Flat Earth, Freedom and Privacy, Ubuntu

Flat, Convex, or Concave Earth? It Depends on Your Lens

This video was sent to me as I have a strong interest in the topic of whether the earth is a ball or a flat surface.

As I journey towards truth, popular sources still tell me it’s a ball but all my senses tell me it’s immovable and flat…

The first thing that caught my attention was at 1:23 into the video the narrator said “His work was rewarded when NASA commended his work.”

When I reviewed the video again, the second thing I noticed was the incredible variation of curvatures.  These three images, are three different screen shots from the very same video. Go look for yourself…


The top is clearly concave.

The middle, as flat as a pancake.

The bottom, “NASA convex”

Something is fishy here and methinks it’s the lenses.

My conclusion is that this craft was outfitted with a fish eye lens (from now on lightly dubbed ‘fishy lens’) and cannot be trusted as a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (“WYSIWYG”) video result.

It also reinforced the fact that unless one personally inspects the camera equipment being loaded onto a craft, and personally confirms the final product has not been tampered with, one cannot fully trust the video results other than for non curvature-proving purposes.  I personally enjoy this video, but I cannot use it as any form of ‘proof of curvature’ – unless you believe the earth is a bouncy castle (that sounds really fun, by the way).

This video by Rob Skiba is another great one that shows amazingly weird effects that camera lenses have on the surface of the earth.

This also highlights the growing need for a ‘freedom approach’ to these projects where free software (publicly available source code, built by community) runs everything.  Ubuntu with Snappy Ubuntu and ability to run on very small devices is one example I see fitting well here.  As we get further and further buried under technology and information, the more we all need to take an active role in maintaining the freedom of said information.

Can we fully trust NASA to give us the untampered photos, videos, and live feeds that we need to make such important world view decisions?

Based on what I have seen so far, I would boldly say ‘No.”

It’s time for an increase in WYSIWYG community-built projects to find out for ourselves what our world looks like.

Tagged , , , , , ,

5 thoughts on “Flat, Convex, or Concave Earth? It Depends on Your Lens

  1. I adamantly agree, it is way past due, we the citizens of this Earth should by now have groups spread all around in common & diverse places to really see what’s going on because we know they lie to us about everything there’s nothing we can trust if it comes from them we need to find these things out for ourselves & so I’m 100% with you email me when you want to start working on this once enough people like myself say something & decide to do something good luck thanks for the report

  2. I have to say that Rob Skiba is not being honest about his own weather balloon video because he noted he could see some curvature in earth. Having selected a lens specifically for its lack of barrel distortion, it was odd to hear him later explain the curve away due to barrel distortion. At the time Rob did his video I captured a screen grab of the earth curvature he captured, I ran a lens profile on the image in Photoshop which did nothing to remove the curve. And that’s no doubt because the lens he used was actually free of barrel distortion as he claimed. So when he says “no detectable curve” he isn’t being honest since he detected the curve himself and later explained it away. Having said that. Having said that I compliment Rob Skiba for the clarity and steadiness which at the time was the best I had seen at the time.

    For those who distrust NASA rockets there are a dozen or more launches by amateurs that have gone three times higher. One of the most notable was the Go Fast rocket. Flat Earth proponents again made the rocket famous by claiming it “hit the dome”. It was a popular video which dishonestly cut off half the video. Dishonest because they would have had to see the video in its entireity to cut it. In the complete video which has two dual camera views it shows the rocket ran out of fuel and entered into a slow flat spin showing the curve of the earth without benefit of a Go Pro.

    I would also recomment Rocket Labs “Still Testing” launch
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPcsZgmTRrg RocketLabs has been launching rockets on their own property for 30 years without government suppoert. The success of their new small micron rockets enabled them to attract some commercial clients last year.

    This is a Swiss Rocket called the Mapheus 5. 2015 Its not surprising the Swiss use great cameras. Does this look at all fake to you?https://youtu.be/4f-L4UxVOH0
    This is the Mapheus 7. 2018
    Beautiful and cerebral

    Amateur Rocket TeamQuick 8 Nevada desert. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaI0n521C7E

    I could post many more but don’t want to overwhelm you.

    1. Quick reply: I reviewed all your video links here and in every one of them the ‘curve’ eventually flattens at some point proving that the camera had an impact on the curve, at least to some degree. Further, it should not require going this high to see the curve. The claims are that ‘boats disappear on the horizon because of the curve of the earth’, correct? So if that’s the case you should be able to see said curve a lot sooner than way up in ‘space’, no? Based on the boat claims you should be able to see a very clear start to the curve upon take off on an airplane or even on a super tall tower. Even with all your videos here I cannot lean on these ‘space rocket videos’ as proof that we are on a ball. After watching many, many high altitude balloon videos, I came to the conclusion that things were flatter than they were rounded. That’s where I still sit today but keep firing links if you see fit, but there are countless other reasons why a ball doesn’t make sense based on empirical observable tasks. I’m happy to believe I’m flying on a ball through space if you can show me some movement… anything. But here I stand and sleep – perfectly still. On a solid and immovable surface….

      1. If you measure the speed on earth’s surface, you surely get a very high number when compared to those you are used to in everyday’s life, but that doesn’t mean anything. You don’t feel anything because everything around you is moving at exactly the same speed, including earth, air surrounding you and (almost) any other possible reference point. Without those reference point, it is impossible for you to determine if you are moving at all: this is a well know fact and should not surprise you. After all, imagine you are blind, enclosed in a cube shielding you from the air, moving at costant speed on some perfect media that transmit no vibrations or sound… how would you know if you are standing still or moving? You would only experience acceleration (speed change), not constant speed itself.

        So, we can know if we are moving and “feel” the speed only if we have some reference point. We can find some: everything that is NOT solidal to the earth and does not rotate with us can be used, such as stars for example. Here comes the concept of angular speed: even though the linear speed at the surface seems high, it is also true that the earth has a very large radius. That gives you a relatively low angular velocity: you can calculate that based on earth’s circumpherence and linear velocity and, guess what you’d find? That it takes you exactly 24 hours to circle around the earth and return to the starting point. That is 24 hours to cover 360 degrees! Imagine that angular speed for a basket ball! Now, that’s pretty low, huh?

        Now, when you turn your head up you can catch approx a 180 degrees view of the sky. If you look again after 1 hour, the earth has rotated only of 360/24 degrees. That is, in one hour, only a 1/24 fraction of your view has changed. That’s a pretty small change to notice. Noticeable, but small.

        Remember also that the earth is rotating around an axis. If you look at stars that lie on that axis, you will never notice them moving, but you will see them stand still, while the rest of the sky will move around them. On the contrary, stars on the zenith of equator will have a very high apparent motion, with all the intermediate gradation.
        By the way, why do you think that North Star has always been used as a reference point for orientation? Exactly, because it kinds of stands still.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *