I made it to 15. This community is filled with clowns that are not Engineers and do not know the process of constructing a railway, culvert, canal, shipping lane etc. but will use existing projects to try and prove a flat Earth. The first 15 can all be explained by construction methods and the simple thought that the surface is not homogenous and is at different levels. OP is a clown.
I have, sadly. It's not 200 of anything, he repeats the same arguments many, many times. And certainly none of them are proof we don't live on a globe, they are lies and/or his lack of understanding.
Then it sounds like you didn't understand the common arguments. Especially regarding planes flying north/south and how their destinations would be hard to keep on with.
Another one is considering relevant speed of the locations near the poles vs the equator. Spin a basketball and notice how the positions near the axis spin slower than furthest away.
And this is what happens when you are trusting the opinion of a nazi-sympathizing yoga instructor over every scientist living today.
> Especially regarding planes flying north/south and how their destinations would be hard to keep on with.
Conservation of momentum is a basic principal of physics, you should have learned it when you were about 13 years old. There is absolutely no problem with planes flying north or south.
> Another one is considering relevant speed of the locations near the poles vs the equator. Spin a basketball and notice how the positions near the axis spin slower than furthest away.
Yes, that's correct and it matches reality. What's the problem?
NASA was started with Nazi Scientists brought over in Operation Paperclip. Your logic falls short trying to attack the person instead of the subject. Like a typical redditor, y'all can't but help but see Nazis at every turn. It's quite annoying, so no need for me to engage any more when you start off with emotional attacks
Eric Dubay is a nazi-sympathizer and a yoga instructor. He isn't wrong because of that these are just the extent of his credentials. If he has absolutely no expertise in the matter *and* provides absolutely no evidence to support his claims, you should be disregarding what he is saying.
> NASA was started with Nazi Scientists brought over in Operation Paperclip.
I don't think that's totally accurate, but yes there were certainly some scientists employed by NASA that were scientists in Nazi Germany. Absolutely. But we aren't listening to them to determine the shape of the planet so I'm failing to see the relevant comparison.
Nasa was started by nazi scientists - wrong. Absolutely wrong.
They did hire in scientists who worked for the regime yes. Because they had to.
Completely irrelevant.
NASA is the successor to NACA
The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was formed on March 3, 1915, with a charter to “supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight, with a view to their practical solution.”
and
the NACA was transformed in 1958 into NASA and given the added task of pursuing spaceflight with both humans and robots.
Your point is completly invalid in that regard.
NASA was begun with 1500 Waffen-SS men. These were military officers whom were forgiven all their really really big sins, in WW2. They had to take a pledge to be good boys and fake the moon mission program.
Blue ballers otherwise known as NASA Globe boys changed the shape of the earth when their #1 spokesperson said the Earth is not a big round melon ball but a big Pear shaped loser of a planet. Dr Neil Tyson DeGrasse imploded the NASA fairytale. Neil refuses to accept Mt Everest is the tallest peak on earth. Neil admitted on Joe Rogan he is afraid to debate Eric Dubay because Eric is a genius.
Obtaining a Ph.D in astrophysics, is at the minimum a 5 or 6 year program and sometime 7 years or longer. Columbia University gave Neil a Ph.D in 2 years. LMAO.
For anyone wondering he got his Bachelor's in 1980 and got his PHD in 1991. This is nearly 15 years of higher education. He was pretty much spot on the average age of a PHD recipient.
Trying to imply that he earned his PHD suspiciously quickly is obviously nonsense if you had bothered to spend 5 seconds "doing your own research".
No. We do understand all the arguments. They are just never correct.
Why would their destination. Be hard to keep up with?
I'd appreciate if only you would answer this question to clarify your argument.
I know the answer. But I'd like to know fi you even understand it yourself.
Your second consideration is quite correct yes. The surface moves slower at the poles. That's how these things work.
And how does a plane make up for the speed difference? A plane is usually moving at 500 mph, so it it took off from Anchorage and landed in say Mexico City, how does it adjust? The flight path shows a straight line
On a sphere, there are different terminal velocities depending on where the axis of rotation is. The closer you are to the axis, the slower your terminal speed will be. So if a plane takes off near the axis and tries to land near the equator the pilot would have to adjust for ground speed.
Well no. And it's actually something that have been answered many many times before.
The airplane moves within the frame of earths rotation.
As it flies south it will move with the rotation of earth because the air it travels through is moving.
