Video from over 120 miles proves the Earth is flat
in Earth Science

SilverishGoldNova · February 2018

We don't live on this

Image result for solar system spinning model

And I'm gonna prove it right now.

Globe Earthers will often claim that we can see curvature at a height of 35,000 feet (6.62 miles), given the appropriate environment (Like an airplane)

Related image

About that...

We also can see that there is no curvature from a height of 122 miles! (644,160 feet!)

Image: https://i.gyazo.com/eee07303e3e4c2ab60edbd9b37897e0c.png

Image: https://i.gyazo.com/407058f09533a56c9a5f0d0821e53db4.png

The full video can be seen here

https://www.facebook.com/FlatEarthGeocentric/videos/2001836310074568/

Thank you

35,000 feet: Minimum height to see a curve on a globe
644,160 feet: 18.4x that.

Gooberry · February 2018

The video is from a high altitude ballon.

The highest recorded balloon reached a height of 32miles.
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ValerieChang.shtml

SGN is claiming this balloon reached 122.

SGN either made this claim up, or didn’t check his sources.

in previous threads:

- SGN falsely claimed an image was taken at a height of 70ft, when it was taken from much higher.

- SGN falsely claimed an image was taken with an undistorted lens, when it was shown in the full video to be a fish eye distorting lens.

- SGN falsely claimed an image showed no curvature when it did. Once this was shown to have curvature, he claimed it was a fake distorted fish eye lens.

Therefore, SGN has demonstrated he doesn’t check his sources and makes claims because they agree with what he believes, not because they’re valid, and he’s checked their validity.

Gooberry · February 2018

And, if you pay careful attention, chose appropriate lower brightness and raise contrast; this image does indeed show curvature. It’s mostly hidden by the significant blue of the horizon.

someone234 · February 2018

Think.

someone234 · February 2018

The angle of vision is limited.

Erfisflat · February 2018

someone234 said:

Think.

That is just beatiful. How could we possibly address this issue?

SebastianB.P · February 2018

What i think is that the earth is not flat if the earth were to be flat we could just break through to the other side with a shovel no heavy machinery would be needed even if the earth wasnt fully flat , also the earth is close to 8,000 miles in length there is no way that any camera that humans have right now or even know the human eye cant come close to seeing that far

MayCaesar · June 2018

At any height, you can select low enough field of view for the curvature to be unnoticeable. For example, looking at the Moon from Earth (the distance of ~400,000 km), if we narrow the view angle to 0.000001 degree, then we will only see roughly 7 m of the Lunar disc edge, which, compared to the Moon's radius of ~1,737 km, is negligible, hence we would not see the curvature. Yet we can see Moon's curvature with a naked eye by looking at the sky at night.

The pictures you provided are shot with a very low field of view, hence the curvature is unnoticeable on them. If you ever fly a plane in a clear day at the altitude of 10 km, you can clearly see the curvature: the distance to the horizon is around 350 km, which is a very significant fraction of Earth's radius. It will be noticeable even from a passenger seat, despite the small window strongly obscuring the view! If you ever go sky-jumping, the view will be even more breathtaking.

Ampersand · June 2018

Despite having it explained to him multiple times, ErfIsFlat has never managed to post a video where:

- It is taken from high enough to expect to see curvature with the video taken
- It is clear enough that you can distinctly see the separation between earth and atmosphere
- The video is passing through the centre so you don't get a fisheye effect that cancels out the curvature of the horizon.

The last point is one ErfIsflat loves to point out whenever anyone provides a picture of the earth where it's not in the centre, but which he always ignores in his own pictures (he has to, non-distorted images would always show a curvature.

With almost every lense people typically use you will therefore get distortion like the below where the below is an example of what would have been parallel straight lines going across and up/down.:

Image: http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/zk/g1e7f7rj9q3u.jpg

You can see examples of this below with the earth seeming to change shape depending on whether it's above or below the centre of the lense in the same video:

Image: http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/og/tu9ctkte5vef.png

Image: http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/tp/y1qu3nye94jl.png

Therefore all we need to do to ascertain if a weather balloon video shows if the earth is flat or not is pause the video while the balloon is high enough in the sky to see curvature and while the horizon is passing through the centre of the screen where there is no distortion. At that point there will be no distortion so if the horizon is curved, that is because the earth is a sphere. So what do we find when we actually do this?

Image: http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/c4/jetyt1sxd20k.png

We find that the horizon is curved and the Earth is a sphere. You can check this yourself with the original raw footage if you want:

You'll note ErfisFlat's example is both hazy and below the dead centre of the screen and therefore useless for determining anything.

Erfisflat · June 2018

Ampersand said:

Despite having it explained to him multiple times, ErfIsFlat has never managed to post a video where:

- It is taken from high enough to expect to see curvature with the video taken
- It is clear enough that you can distinctly see the separation between earth and atmosphere
- The video is passing through the centre so you don't get a fisheye effect that cancels out the curvature of the horizon.

The last point is one ErfIsflat loves to point out whenever anyone provides a picture of the earth where it's not in the centre, but which he always ignores in his own pictures (he has to, non-distorted images would always show a curvature.

With almost every lense people typically use you will therefore get distortion like the below where the below is an example of what would have been parallel straight lines going across and up/down.:

You can see examples of this below with the earth seeming to change shape depending on whether it's above or below the centre of the lense in the same video:

Therefore all we need to do to ascertain if a weather balloon video shows if the earth is flat or not is pause the video while the balloon is high enough in the sky to see curvature and while the horizon is passing through the centre of the screen where there is no distortion. At that point there will be no distortion so if the horizon is curved, that is because the earth is a sphere. So what do we find when we actually do this?

We find that the horizon is curved and the Earth is a sphere. You can check this yourself with the original raw footage if you want:

You'll note ErfisFlat's example is both hazy and below the dead centre of the screen and therefore useless for determining anything.

Maybe one day you'll learn to read and realize I've not posted any videos on this post...

Ampersand · June 2018

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Despite having it explained to him multiple times, ErfIsFlat has never managed to post a video where:

- It is taken from high enough to expect to see curvature with the video taken
- It is clear enough that you can distinctly see the separation between earth and atmosphere
- The video is passing through the centre so you don't get a fisheye effect that cancels out the curvature of the horizon.

The last point is one ErfIsflat loves to point out whenever anyone provides a picture of the earth where it's not in the centre, but which he always ignores in his own pictures (he has to, non-distorted images would always show a curvature.

With almost every lense people typically use you will therefore get distortion like the below where the below is an example of what would have been parallel straight lines going across and up/down.:

You can see examples of this below with the earth seeming to change shape depending on whether it's above or below the centre of the lense in the same video:

Therefore all we need to do to ascertain if a weather balloon video shows if the earth is flat or not is pause the video while the balloon is high enough in the sky to see curvature and while the horizon is passing through the centre of the screen where there is no distortion. At that point there will be no distortion so if the horizon is curved, that is because the earth is a sphere. So what do we find when we actually do this?

We find that the horizon is curved and the Earth is a sphere. You can check this yourself with the original raw footage if you want:

You'll note ErfisFlat's example is both hazy and below the dead centre of the screen and therefore useless for determining anything.

Maybe one day you'll learn to read and realize I've not posted any videos on this post...

They're stills from a video you tried and failed to link to:

"The full video can be seen here

https://www.facebook.com/FlatEarthGeocentric/videos/2001836310074568"

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make by bringing up your own incompetence.

Erfisflat · June 2018

@Ampersand

It's official. Even after pointing out the error in your statement, you still insist that I've posted something here that I haven't. The video you reference was posted by former flat earther turned chicken globetard @SilverishGoldNova. So you are continuing to show your incompetence. Good show. Classic globetard.

Erfisflat · June 2018

@Ampersand

My position is that videos are not to be trusted, since cameras consist of convex lenses, which are proved to curve any straight lines.

someone234 · June 2018

Do not trust ampersand, he revenge-votes against you in tournament finals if he dislikes you and is purely on this site to bully and revenge-votes any he sedee annoying.

Erfisflat · June 2018

someone234 said:

Do not trust ampersand, he revenge-votes against you in tournament finals if he dislikes you and is purely on this site to bully and revenge-votes any he sedee annoying.

I don't trust any globetard. Anyone who has examined as much evidence as he has and is still in denial of basic facts and observations is intellectually dishonest. Its one thing to be ignorant of the facts and evidence, and another to be willingly ignorant of them.

Erfisflat · June 2018

@Ampersand, out of pure curiosity, feel free to ignore the question if you've nothing constructive and positive to add, but please ellaborate on:

"Despite having it explained to him multiple times, ErfIsFlat has never managed to post a video where:

- It is taken from high enough to expect to see curvature with the video taken..."

