[juner]

Like most people, I have not been to 70k feet.  But I have a working knowledge of lenses and distortion and have several times spoken out about the distortion in pics posted where it was obvious.  I also assumed you had a basic knowledge of distortion since you claimed you saw it.  I notice you yet again ignored the proof that you were wrong and chose to insult instead.  Cute.

And I see you ignored my question, so I suppose that makes us even.

I just want to know if you really think that is what the curvature would look like at 70K feet assuming the accepted round earth radius/diameter.

[StinkyOne]

Like most people, I have not been to 70k feet.  But I have a working knowledge of lenses and distortion and have several times spoken out about the distortion in pics posted where it was obvious.  I also assumed you had a basic knowledge of distortion since you claimed you saw it.  I notice you yet again ignored the proof that you were wrong and chose to insult instead.  Cute.

And I see you ignored my question, so I suppose that makes us even.

I just want to know if you really think that is what the curvature would look like at 70K feet assuming the accepted round earth radius/diameter.

Yes, I believe that is the amount of curvature that would be seen. I've reviewed other photos at similar altitudes and they show comparable curvature. It is hard to say for sure though. It depends on the amount of land being photographed. The wider the shot, the more curve you'll see.

SO, ice wall?? Space tourists??

[juner]

Yes, I believe that is the amount of curvature that would be seen. I've reviewed other photos at similar altitudes and they show comparable curvature.

Interesting. Because I've seen alleged ISS photos with a similar FoV showing similar or less curvature. Glad to know there isn't a difference between 70K feet and over a million feet to you... 

SO, ice wall?? Space tourists??

What about either of those topics?

[StinkyOne]

Yes, I believe that is the amount of curvature that would be seen. I've reviewed other photos at similar altitudes and they show comparable curvature.

Interesting. Because I've seen alleged IIS photos with a similar FoV showing similar or less curvature. Glad to know there isn't a difference between 70K feet and over a million feet to you... 

SO, ice wall?? Space tourists??

What about either of those topics?

NASAs photos are fake, remember?

Where is the ice wall that surrounds the flat Earth in the photo and what about the space tourist Russia sent to the ISS?? They went up, how did the conspirators trick them into thinking they were in space?

[juner]

NASAs photos are fake, remember?

Oh, well that is good to know I guess.

Where is the ice wall that surrounds the flat Earth in the photo and what about the space tourist Russia sent to the ISS?? They went up, how did the conspirators trick them into thinking they were in space?

1) Why would there be an ice wall?

2) If there was an ice wall, why would it need to be in that photo?

[StinkyOne]

NASAs photos are fake, remember?

Oh, well that is good to know I guess.

Where is the ice wall that surrounds the flat Earth in the photo and what about the space tourist Russia sent to the ISS?? They went up, how did the conspirators trick them into thinking they were in space?

1) Why would there be an ice wall?

2) If there was an ice wall, why would it need to be in that photo?

One FE theory is that there is an ice wall or continent surrounding the Earth. It's in your Wiki. If the Earth is flat, and the curve is merely a distortion, you are seeing the end of the world and beyond. Pesky thing a flat Earth, there are no horizons to hide behind once you get high up.

[TomInAustin]

Like most people, I have not been to 70k feet.  But I have a working knowledge of lenses and distortion and have several times spoken out about the distortion in pics posted where it was obvious.  I also assumed you had a basic knowledge of distortion since you claimed you saw it.  I notice you yet again ignored the proof that you were wrong and chose to insult instead.  Cute.

And I see you ignored my question, so I suppose that makes us even.

I just want to know if you really think that is what the curvature would look like at 70K feet assuming the accepted round earth radius/diameter.

I actually had never really considered it until today.  But given the geometry its sounds and looks reasonable and seems to look like other u2 shots where the distortion is not obvious.  The published service ceiling of a U2 is 70k feet and the horizon at 70k feet would be 324 miles away*.


The first figure is a circle with a radius of 3959.  The second is zoomed in on a section with a verticle line of 13.26 (70000/5280).   The Horizon is 26.67 miles below the line of sight (4.7 degrees)  and the pink area shows how much curvature would be seen in a 325-mile field of view. Looks close enough to the pic for government work.


So yes, it looks close enough for the math.

* Note the horizon is actaully drawn 325.1 miles due to laziness.

[juner]

Pesky thing a flat Earth, there are no horizons to hide behind once you get high up.

What do you mean exactly by "high up?"

[StinkyOne]

Pesky thing a flat Earth, there are no horizons to hide behind once you get high up.

What do you mean exactly by "high up?"

Altitude

[juner]

Pesky thing a flat Earth, there are no horizons to hide behind once you get high up.

What do you mean exactly by "high up?"

Altitude

Fantastic. Did you have an altitude in mind? Or are you good with 70K (I won't be surprised if you are).

[StinkyOne]

Pesky thing a flat Earth, there are no horizons to hide behind once you get high up.

What do you mean exactly by "high up?"

Altitude

Fantastic. Did you have an altitude in mind? Or are you good with 70K (I won't be surprised if you are).

Nope, let's use the images from the moon that show the entire globe.