[questfortruth]

Hello,

I am new to this forum and society.  I am researching various things and I am curious to how "Flat Earth" believers handle the story and picture from Apollo 8 astronaut William Ander, called Earthrise?

Here is a link to a story where he even showed a reporter the negative for the picture:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/home/earthrise.html

Thank you,

QFT

[Tom Bishop]

Actually it just says that he was shown the vault where the negative was kept.

[Rama Set]

Actually it just says that he was shown the vault where the negative was kept.

Actually, it has William Anders recounting his experience, briefly of taking the photo as well as him saying he visited the vault where the negative is kept.

[questfortruth]

Fair enough, but what of the photo?

[CableDawg]

Fair enough, but what of the photo?

Don't even waste your time with photographs around here.  They are dismissed out of hand for a variety of reasons unless FE supporters believe a photo to be supportive of their cause, with Tom being one of the worst.

[questfortruth]

Well this is most unfortunate.  Any quest that ever hopes to find any truth will only live in the heart of the seeker who holds no prejudice for where that truth might lead. 

Without being able to discredit the photos, or recreate them through artificial means it only seems fair and logical to accept them as real and true.  This does not inherently mean that a photo, no matter how it looks, can't be explained within the realms of one's belief, say a flat earth belief.  Without giving honest consideration and feedback to such a claim I don't see how any belief can be considered as anything more than such - a person's chosen belief.  I am a Christian and believe God created the Earth and have many debates with people that believe otherwise, yet at the end of the debate we still left with only our beliefs because there is no reasonable way to recreate such an event, photos of the event or the like for either cause.

Unfortunately, because I was rather intrigued by the adventure of such a reality, I can't see any reason for thinking that the Flat Earth belief is any different.  Most unfortunate for believers of the Flat Earth kind there is a photo that exists that gives rise to the counter argument.  Also, and rather unfortunate, unlike my Christian belief where I have experienced things that lead me to this belief I am still left where I started on this quest; neither feeling or seeing proof for a globular earth no a flat earth (maybe we are on/in something altogether different?).  I am somewhat swayed by that photo however.

Thank you to those that responded.

[Tom Bishop]

Actually it just says that he was shown the vault where the negative was kept.

Actually, it has William Anders recounting his experience, briefly of taking the photo as well as him saying he visited the vault where the negative is kept.

Yes, it doesn't say anywhere that he examined the negative.

[cel]

First of all, NASA's info or images posted have been discredited by FEs, and somewhat doubted by GEs from what had happened to the moon landing movie making. Anyway, I advised you questfortruth not to use NASA images or posting. It doesn't help.

For example, your Apollo 8 image of the earth that was taken by one of the astronauts Anders could not be confirmed to be authentic as it was posted by NASA in its website. And by ordinary observation, the earth just appears to be just the size of the moon as we viewed it from earth at his full moon condition, and the size of the moon is about 1/3 that of earth from a distance of something like 238,900 mi. It's a bit puzzling because the photo was taken at 240,000 miles away from earth while they orbitted the moon (they were really pretty near the moon surface at this orbit distance)... and yet they saw an earth image just the same size as that of the moon. Direct calculation and common sense dictate that it should have been 3 times the size of moon image as seen from earth. Further, I came across websites that calculate the size of an object's image given the object's size, distance of the object from the camera or observer with known focal length, etc. and the image size of earth from Apollo 8's report came out to be much smaller as expected... I did this just for curiosity's sake. No need to debunk, hehe... With that image size, the distance from the observer came out to be much more than 240,000 mi that seems to be an unrealistic result already.... well, seems not reliable enough...

[rabinoz]

First of all, NASA's info or images posted have been discredited by FEs, and somewhat doubted by GEs from what had happened to the moon landing movie making. Anyway, I advised you questfortruth not to use NASA images or posting. It doesn't help.

For example, your Apollo 8 image of the earth that was taken by one of the astronauts Anders could not be confirmed to be authentic as it was posted by NASA in its website. And by ordinary observation, the earth just appears to be just the size of the moon as we viewed it from earth at his full moon condition, and the size of the moon is about 1/3 that of earth from a distance of something like 238,900 mi. It's a bit puzzling because the photo was taken at 240,000 miles away from earth while they orbitted the moon (they were really pretty near the moon surface at this orbit distance)... and yet they saw an earth image just the same size as that of the moon. Direct calculation and common sense dictate that it should have been 3 times the size of moon image as seen from earth. Further, I came across websites that calculate the size of an object's image given the object's size, distance of the object from the camera or observer with known focal length, etc. and the image size of earth from Apollo 8's report came out to be much smaller as expected... I did this just for curiosity's sake. No need to debunk, hehe... With that image size, the distance from the observer came out to be much more than 240,000 mi that seems to be an unrealistic result already.... well, seems not reliable enough...