At which altitude is the curvature able to be seen? Apparently, ships start going over a curve at a measily 3 miles. 30,000 feet at the top of mt. Everest? Plane? 110,000 balloon? Anything attainable by a regular Joe? Do we suspiciously have to sign any government contracts to see the curve? Assuming the camera wouldn't bend the lense... that is. If I could see it with my own eyes, this is empirically observed conclusive evidence. There are thousands of empirically observed evidences confirming a flat and stationary earth and nothing conclusive against it.

LogicVault · June 2018

@Erfisflat
"Anyone who has examined as much evidence as he has and is still in denial of basic facts and observations is intellectually dishonest. Its one thing to be ignorant of the facts and evidence, and another to be willingly ignorant of them." Pot meet kettle. It would reflect reality more if you said 'Anyone like me who has examined as much evidence as he has and is still in denial of basic facts and observations is intellectually dishonest. Its one thing for me to be ignorant of the facts and evidence, and another to be willingly ignorant of them.'

"There are thousands of empirically observed evidences confirming a flat and stationary earth and nothing conclusive against it." That's a lie.

Erfisflat · June 2018

@LogicVault

"Pot meet kettle. It would reflect reality more if you said 'Anyone like me who has examined as much evidence as he has and is still in denial of basic facts and observations is intellectually dishonest. Its one thing for me to be ignorant of the facts and evidence, and another to be willingly ignorant of them."

Except there are 0 facts that conclusively supports the ball earth theory. I can think of two that directly contradict two basic tenants of the model now. Water is always flat when unmanipulated and no one has ever measured any motion. If I've missed any pertinent "facts" that support the model aside from cartoon drawings and conjectured theories, feel free to point them out. You can't, there are none.

"That's a lie."

A lie is generally understood to be stating what is false with the intent that the statement be taken as true. Without the actual intention of lying, a person who states falsehood should be understood to simply be in error. So, that error would be an accident or mistake, and not willful deception. By not explaining your accusation that I lied, and correcting the error in my logic, I can only assume you are mistaken, and the error is in your logic. By you not ellaborating, we can not determine where that error is exactly.

I could post verifiable pictures of beach horizons all day, all perfectly flat. This is empirical evidence. Anyone can go and observe the flat water. Couple that with observing any object in motion at over 1000mph (ignoring the many other alleged motions of the earth) and comparing that with the ground beneath your feet and you've got "thousands of empirically observed evidences confirming a flat and stationary earth", confirming my statement. Your turn.

Erfisflat · June 2018

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"Anyone who has examined as much evidence as he has and is still in denial of basic facts and observations is intellectually dishonest. Its one thing to be ignorant of the facts and evidence, and another to be willingly ignorant of them." Pot meet kettle. It would reflect reality more if you said 'Anyone like me who has examined as much evidence as he has and is still in denial of basic facts and observations is intellectually dishonest. Its one thing for me to be ignorant of the facts and evidence, and another to be willingly ignorant of them.'

"There are thousands of empirically observed evidences confirming a flat and stationary earth and nothing conclusive against it." That's a lie.

Way to cherry pick that one, though.

LogicVault · June 2018

@Erfisflat
"Without the actual intention of lying, a person who states falsehood should be understood to simply be in error." Which does not apply to you because your intentions are to deliberately mislead people. Your behavior in every thread you participate in is obvious to anyone who has experience with trolls.

"I could post verifiable pictures of beach horizons all day, all perfectly flat." The surface of an extremely massive sphere would appear flat to the naked eye while standing on the surface.

"This is empirical evidence." No, it's an assumption due to perception.

"Anyone can go and observe the flat water." See above reply.

"observing any object in motion at over 1000mph (ignoring the many other alleged motions of the earth) and comparing that with the ground beneath your feet" Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Are you referring to all objects technically being in motion due to the planet being in motion?

""thousands of empirically observed evidences confirming a flat and stationary earth", confirming my statement." Assumptions made from observations from the wrong perspectives does not equal confirmation.

Erfisflat · June 2018

@logicvault

"Which does not apply to you because your intentions are to deliberately mislead people."

Then you should not take it lightly that you have a burden of proof here, saying I'm intentionally lying. Great dodge though, no errors in facts or logic pointed out so far. Here's one error:

" Your behavior in every thread you participate in is obvious to anyone who has experience with trolls."

"The surface of an extremely massive sphere would appear flat to the naked eye while standing on the surface."

