theory exists!
Original video:

[stack]

Normally the go-to FE position is that these are generally "fish-eye" lenses that produce a wide range of observable convex and concave curvature as the horizon moves about in the viewfinder. And I agree with that general assessment.

But in the interest of poking around I came across this balloon launching guy/channel. He's recently been doing some interesting launches with multi cams and specifically non-fish-eye lenses. As well, he's added infrared to the arsenal. So have a look for yourself. His second most recent launch is here:



I was frame-by-framing it around the 112,000 ft mark trying the get the horizon right in the middle to limit distortion as much as possible, especially in the lower right infrared view. Interestingly, that view uses a GoPro Hero 4 Black with 7.2mm Lens, spec'd as non-fisheye. Around 1:57;47 you can see this infrared image, lower right.



I'm sure the jury's out, but it's a pretty compelling image.

[pier_du_fwa]

When you say the image is a pretty compelling image I assume you mean for a sphere as you can clearly see from that 1 image curvature at each side and if you watch more of the video then it is a giant sphere from every angle. The fact that a fish eye or super wide angle lens is not used for this video exactly why you don't get a larger view of the planet. But there is plenty enough to show the curve!

But the mere fact that there are all these people sending things up and freely videoing them and undoubtedly time after time after time showing our round planet should be, unbiased, un-tampered empirical  observable evidence.

So I ask again who from the FES has sent up something high with a reliable camera (would be easy enough and not particularly expensive).

[AATW]

The Wiki has a page about this.

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

It's another piece of FE "heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning.
Some one of the common FE arguments is "The world looks flat ergo it must be. Where's the curve?".
The RE response is "No, the earth is a globe but it's a very big one, you can only see the curve when you're very high. Look, here's a photo".
And then FE comes back with "Yes, obviously you can see a curve if you're that high, you're seeing the edge of the daylight.

...but you literally just used a flat horizon as proof that the earth is flat, now you're saying that the curve is consistent with your beliefs?!

It comes back to the spotlight sun problem. There's no explanation for that which really works.

[pier_du_fwa]

The Wiki has a page about this.

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

It's another piece of FE "heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning.
Some one of the common FE arguments is "The world looks flat ergo it must be. Where's the curve?".
The RE response is "No, the earth is a globe but it's a very big one, you can only see the curve when you're very high. Look, here's a photo".
And then FE comes back with "Yes, obviously you can see a curve if you're that high, you're seeing the edge of the daylight.

...but you literally just used a flat horizon as proof that the earth is flat, now you're saying that the curve is consistent with your beliefs?!

It comes back to the spotlight sun problem. There's no explanation for that which really works.

That logic may work for some videos but what about the one I posted where it is high enough and far enough back to show clearly a globe, there is no way around that.

[AATW]

That logic may work for some videos but what about the one I posted where it is high enough and far enough back to show clearly a globe, there is no way around that.

The fallback FE position then is generally to call the image fake or claim distortion - fish eye lens or something.
Not a very good response, but it's the one which is applied to the space industries of multiple countries and private companies.

[Bikini Polaris]

The Wiki has a page about this.

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

I'm a bit lost on the apparent contradiction of a Spotlight Sun and the Solar day in Antartica (also considering it as a continent). I did not find much on the wiki and I only found this conversation here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5143.0

Also I'm not a huge fan of the starting sentence "Most pictures of the earth taken by amateur balloonists at very high altitudes are not doctored". Isn't the main point of the Zetetic method to deny the existence of someone doctoring others?

[Pete Svarrior]

Isn't the main point of the Zetetic method to deny the existence of someone doctoring others?

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on your question?

[Bikini Polaris]

Isn't the main point of the Zetetic method to deny the existence of someone doctoring others?

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on your question?

In the FAQ it's written "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."  and also Rowbotham says "The term Zetetic is... to take nothing for granted". And to my understanding zeteticism is all about pure empiricism, avoiding theoretical considerations.

Doesn't this means that Zetetics don't tell others "what" to think (they don't say "this is true, trust me."), but rather "How you arrive in thinking through experiment"?

[Pete Svarrior]

Doesn't this means that Zetetics don't tell others "what" to think (they don't say "this is true, trust me."), but rather "How you arrive in thinking through experiment"?

Close, but not quite. We can still state and document our beliefs, while reminding others that these should not be taken for granted. The moment we tell you how to arrive at your truth, however, we've influenced the process. Some view this as an issue, others don't. Much like with any philosophy, you'll find some divergence.

Also, I'm not sure why you took issue with that particular sentence. I'd understand if you were objecting to the claim that most of these photos are doctored, but the Wiki states they are most likely not.

[Bikini Polaris]

The moment we tell you how to arrive at your truth, however, we've influenced the process. Some view this as an issue, others don't.

The alternative (to not influence) being silent all the time, I guess?

Also, I'm not sure why you took issue with that particular sentence. I'd understand if you were objecting to the claim that most of these photos are doctored, but the Wiki states they are most likely not.

Because it somehow implies there exists a process for including photographs as credible evidence and, if this is indeed the case, I'd be curious to know it.

As an aside, do we know how Rowbotham was deciding that a sailor was to be trusted when reporting distances in the south hemisphere?

[Jeppspace]

The question I have is how can you refute evidence such as this

The fact that at the end it shows the landed surface of the Earth as a convexed fish bowl.