I am curious.

The information I have is that the camera used was

The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses.

The film was 70 mm sprocket film with gate dimensions (from what I can drag up) of 55 mm x 55 mm. 
On the 1920 x 1920 pixel photo I have the earth image is 287 pixels wide, or 55 x (287/1920) = 8.22 mm wide.
If the 250 mm lens was used this makes the angular size of the earth 2 x atan((8.22/2)/250) = 1.88°

If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles. Looks about right to me. So let's see your working.

Mind you I think you are terribly naive (or think yourself smart). I really think that if NASA was trying to put one over on you would not have fallen into such a simple trap!

[Southernhemispere]

As soon as FE'ers can't come up with an answer which excludes 'fake' or 'lie', the topic fades away. Do you think NASA would have been afraid of a flat earth movement starting when they were clearly showing pictures of a globe earth from space, and then they would actually have the foresight to think ahead to make sure that their dimensions matched so perfectly as proved by Rabinoz above? Methinks not!

[rabinoz]

As soon as FE'ers can't come up with an answer which excludes 'fake' or 'lie', the topic fades away. Do you think NASA would have been afraid of a flat earth movement starting when they were clearly showing pictures of a globe earth from space, and then they would actually have the foresight to think ahead to make sure that their dimensions matched so perfectly as proved by Rabinoz above? Methinks not!

I'm curious cel has a "motto" of "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER", yet when caught out trying to NASA is faking a photo (probably ignorantly) we hear no more from him.

I really think thing that cel should "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER."

[cel]

As soon as FE'ers can't come up with an answer which excludes 'fake' or 'lie', the topic fades away. Do you think NASA would have been afraid of a flat earth movement starting when they were clearly showing pictures of a globe earth from space, and then they would actually have the foresight to think ahead to make sure that their dimensions matched so perfectly as proved by Rabinoz above? Methinks not!

I'm curious cel has a "motto" of "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER", yet when caught out trying to NASA is faking a photo (probably ignorantly) we hear no more from him.

I really think thing that cel should "STOP BEING DECEIVED. BE A TRUTH SEEKER."

Wow, rabinoz! you're too fast to think falsely about my absence in this forum (i have reason that is none of your business!). No wonder that you're not getting anywhere but going around the circle just trying to rebut anything posted that is against your GE propositions/belief. Anyway, why couldn't you control your urge to demean and insult people here who do not conform 100% to your belief? In the interim period I was out here, have you read any postings from me in other topics? Presumptive conclusions done in haste are often either deceitful, ill-motivated or ignorantly wrong! Is that how you reason out? Who the hell will believe in your insinuations and/or arguments then?

Re the NASA photo thing, it's perfectly normal for one who wants the real truth to be skeptic after all the reasonable presentations of arguments, proofs, facts, testimonies, etc. about the NASA's faking the moon landing or Apollo 11 or the rest of the Apollos. Until this time, all such documentary accounts/presentations have not been rebutted successfully by NASA or by you perhaps (as agent of NASA, probably) to convince millions of people that Apollos, e.g. Apollo 11, was undoubtedly real. How can you let people believe in something whose authenticity had been tainted by deceitful politics? Don't forget or you should know well the backgrounder before you judged people's stand on the matter. Btw, there's nothing surprising about the formula or calculation you've presented, it's the normal thing to do. In fact, you can just use online calculations without having to go into manual computations. I have a question to you, is it possible to take a still picture of studio earth model and come up with a negative earth image the same size as that of the earthrise? Can the earthrise negative be authenticated and verified? To prove something to be genuine, every step of the way should be verified to be genuine, right?

[Boots]

The information I have is that the camera used was

The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses.

The film was 70 mm sprocket film with gate dimensions (from what I can drag up) of 55 mm x 55 mm. 
On the 1920 x 1920 pixel photo I have the earth image is 287 pixels wide, or 55 x (287/1920) = 8.22 mm wide.
If the 250 mm lens was used this makes the angular size of the earth 2 x atan((8.22/2)/250) = 1.88°

If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles.

@Rabinoz

You seem to know a fair bit about this kind of thing so I have a couple of questions for you. I don't want to obligate you with spending time on this if you don't want to. If you're too busy just disregard this post.

Can you tell me how far a camera would need to be from the earth in order to determine it's shape? Assume the best commercially available camera for the job. Do you know if FEers would accept digitally streamed images or would it need to be an old fashioned negative? And apparently there is some issue with the type of lense? Is there a type of lense which cannot be blamed for the roundness of the images produced at large distances?