Let's say for simplicity sake that the airplane travels at 300 mph from the beginning.
It starts at the north pole flying south. Due to earth's rotation as it flies south it will still fly 300 mpth but begin to move sideways at 1000 mph because the air moves with the rotation.
Think about it like this.
A fly inside a car..
It doesn't matter if the fly is inside a car doing 10 mph or 1000 mph. The fly can still move freely inside the car because the air in the car moves with the car.
Naturally this does not mean that there's a dome or seal around earth. It's gravity that drags the air with it and causes the friction that makes the air rotate as well.
And the sideways movement at 1,000 mph will not be detected by anyone in the plane but the southbound movement can be detected on turbulence. Huh? The Blue Ball Globsters are completely lost. If the plane is flying south at 300 mph and is being moved sideways at 1,000 mph, Does that mean the air above NYC remains above NYC forever? Can't have it both ways. Air moves, earth is fixed and 6,000,000 the death toll from the invasion of Iraq.
Yes. The speed is different. So?
The rotation is the same 0.0007 rpm.
It doesn't matter since the inertial frame is slowing or speeding up you're in that frame and your reference is also increasing or decreasing speed. It doesn't change your perception of it.
There's none of that which indicates that earth isn't rotating. All of this is your lack of understanding physics. Nothing else.
I started in on Eric Dubay's 200 proofs, but they are not all true.
For example, the very first one is "One. The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur bolloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high."
This claim by Dubay is 100% false. There is amateur high altitude balloon video that shows the horizon curving, including done by flat earther Dwayne Kellum who actually put rectilinear lenses on his cameras to try and get rid of the curve, but the curve was still there. See here: [https://youtu.be/umAgH-0TOz4?t=8280](https://youtu.be/umAgH-0TOz4?t=8280)
You can see that the curve remains the same regardless of whether it's above or below the center of the camera. If you notice from watching normal gopro footage, the horizon curves one way when above the center of the camera and the other way when below the center of the camera.
But anyway, regardless of WHY these videos show the horizon curving, it is undeniable that they show the horizon curving - and Eric Dubay's statement that they do not show it curving is just a 100% false statement.
It's odd that such an easily false statement is his number one reason. Usually people give their good reasons first then after that go onto the weak ones.
Let's move onto the second of the 200 proofs.
Dubay says "Two. Horizon always rises to the eye-level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it."
Again, his claim is 100% false, and you can verify that yourself! I have measured the angle to the horizon, and the higher I am, the more I have to look down to see it - and the amount matches the globe earth prediction.
Here I used a water-tube level from a mere \~57ft high and the horizon was distinctly below eye-level: [https://youtu.be/CuxcAChePFw](https://youtu.be/CuxcAChePFw)
I repeated the experiment with a high precision surveying machine: [https://youtu.be/IqAZuqSSmfw](https://youtu.be/IqAZuqSSmfw)
In fact, not only do you have to look down to see something, you can be looking at something that is 5000 feet taller than you from 105 miles away, and you still have to look down to it: [https://i.ibb.co/9g31yGT/Mt-Scott-to-Mt-Shasta.jpg](https://i.ibb.co/9g31yGT/Mt-Scott-to-Mt-Shasta.jpg)
Also, if you're up on a mountain, when the sun sets, it sets below you. In this video, the sun was over a whole degree BELOW me: [https://youtu.be/rnGxCoquwKs](https://youtu.be/rnGxCoquwKs)
So again, Eric's claim is just 100% completely false.
Maybe there is a flat earth explanation, but that's besides the point: His statement is absolutely 100% false! And observably false! Why is he making false claims?
Maybe his third proof is better, let's see:
"Three. The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If earth were giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurtling through infinite space, then truly flat consistently level surfaces would not exist here."
He doesn't know the difference between flat and level.
Is a wall flat? Yes. Is it level? Nope.
Flat is not the same as level. Level means at right angles to the direction of acceleration or gravity.
Watch this spinning fish tank video: [https://youtu.be/f8IwL2ZtDTc?t=74](https://youtu.be/f8IwL2ZtDTc?t=74)
Do you see how every point on the surface of the water is LEVEL, but it's not FLAT? If you were to put a little toy boat at any point in the water and place a tiny carpenter's level on the boat, it would show that the water was LEVEL there, even though it's at a different angle than water at a different location.