There's one! Though this may be a misconception, it isn't a lie. On this alleged "massive ball" you think you clinging to, as you rise in altitude, would it curve then? Have you ever seen a curve? Wouldn't the horizon start dropping at some point, if it were a ball?

"This is empirical evidence." No, it's an assumption due to perception.

Incorrect, it is empirical evidence. The assumption would be thinking that it was a ball, without seeing any curvature, or without measuring any curved water.

"Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. Are you referring to all objects technically being in motion due to the planet being in motion?"

This is an assumption due to indoctrination. See, here I used the word in the correct context, whereas you just seem to be trying to group words together to make them sound right.

"Assumptions made from observations from the wrong perspectives does not equal confirmation."

Incorrect again, about the assumption part(I never claimed the observation equals confirmation). Since we can directly observe the flatness and stationary attributes of the earth, thry arent assumptions. Maybe you need a dictionary.

Assumption

noun

1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Empirical
Adj.
adjective
1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

LogicVault · June 2018

@Erfisflat
"Then you should not take it lightly that you have a burden of proof here" Wrong. You're the troll. YOU must prove something here. Intelligent people know you are BS. You are the one that must convince us of the opposite of the truth.

"saying I'm intentionally lying." Anyone with experience with trolls can see it. Don't play stupid. It only makes you look stupid.

"Great dodge though" Don't pretend it wasn't accurate. It only makes you look stupid.

"On this alleged "massive ball" you think you clinging to" Jump. Do you come back to the ground? Then you're wrong.

"as you rise in altitude, would it curve then?" It's curved the whole time. Your point of view is what changes.

"Have you ever seen a curve?" Duh.

"Wouldn't the horizon start dropping at some point, if it were a ball?" Duh. It does.

"Incorrect, it is empirical evidence." Wrong. Your ignorance to the physics at hand can lead to assumptions that are inaccurate. Looking at something and thinking it looks a certain way is NOT evidence.

"The assumption would be thinking that it was a ball, without seeing any curvature, or without measuring any curved water." It has been seen and measured. You claim fake just as much as we do to your evidence. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

"This is an assumption due to indoctrination." This is you calling it an assumption within your route to troll people. It's obvious when you use common conspiracy theorist buzzwords.

"See, here I used the word in the correct context, whereas you just seem to be trying to group words together to make them sound right." Own a mirror?

"Incorrect again, about the assumption part(I never claimed the observation equals confirmation)." Yes, you did. In multiple threads you claim observation is evidence. It takes more than observation. You have to also be intelligent enough to comprehend and analyze all the variables that you are observing.

"Since we can directly observe the flatness and stationary attributes of the earth, thry arent assumptions." Your eyesight from standing on the ground is NOT evidence. Get better evidence.

Erfisflat · June 2018

I'll try to ignore the VERY MANY fallacies you just posted and address any logical and valid points.

" You are the one that must convince us of the opposite of the truth."

I've pointed out the very many observations that we can all make that contradict the ball earth theory. You are convinced I am lying, and that your eyes deceive you everyday. Let me point out the fact that beach horizons are all flat, and countless experiments and observations proving that bodies of water are always found flat, which is impossible if the earth is a ball.

The next few statements are just ad hominem dodges. If you really thought I was a troll, you dont seem to have much experience in the matter. Everyone knows you don't feed the troll. Theres doubt, or you wouldnt be here. Care to formally debate? I guess now you are to claim you don't formally debate trolls as another way to dodge... The horizon is not curved, no matter your point of view, nor is water. These are facts. Empirical observations, none of which suggest the earth is a ball. I'm going to type up a quick formal, it's time to put up or shut up.

LogicVault · June 2018

@Erfisflat
"Everyone knows you don't feed the troll." That depends on the troll and their goal. There are a lot of impressionable people that could end up being fooled into believing the false information you provide. My purpose is to point out how your information is wrong so that they will choose to research it rather than naively believe you. Contrary to what some people may think, I'm not trying to convince you of anything because I know that you're aware of the actual truth and are just messing with people. All of my responses to you are for the sake of the other people reading.

Erfisflat · June 2018

LogicVault said:

@Erfisflat
"Everyone knows you don't feed the troll." That depends on the troll and their goal. There are a lot of impressionable people that could end up being fooled into believing the false information you provide. My purpose is to point out how your information is wrong so that they will choose to research it rather than naively believe you. Contrary to what some people may think, I'm not trying to convince you of anything because I know that you're aware of the actual truth and are just messing with people. All of my responses to you are for the sake of the other people reading.

