Are you going with the size issue? Then how does that work with this photo? The person is still small but way up in the mountains so I'm not sure the size of the person would change the view.
I'm not sure what you even want me to see with this photo. There is nothing usable in it, from which to conclude any shape from, plus the angle is poor as the person is looking down from upon a hill. Honestly the person's perspective should still result in the earth looking flat from this picture. Just too close.
Well, it's a flat view for 100's of miles north/south and east/west. no curve is visible in any direction. Are you saying the curve is never discernible from any place on earth?
You can not see 100's of miles in this image. Beyond this the effect of the curve is just not visible as perspective is not correct to see it. It is easier for one to see if they are not standing on a hill. Though still can be obscured as the land can be perfectly flat or even rise in such a small scale.
The micro geography obscures the macro (shape of the planet).
You are trying really really hard to justify a flat planet to yourself which is a bit depressing for me to watch.
I will add that the effect of the curvature in this image would be very small, and difficult to pick out with just the eye. You can't see it on the horizon or something like that.
In this photo the horizon is close to 100 miles off and the north to south view along the horizon is about 150 miles. I know this thanks to the boyfriend I had at the time I lived there who could pick off landmarks with binoculars. You are seeing a huge view.
This is Denver. If you drive north along the mountains and south along the mountains - the horizon stays flat like this.
I'm not trying to convince myself of anything, I'm arguing points with the other side on other posts. I started looking at this a few weeks ago. The flat people show photos and tests with lasers to "prove" the flatness. The round people show math and say the flatness that can be seen in photos or in person is actually not flat.
I don't remember the numbers you guys use for the curve, but I know the curvature is not "very small" in your formula. It drops off precipitously similar to the diagrams in this post. It seems like your eye would be able to see that drop.
Now you see an actual photo of a big piece of landscape. It does not drop off at all in any direction - much less drop off fast. You can get an elevation map for the Denver area and see it is flat from The Rockies to Kansas and then north and south as well. This photo is from up on a mountain - maybe 2000 meters higher than the plain.
This is the other view which stays the same as you drive north and/or south. The mountains just rise up from that flatness for 100's if not 1000's of miles. I was not thinking of it at the time I lived there in terms of the whole earth - but it was most definitely flat up against the mountains and out to the plain.
Your looking at a mountain... What do you expect to see. You just don't understand perspective at all do you? I don't care what you believe, honestly. You are buying into the nonsense and that is fine.
I can't do much with the photos you are posting. They don't show anything or prove or disprove anything. They are truly pointless.
Do you have any photos of the curve or do you see it in this photo? Do you have a diagram of perspective showing a curve in this instance? I'm seeing a big mountain range coming out of a flat plain. and then if you turn around (as in the other photos - it's still flat for as far as you can see - 100+ miles. So where is the curve?
I have provided ALL of that to you in this article, other articles I've referred you to, and in the answers on this thread.
And again, WHY do you think you should SEE the curvature in this image? Please provide your math and diagrams. You continue to say that you think you should see something, but you have zero reasons why you believe that!
In this image, we would ALSO need distance from the observer to the object and the viewer height. Without that, you are not providing anything at all. But I've already done ALL the work on the longest distance image in the world, and it's completely consistent with the globe.
Perhaps you might understand better when something is MISSING from the image. Can you please explain to me why the end of the Suez canal is missing an entire ocean... but we can see the sky beyond the canal?
You say you can't SEE the curve, yet you DON"T see an entire ocean. And every time you look out across the ocean, you DON"T see cities, island, and mountains beyond that. That IS the curve!
I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand. When flat earthers show their images, they always show what you CAN see, but the question is why we can't see MUCH MUCH further than we do, and why to get these long distance photographs, we have to go so high!
In the image that is the topic of this article, to get that long distance shot, the photographer had to go to almost 10,000 feet. Why? Because of the curvature of the earth.
Here's another image of 'what's missing. What you don't see is the bottom of the mountain that is behind the curvature. This requires math to prove it's the correct distance behind the curve, but it's not complicated math to see that half the mountain is missing in the image.
Perhaps I can provide more images of 'what's missing'. My next article covers that a bit.
Are you going with the size issue? Then how does that work with this photo? The person is still small but way up in the mountains so I'm not sure the size of the person would change the view.
I'm not sure what you even want me to see with this photo. There is nothing usable in it, from which to conclude any shape from, plus the angle is poor as the person is looking down from upon a hill. Honestly the person's perspective should still result in the earth looking flat from this picture. Just too close.
Well, it's a flat view for 100's of miles north/south and east/west. no curve is visible in any direction. Are you saying the curve is never discernible from any place on earth?
You can not see 100's of miles in this image. Beyond this the effect of the curve is just not visible as perspective is not correct to see it. It is easier for one to see if they are not standing on a hill. Though still can be obscured as the land can be perfectly flat or even rise in such a small scale.
The micro geography obscures the macro (shape of the planet).
You are trying really really hard to justify a flat planet to yourself which is a bit depressing for me to watch.
I will add that the effect of the curvature in this image would be very small, and difficult to pick out with just the eye. You can't see it on the horizon or something like that.
In this photo the horizon is close to 100 miles off and the north to south view along the horizon is about 150 miles. I know this thanks to the boyfriend I had at the time I lived there who could pick off landmarks with binoculars. You are seeing a huge view.
This is Denver. If you drive north along the mountains and south along the mountains - the horizon stays flat like this.
I'm not trying to convince myself of anything, I'm arguing points with the other side on other posts. I started looking at this a few weeks ago. The flat people show photos and tests with lasers to "prove" the flatness. The round people show math and say the flatness that can be seen in photos or in person is actually not flat.
I don't remember the numbers you guys use for the curve, but I know the curvature is not "very small" in your formula. It drops off precipitously similar to the diagrams in this post. It seems like your eye would be able to see that drop.
Now you see an actual photo of a big piece of landscape. It does not drop off at all in any direction - much less drop off fast. You can get an elevation map for the Denver area and see it is flat from The Rockies to Kansas and then north and south as well. This photo is from up on a mountain - maybe 2000 meters higher than the plain.
This is the other view which stays the same as you drive north and/or south. The mountains just rise up from that flatness for 100's if not 1000's of miles. I was not thinking of it at the time I lived there in terms of the whole earth - but it was most definitely flat up against the mountains and out to the plain.
Your looking at a mountain... What do you expect to see. You just don't understand perspective at all do you? I don't care what you believe, honestly. You are buying into the nonsense and that is fine.
I can't do much with the photos you are posting. They don't show anything or prove or disprove anything. They are truly pointless.
Do you have any photos of the curve or do you see it in this photo? Do you have a diagram of perspective showing a curve in this instance? I'm seeing a big mountain range coming out of a flat plain. and then if you turn around (as in the other photos - it's still flat for as far as you can see - 100+ miles. So where is the curve?
I have provided ALL of that to you in this article, other articles I've referred you to, and in the answers on this thread.
And again, WHY do you think you should SEE the curvature in this image? Please provide your math and diagrams. You continue to say that you think you should see something, but you have zero reasons why you believe that!
In this image, we would ALSO need distance from the observer to the object and the viewer height. Without that, you are not providing anything at all. But I've already done ALL the work on the longest distance image in the world, and it's completely consistent with the globe.
Perhaps you might understand better when something is MISSING from the image. Can you please explain to me why the end of the Suez canal is missing an entire ocean... but we can see the sky beyond the canal?
You say you can't SEE the curve, yet you DON"T see an entire ocean. And every time you look out across the ocean, you DON"T see cities, island, and mountains beyond that. That IS the curve!
I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand. When flat earthers show their images, they always show what you CAN see, but the question is why we can't see MUCH MUCH further than we do, and why to get these long distance photographs, we have to go so high!
In the image that is the topic of this article, to get that long distance shot, the photographer had to go to almost 10,000 feet. Why? Because of the curvature of the earth.
Here's another image of 'what's missing. What you don't see is the bottom of the mountain that is behind the curvature. This requires math to prove it's the correct distance behind the curve, but it's not complicated math to see that half the mountain is missing in the image.
Perhaps I can provide more images of 'what's missing'. My next article covers that a bit.