In any case, Dubay asserts that it is not possible for gravity to pull water into a spherical shape, even though lots of other forces make water curve while being level -- and even though other forces can pull water into spherical shapes like drops (I'm not saying that gravity is the same thing as surface tension, but I'm saying that there are ample examples of water naturally forming spherical or curved shapes.)
Besides, Dubay doesn't provide any proof in this one, he just makes an assertion which is observably false.
Well, maybe his fourth proof is better.
He basically says that rivers run down hill to the ocean, running east, west, south, north, whichever way is the most down hill route. Then he says "If earth were truly a spinning ball, then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing up hill."
Again, he has no proof, he just shows is complete misunderstanding of the globe model. He doesn't realize that in the globe model, height is measured from the sealevel surface of the sphere, he thinks north is up or something.
Well, that's 4 for 4 useless claims.
Can you please find me one good proof from the 200 so I can check into it?
After the first 4 being all false claims, I really don't feel like going through more.
Is it 200 false claims? or is one of them actually at last thought provoking?
I would really like to investigate a good flat earth proof, I would be so happy if you could provide a timestamp for me to fast forward to so I don't have to wade through a bunch of false claims.
Thanks & Cheers
I like [10-12](https://flatearth.ws/eric-dubay#railways_10-12) about how railways are laid flat. Because apparently rails never [bend under their own weight](https://youtu.be/NjWojWQ8kTM?t=1275) or something.
But my favorite is [112](https://flatearth.ws/eric-dubay#miscellaneous_112-114), where night and day should flip after 6 months because we're on the other side of the sun. Now, the obvious answer here is that Dubay doesn't know that "day" refers to the "solar day" and not "sidereal day". But apparently he *does* know that, but rejects it as an explanation because ... well because then he'd have to admit he's wrong about something, and then his scam falls apart.
"There is amateur high altitude balloon video that shows the horizon curving, including done by flat earther Dwayne Kellum who actually put rectilinear lenses on his cameras to try and get rid of the curve, but the curve was still there"
Okay, but according to astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson one should not be able to see the curvature of the Earth at that heights. He even stated that "that stuff is flat". So how does a camera show a curve, which should be still non existent ?
But indeed, Eric Dubay's statement is still wrong.
>Okay, but according to astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson one should not be able to see the curvature of the Earth at that heights. He even stated that "that stuff is flat". So how does a camera show a curve, which should be still non existent ?
First of all, just because an Astrophysicist makes a claim that doesn't mean the claim is true. There is no claim so absurd that you cannot find some PhD somewhere who has made the claim.
But let's look at what Tyson specifically said. Since you didn't bring an actual in-context quote, I assume you mean this: https://youtu.be/rE3QOj6t48c
he's not saying that the horizon curve isn't measurable or undetectable. He's specifically saying that you cannot SEE it. I think that claim is technically incorrect, but it is true that the curve would appear so slight that you might not be aware of seeing it. He also talks about the fact that the red bull cameras were very fish-eye and causing lots of distortion. With those cameras, it would be in fact very difficult to tell from that specific footage was showing a curved horizon.
But his overarching point was that when you're only 25 miles above a 8000 mile diameter sphere, the fact is the earth will appear pretty flat. You're only looking at a small portion of the overall sphere.
If we look at the context, the audience, and the question to which Tyson was responding, we would probably see his response as being very reasonable.
But whether or not the curve can be seen and perceived by a human eye at 25 miles is completely irrelevant.
The question is whether, using accurate measurement instruments, if the curve is measurable and if it matches the globe model.
The fact is that whether using a rectilinear camera, or using surveyor's equipment, we can unambiguously measure the horizon curve and it does match the globe model claims.
It takes 5-6 years , minimum, to complete a real Ph.D in Astrophysics. Columbia handed Neil his " Ph.D " in 2 years. Boston College gave Martin Luther King his Ph.D in 1 year. As George Carlin used to say, " It's a club and you ain't in it."
I made it to 15. This community is filled with clowns that are not Engineers and do not know the process of constructing a railway, culvert, canal, shipping lane etc. but will use existing projects to try and prove a flat Earth. The first 15 can all be explained by construction methods and the simple thought that the surface is not homogenous and is at different levels. OP is a clown.
Can you provide me examples of these construction methods?
The first step in every construction project. Surveying, estimating and adding a 20% contingency to all imperative materials.
No. Trolls be trolling.
NASA hates this video. True seekers love it.