Thanks for your time.

[rabinoz]

The information I have is that the camera used was

The onboard cameras for the Apollo 8 mission were modified Hasselblad 500 EL cameras, with 80-millimeter and 250-millimeter Zeiss panacolor lenses.

The film was 70 mm sprocket film with gate dimensions (from what I can drag up) of 55 mm x 55 mm. 
On the 1920 x 1920 pixel photo I have the earth image is 287 pixels wide, or 55 x (287/1920) = 8.22 mm wide.
If the 250 mm lens was used this makes the angular size of the earth 2 x atan((8.22/2)/250) = 1.88°

If we take the diameter of the earth as 7,918 miles, this makes the earth to moon distance of 241,728 miles.

@Rabinoz

You seem to know a fair bit about this kind of thing so I have a couple of questions for you. I don't want to obligate you with spending time on this if you don't want to. If you're too busy just disregard this post.

Can you tell me how far a camera would need to be from the earth in order to determine it's shape? Assume the best commercially available camera for the job. Do you know if FEers would accept digitally streamed images or would it need to be an old fashioned negative? And apparently there is some issue with the type of lense? Is there a type of lense which cannot be blamed for the roundness of the images produced at large distances?

Thanks for your time.

If you use a good 50 mm lens on a full frame 35 mm camera (or equivalent on smaller cameras) you will get little the distortion that so many FEers call "fish-eye lens" effect.

The sensor on a standard full frame 35 mm camera is about 36x24 mm (width x height), so the angluar field covered can be found from 2 x atan((half image dimenension)/ (lens focal length)).
For this standard 50 mm lens this makes the angular Field of View is roughly 41° x 28°.

Now how far away depends on whether you want to show the full disk or just enough of the curvature to be convincing.
If you don't show the full disk, flat earthers will try to claim "so what, that just shows the "illuminated disk caused by the sun".

So to be really sure you are seeing the globe you need to be at a distance where the whole diameter of the earth (about 12,742 km) can be seen.

A bit more trig is needed (mind you bit of simple proportion would do it too). We need to find the distance for the half angle at the camera to be under 14°.

This can be worked out from distance = (diameter/2)/sin(ang/2) or almost over 28,000 km - this is the distance from the earth centre. The altitude is about 22,000 km.

Now the geostationary weather satellites are rather bit above this at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km, giving them view of all but even at this altitude they miss almost 9° of each polar region.

As far as I am concerned any altitude above about 100 km will show good curvature, the ISS is typically at about 400 km (it varies substantially), but the images from that leave no doubt - no wonder Flat Earthers deny its existence!

But if you want (almost) the lot without using a wide angle lens you do need to be over 22,000 km. (I hope my tans and sins aren't confused, or I'll get my hide tanned for my sins!)

In my opinion, a more definitive test is to measure the dip angle from the local horizontal to the horizon. There are lots of references on the internet to this and it does not need such a high altitude to be convincing - a balloon or rocket with carefully aligned cameras could photograph the horizon in say four directions. Thid dip angle is about 3° at 10,000 m altitude and increases as the square root of the altitude above that.

The earth is huge!

[Boots]

If you use a good 50 mm lens on a full frame 35 mm camera (or equivalent on smaller cameras) you will get little the distortion that so many FEers call "fish-eye lens" effect.

The sensor on a standard full frame 35 mm camera is about 36x24 mm (width x height), so the angluar field covered can be found from 2 x atan((half image dimenension)/ (lens focal length)).
For this standard 50 mm lens this makes the angular Field of View is roughly 41° x 28°.

Now how far away depends on whether you want to show the full disk or just enough of the curvature to be convincing.
If you don't show the full disk, flat earthers will try to claim "so what, that just shows the "illuminated disk caused by the sun".

So to be really sure you are seeing the globe you need to be at a distance where the whole diameter of the earth (about 12,742 km) can be seen.

A bit more trig is needed (mind you bit of simple proportion would do it too). We need to find the distance for the half angle at the camera to be under 14°.

This can be worked out from distance = (diameter/2)/sin(ang/2) or almost over 28,000 km - this is the distance from the earth centre. The altitude is about 22,000 km.

Now the geostationary weather satellites are rather bit above this at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km, giving them view of all but even at this altitude they miss almost 9° of each polar region.

As far as I am concerned any altitude above about 100 km will show good curvature, the ISS is typically at about 400 km (it varies substantially), but the images from that leave no doubt - no wonder Flat Earthers deny its existence!