Your ignorant nuh-uh replies and cherry picking will go down in history when the very many "trolls" spreading truth about the flat Earth wake at least half of you up.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Flat earth

LogicVault · June 2018

@Erfisflat
Everyone knows trolls don't spread the truth. Also, the chart you linked doesn't say they believe the flat Earth theory. It says there is a rise in people searching the topic. The drastic increase could easily be due to the surge in flat Earth trolls and the people that are attempting to locate information that puts you in your place. People like you who deliberately spread information you know is false is at fault for a lot of the ignorance of our youth in modern times. You might be having fun, but you're helping make our species dumber.

Ampersand · June 2018

Erfisflat said:

@Ampersand

It's official. Even after pointing out the error in your statement, you still insist that I've posted something here that I haven't. The video you reference was posted by former flat earther turned chicken globetard @SilverishGoldNova. So you are continuing to show your incompetence. Good show. Classic globetard.

Whoops, I'm so used to ErfisFlat posting illogical unevidenced claims about how the earth is flat (as well as changing his profile image) I assumed this was him.

Erfisflat said:

@Ampersand

My position is that videos are not to be trusted, since cameras consist of convex lenses, which are proved to curve any straight lines.

Luckily he then returns to form and makes more unevidenced baseless claims - showing he's once again clinging to his delusional beliefs for no good reason and cannot actually back them up.

This also flies in the face of claims he's made previously about Snell's law - although as I pointed out at the time he didn't understand what he was saying. As per Snell's law the refraction of light when it changes from one isotropic medium to another is based on the angle of incidence with there being no refraction when the light hits the medium dead on - such as in the centre of a lense. Hence we can .

Erfisflat said:

someone234 said:

Do not trust ampersand, he revenge-votes against you in tournament finals if he dislikes you and is purely on this site to bully and revenge-votes any he sedee annoying.

I don't trust any globetard. Anyone who has examined as much evidence as he has and is still in denial of basic facts and observations is intellectually dishonest. Its one thing to be ignorant of the facts and evidence, and another to be willingly ignorant of them.

Ad hominem attack and based on delusional claims. Note how he does not provide a link to even a single piece of this supposed evidence or facts I'm denying.

Erfisflat said:

@Ampersand, out of pure curiosity, feel free to ignore the question if you've nothing constructive and positive to add, but please ellaborate on:

"Despite having it explained to him multiple times, ErfIsFlat has never managed to post a video where:

- It is taken from high enough to expect to see curvature with the video taken..."

At which altitude is the curvature able to be seen? Apparently, ships start going over a curve at a measily 3 miles. 30,000 feet at the top of mt. Everest? Plane? 110,000 balloon? Anything attainable by a regular Joe? Do we suspiciously have to sign any government contracts to see the curve? Assuming the camera wouldn't bend the lense... that is. If I could see it with my own eyes, this is empirically observed conclusive evidence. There are thousands of empirically observed evidences confirming a flat and stationary earth and nothing conclusive against it.

Humans have a finite visual acuity and ability to pick out detail - we can't necessarily see things which are small or subtle. Likewise cameras have a finite resolution and are literally unable to show detail that's smaller than a pixel and the ability to detect curvature will additionally be limited by the field of view. The height necessary to see the curvature of the earth will therefore vary but research suggests you need to be above 60,000 feet to see the curvature of the earth with any certainty that you're not just fooling yourself. You'll also note the research specifically references pilots saying that they do see the curvature when they get high enough - e.g. independent witnesses who've had countless opportunities to observe the curvature.

This is replicable with a small outlay of cash - a weather balloon and a camera can easily reach the above heights and is easily affordable; especially if anyone disbelieves all of the real evidence and thinks they are truly going to crack open a worldwide conspiracy.

If there is empirical evidence based on sound logic for a flat earth feel free to provide it, although it would be very strange if you did seeing as you've failed to do so in any of your hundreds of posts before now and it flies in the face of all reason, evidence and observations to date.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

German police shoot man wielding ax in Hamburg hours before soccer match

In this Debate

Video from over 120 miles proves the Earth is flat
in Earth Science

Persuaded Argument

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

German police shoot man wielding ax in Hamburg hours before soccer match

In this Debate

Video from over 120 miles proves the Earth is flatin Earth Science

Persuaded Argument

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Video from over 120 miles proves the Earth is flat
in Earth Science