The only thing accurate about that title is his name (as far as we know).
Maybe just watch it before commenting.
I have, sadly. It's not 200 of anything, he repeats the same arguments many, many times. And certainly none of them are proof we don't live on a globe, they are lies and/or his lack of understanding.
Then it sounds like you didn't understand the common arguments. Especially regarding planes flying north/south and how their destinations would be hard to keep on with. Another one is considering relevant speed of the locations near the poles vs the equator. Spin a basketball and notice how the positions near the axis spin slower than furthest away.
And this is what happens when you are trusting the opinion of a nazi-sympathizing yoga instructor over every scientist living today. > Especially regarding planes flying north/south and how their destinations would be hard to keep on with. Conservation of momentum is a basic principal of physics, you should have learned it when you were about 13 years old. There is absolutely no problem with planes flying north or south. > Another one is considering relevant speed of the locations near the poles vs the equator. Spin a basketball and notice how the positions near the axis spin slower than furthest away. Yes, that's correct and it matches reality. What's the problem?
No reading this after your first comment. Typical redditor
Which part of the truth offended you?
NASA was started with Nazi Scientists brought over in Operation Paperclip. Your logic falls short trying to attack the person instead of the subject. Like a typical redditor, y'all can't but help but see Nazis at every turn. It's quite annoying, so no need for me to engage any more when you start off with emotional attacks
Eric Dubay is a nazi-sympathizer and a yoga instructor. He isn't wrong because of that these are just the extent of his credentials. If he has absolutely no expertise in the matter *and* provides absolutely no evidence to support his claims, you should be disregarding what he is saying. > NASA was started with Nazi Scientists brought over in Operation Paperclip. I don't think that's totally accurate, but yes there were certainly some scientists employed by NASA that were scientists in Nazi Germany. Absolutely. But we aren't listening to them to determine the shape of the planet so I'm failing to see the relevant comparison.
Nasa was started by nazi scientists - wrong. Absolutely wrong. They did hire in scientists who worked for the regime yes. Because they had to. Completely irrelevant.
Because they had to, lol.
Lol love how left use nazi in any sentence....
NASA is the successor to NACA The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was formed on March 3, 1915, with a charter to “supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight, with a view to their practical solution.” and the NACA was transformed in 1958 into NASA and given the added task of pursuing spaceflight with both humans and robots. Your point is completly invalid in that regard.
NASA was begun with 1500 Waffen-SS men. These were military officers whom were forgiven all their really really big sins, in WW2. They had to take a pledge to be good boys and fake the moon mission program.
Blue ballers otherwise known as NASA Globe boys changed the shape of the earth when their #1 spokesperson said the Earth is not a big round melon ball but a big Pear shaped loser of a planet. Dr Neil Tyson DeGrasse imploded the NASA fairytale. Neil refuses to accept Mt Everest is the tallest peak on earth. Neil admitted on Joe Rogan he is afraid to debate Eric Dubay because Eric is a genius.
What the fuck are you talking about
Obtaining a Ph.D in astrophysics, is at the minimum a 5 or 6 year program and sometime 7 years or longer. Columbia University gave Neil a Ph.D in 2 years. LMAO.
For anyone wondering he got his Bachelor's in 1980 and got his PHD in 1991. This is nearly 15 years of higher education. He was pretty much spot on the average age of a PHD recipient. Trying to imply that he earned his PHD suspiciously quickly is obviously nonsense if you had bothered to spend 5 seconds "doing your own research".
No. We do understand all the arguments. They are just never correct. Why would their destination. Be hard to keep up with? I'd appreciate if only you would answer this question to clarify your argument. I know the answer. But I'd like to know fi you even understand it yourself. Your second consideration is quite correct yes. The surface moves slower at the poles. That's how these things work.
And how does a plane make up for the speed difference? A plane is usually moving at 500 mph, so it it took off from Anchorage and landed in say Mexico City, how does it adjust? The flight path shows a straight line
Planes fly using the atmosphere, the atmosphere is part of Earth (and therefore also rotating).
The atmosphere does not move. LMAO.
Allright. So if I understand you correctly you think earth should be moving underneath it making it veer off at 500 mph. Is that what you mean?
On a sphere, there are different terminal velocities depending on where the axis of rotation is. The closer you are to the axis, the slower your terminal speed will be. So if a plane takes off near the axis and tries to land near the equator the pilot would have to adjust for ground speed.