But if you want (almost) the lot without using a wide angle lens you do need to be over 22,000 km. (I hope my tans and sins aren't confused, or I'll get my hide tanned for my sins!)

In my opinion, a more definitive test is to measure the dip angle from the local horizontal to the horizon. There are lots of references on the internet to this and it does not need such a high altitude to be convincing - a balloon or rocket with carefully aligned cameras could photograph the horizon in say four directions. Thid dip angle is about 3° at 10,000 m altitude and increases as the square root of the altitude above that.

The earth is huge!

Thanks Rabinoz.

These guys got one up to 17.5 miles for $150 - they claim. I think it's awesome what they did. But if I did it I would like to see if I could get higher and also have better control of the camera. I think you are right about measuring the dip to the horizon being more definitive - unless you're a FEer. I don't know if it's possible, but I would like to stream in real time to youtube (or somewhere the public can access it) and invite anyone who wants to to come watch it. If the streaming was constant from take-off to it's maximum height you would have a hard time arguing with it. Also, I would like to keep it simple and low-cost so your average person could repeat the experiment if they had any doubts. I don't know if this is possible but I would like to try. I'll think about it and see if it's something I want to do. It won't be for at least a year anyway.

[Southernhemispere]

.... or you can just watch this, which takes you 180 miles higher a lot quicker

[rabinoz]

Thanks Rabinoz.

These guys got one up to 17.5 miles for $150 - they claim. I think it's awesome what they did. But if I did it I would like to see if I could get higher and also have better control of the camera. I think you are right about measuring the dip to the horizon being more definitive - unless you're a FEer. I don't know if it's possible, but I would like to stream in real time to youtube (or somewhere the public can access it) and invite anyone who wants to to come watch it. If the streaming was constant from take-off to it's maximum height you would have a hard time arguing with it. Also, I would like to keep it simple and low-cost so your average person could repeat the experiment if they had any doubts. I don't know if this is possible but I would like to try. I'll think about it and see if it's something I want to do. It won't be for at least a year anyway.

Yes, but 17.5 miles above the earth sounds a lot, but it's equivalent to about ¹/₅₀" (about 0.5 mm) above the surface of a bowling ball.

In other words it's hardly got above the surface yet, a couple of hundred miles as in a satellite launch is "starting to talk".

[Boots]

Thanks Rabinoz.

These guys got one up to 17.5 miles for $150 - they claim. I think it's awesome what they did. But if I did it I would like to see if I could get higher and also have better control of the camera. I think you are right about measuring the dip to the horizon being more definitive - unless you're a FEer. I don't know if it's possible, but I would like to stream in real time to youtube (or somewhere the public can access it) and invite anyone who wants to to come watch it. If the streaming was constant from take-off to it's maximum height you would have a hard time arguing with it. Also, I would like to keep it simple and low-cost so your average person could repeat the experiment if they had any doubts. I don't know if this is possible but I would like to try. I'll think about it and see if it's something I want to do. It won't be for at least a year anyway.

Yes, but 17.5 miles above the earth sounds a lot, but it's equivalent to about ¹/₅₀" (about 0.5 mm) above the surface of a bowling ball.

In other words it's hardly got above the surface yet, a couple of hundred miles as in a satellite launch is "starting to talk".

I think I need to get up has high as possible via balloon. Then use a rockets? A camera is pretty small and light.

[rabinoz]

Thanks Rabinoz.

These guys got one up to 17.5 miles for $150 - they claim. I think it's awesome what they did. But if I did it I would like to see if I could get higher and also have better control of the camera. I think you are right about measuring the dip to the horizon being more definitive - unless you're a FEer. I don't know if it's possible, but I would like to stream in real time to youtube (or somewhere the public can access it) and invite anyone who wants to to come watch it. If the streaming was constant from take-off to it's maximum height you would have a hard time arguing with it. Also, I would like to keep it simple and low-cost so your average person could repeat the experiment if they had any doubts. I don't know if this is possible but I would like to try. I'll think about it and see if it's something I want to do. It won't be for at least a year anyway.

Yes, but 17.5 miles above the earth sounds a lot, but it's equivalent to about ¹/₅₀" (about 0.5 mm) above the surface of a bowling ball.

In other words it's hardly got above the surface yet, a couple of hundred miles as in a satellite launch is "starting to talk".

I think I need to get up has high as possible via balloon. Then use a rockets? A camera is pretty small and light.

I have no experience with either, other than a few activities in my teens, that might now get undesired attention from our equivalent of you Homeland Security, them were the days!

That said I think balloon would be a more stable platform. If you can manage to photograph two opposing horizons st the same time it would be much better.