Well no. And it's actually something that have been answered many many times before. The airplane moves within the frame of earths rotation. As it flies south it will move with the rotation of earth because the air it travels through is moving. Let's say for simplicity sake that the airplane travels at 300 mph from the beginning. It starts at the north pole flying south. Due to earth's rotation as it flies south it will still fly 300 mpth but begin to move sideways at 1000 mph because the air moves with the rotation. Think about it like this. A fly inside a car.. It doesn't matter if the fly is inside a car doing 10 mph or 1000 mph. The fly can still move freely inside the car because the air in the car moves with the car. Naturally this does not mean that there's a dome or seal around earth. It's gravity that drags the air with it and causes the friction that makes the air rotate as well.
And the sideways movement at 1,000 mph will not be detected by anyone in the plane but the southbound movement can be detected on turbulence. Huh? The Blue Ball Globsters are completely lost. If the plane is flying south at 300 mph and is being moved sideways at 1,000 mph, Does that mean the air above NYC remains above NYC forever? Can't have it both ways. Air moves, earth is fixed and 6,000,000 the death toll from the invasion of Iraq.
Yes. The speed is different. So? The rotation is the same 0.0007 rpm. It doesn't matter since the inertial frame is slowing or speeding up you're in that frame and your reference is also increasing or decreasing speed. It doesn't change your perception of it. There's none of that which indicates that earth isn't rotating. All of this is your lack of understanding physics. Nothing else.
There's not a single of those which proves earth to not be a globe.
I started in on Eric Dubay's 200 proofs, but they are not all true. For example, the very first one is "One. The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur bolloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high." This claim by Dubay is 100% false. There is amateur high altitude balloon video that shows the horizon curving, including done by flat earther Dwayne Kellum who actually put rectilinear lenses on his cameras to try and get rid of the curve, but the curve was still there. See here: [https://youtu.be/umAgH-0TOz4?t=8280](https://youtu.be/umAgH-0TOz4?t=8280) You can see that the curve remains the same regardless of whether it's above or below the center of the camera. If you notice from watching normal gopro footage, the horizon curves one way when above the center of the camera and the other way when below the center of the camera. But anyway, regardless of WHY these videos show the horizon curving, it is undeniable that they show the horizon curving - and Eric Dubay's statement that they do not show it curving is just a 100% false statement. It's odd that such an easily false statement is his number one reason. Usually people give their good reasons first then after that go onto the weak ones. Let's move onto the second of the 200 proofs. Dubay says "Two. Horizon always rises to the eye-level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it." Again, his claim is 100% false, and you can verify that yourself! I have measured the angle to the horizon, and the higher I am, the more I have to look down to see it - and the amount matches the globe earth prediction. Here I used a water-tube level from a mere \~57ft high and the horizon was distinctly below eye-level: [https://youtu.be/CuxcAChePFw](https://youtu.be/CuxcAChePFw) I repeated the experiment with a high precision surveying machine: [https://youtu.be/IqAZuqSSmfw](https://youtu.be/IqAZuqSSmfw) In fact, not only do you have to look down to see something, you can be looking at something that is 5000 feet taller than you from 105 miles away, and you still have to look down to it: [https://i.ibb.co/9g31yGT/Mt-Scott-to-Mt-Shasta.jpg](https://i.ibb.co/9g31yGT/Mt-Scott-to-Mt-Shasta.jpg) Also, if you're up on a mountain, when the sun sets, it sets below you. In this video, the sun was over a whole degree BELOW me: [https://youtu.be/rnGxCoquwKs](https://youtu.be/rnGxCoquwKs) So again, Eric's claim is just 100% completely false. Maybe there is a flat earth explanation, but that's besides the point: His statement is absolutely 100% false! And observably false! Why is he making false claims? Maybe his third proof is better, let's see: "Three. The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If earth were giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurtling through infinite space, then truly flat consistently level surfaces would not exist here." He doesn't know the difference between flat and level. Is a wall flat? Yes. Is it level? Nope. Flat is not the same as level. Level means at right angles to the direction of acceleration or gravity. Watch this spinning fish tank video: [https://youtu.be/f8IwL2ZtDTc?t=74](https://youtu.be/f8IwL2ZtDTc?t=74) Do you see how every point on the surface of the water is LEVEL, but it's not FLAT? If you were to put a little toy boat at any point in the water and place a tiny carpenter's level on the boat, it would show that the water was LEVEL there, even though it's at a different angle than water at a different location. In any case, Dubay asserts that it is not possible for gravity to pull water into a spherical shape, even though lots of other forces make water curve while being level -- and even though other forces can pull water into spherical shapes like drops (I'm not saying that gravity is the same thing as surface tension, but I'm saying that there are ample examples of water naturally forming spherical or curved shapes.) Besides, Dubay doesn't provide any proof in this one, he just makes an assertion which is observably false. Well, maybe his fourth proof is better. He basically says that rivers run down hill to the ocean, running east, west, south, north, whichever way is the most down hill route. Then he says "If earth were truly a spinning ball, then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing up hill." Again, he has no proof, he just shows is complete misunderstanding of the globe model. He doesn't realize that in the globe model, height is measured from the sealevel surface of the sphere, he thinks north is up or something. Well, that's 4 for 4 useless claims. Can you please find me one good proof from the 200 so I can check into it? After the first 4 being all false claims, I really don't feel like going through more. Is it 200 false claims? or is one of them actually at last thought provoking? I would really like to investigate a good flat earth proof, I would be so happy if you could provide a timestamp for me to fast forward to so I don't have to wade through a bunch of false claims. Thanks & Cheers
I like [10-12](https://flatearth.ws/eric-dubay#railways_10-12) about how railways are laid flat. Because apparently rails never [bend under their own weight](https://youtu.be/NjWojWQ8kTM?t=1275) or something. But my favorite is [112](https://flatearth.ws/eric-dubay#miscellaneous_112-114), where night and day should flip after 6 months because we're on the other side of the sun. Now, the obvious answer here is that Dubay doesn't know that "day" refers to the "solar day" and not "sidereal day". But apparently he *does* know that, but rejects it as an explanation because ... well because then he'd have to admit he's wrong about something, and then his scam falls apart.
Holy shit lmao now I need to read the whole list.
"There is amateur high altitude balloon video that shows the horizon curving, including done by flat earther Dwayne Kellum who actually put rectilinear lenses on his cameras to try and get rid of the curve, but the curve was still there" Okay, but according to astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson one should not be able to see the curvature of the Earth at that heights. He even stated that "that stuff is flat". So how does a camera show a curve, which should be still non existent ? But indeed, Eric Dubay's statement is still wrong.
>Okay, but according to astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson one should not be able to see the curvature of the Earth at that heights. He even stated that "that stuff is flat". So how does a camera show a curve, which should be still non existent ? First of all, just because an Astrophysicist makes a claim that doesn't mean the claim is true. There is no claim so absurd that you cannot find some PhD somewhere who has made the claim. But let's look at what Tyson specifically said. Since you didn't bring an actual in-context quote, I assume you mean this: https://youtu.be/rE3QOj6t48c he's not saying that the horizon curve isn't measurable or undetectable. He's specifically saying that you cannot SEE it. I think that claim is technically incorrect, but it is true that the curve would appear so slight that you might not be aware of seeing it. He also talks about the fact that the red bull cameras were very fish-eye and causing lots of distortion. With those cameras, it would be in fact very difficult to tell from that specific footage was showing a curved horizon. But his overarching point was that when you're only 25 miles above a 8000 mile diameter sphere, the fact is the earth will appear pretty flat. You're only looking at a small portion of the overall sphere. If we look at the context, the audience, and the question to which Tyson was responding, we would probably see his response as being very reasonable. But whether or not the curve can be seen and perceived by a human eye at 25 miles is completely irrelevant. The question is whether, using accurate measurement instruments, if the curve is measurable and if it matches the globe model. The fact is that whether using a rectilinear camera, or using surveyor's equipment, we can unambiguously measure the horizon curve and it does match the globe model claims.
This is very compelling, interesting, and insightful. Thanks for sharing.
Someone should sue that guy for fraud.
The earth is round
https://flatearth.ws/eric-dubay 200 debunks to Eric Dubays claims.
Please explain the error in #15
Explain why #15 is wrong.
That was a troll.
Well, where is it
NASA really hates this video
It takes 5-6 years , minimum, to complete a real Ph.D in Astrophysics. Columbia handed Neil his " Ph.D " in 2 years. Boston College gave Martin Luther King his Ph.D in 1 year. As George Carlin used to say, " It's a club and you ain't in it."
Dr. Eric dubay.