Long Distance photo of New York from 1950s proves the Earth curves up.

http://www.rolf-keppler.de/enewyork.htm

better quality photo: http://www.rolf-keppler.de/straubefh2.jpg

The photo shown is taken from the “Foto-Magazin” No. 11/1954 which shows the horizon to be an optical illusion. Dr. Fritz Neugass comments, quote:
“A new Tele-Objective of the US-Army”

The optical research division of the US-Army Signal Corps has just issued a new camera, which is specially suited to take photos at a distance of 50 km (30 mi.).
The objective has a focal length of 254 cm (100 in.), it is 1 m long and has a diameter of 24.13 cm (9.5 in.), it has been corrected for using infra-red film.

yorkkarte.gif (21037 Byte)Using this objective it is quite easy to analyze the terrain up to a distance of 10 to 20 km (6-12 mi.) and distinguish weapons, fortifications and transports. The disadvantage of such a teleobjective is the complete elimination of perspective.
The photo reproduced, shows the Empire State Building and the outlines of Manhattan at a distance of 41.8 km (26 mi.)
At the bottom of the Empire State Building a large hotel is visible on Coney Island, however, it is only 20.9 km (13 mi.) distant from the camera.
One could never tell from this photo that between these two buildings there is a distance of 21 km .
The lighthouse of Sandy Hook, in the foreground of the photo is only 6.4 km (4 mi.) distant from the camera.

The new teleobjective is coupled to a 13 x 18 cm camera which can either use film cassettes or rolls of film. Each roll of film contains 30 exposures, however, a built-in cutter can be used to cut off exposed parts of the film.
They can be lifted out with the take-up spool. The shortest distance to still produce a sharp photo with this teleobjective is 500 m (1 600 ft.) In this case the width of the photo covers 31 m (100 ft.) At a distance of 20 km (12 mi.), which is the last point before infinity, the section of the photo covers about 1 000 m (3300 ft.)
The telescope, which is used to focus the camera has a magnification of 10 and shows the exact frame of the photo to be taken. When adjusting for the proper distance, the heavy objective, which is firmly mounted on the tripod, is not moved, but instead one only moves the camera.
The device weighs about 64 kg (140 lb.) and must be operated by two men. The whole camera is carried, with two handles each on front and back, like a stretcher. The device can be set up, aimed and adjusted, all within 5 minutes. End of quote.

Studying the entire photograph we can determine the following:

newyork.jpg (11903 Byte)[1] The camera is at the beach of Atlantic Highlands about 1m (39 in.) above ground level.

[2] The camera, as well as the telescope is directed upwards, which shows that the photo was not taken from any elevated point, and that any objects behind the horizon must be situated higher.

[3] An island being 6 km (4 mi.) distant is shown in its entirety (looking down on it). The sea inlet behind it, 14 km wide (9 mi.), as well as the wharves of the Coney Island harbor are shown without being covered.

[4] That is not all. The photo allows a view of the roofs of the harbor city behind it, optically includes the peninsula Brooklyn and another sea inlet and clearly shows the skyscrapers of Manhattan.
If this earth were a convex solid ball, and light rays would travel perfectly straight, all this should be 100 m (330 ft.) below the horizon.

In summary we can say: The horizon has nothing to do with the supposed spherical shape of the earth since it can be optically resolved.
If, however, opponents of the geocosmic world have the excuse that the light ray is bent around the convex, solid earth, we would be very happy to hear that statement made.
This would take away the basis for the Copernican world-view, the straight beam of light.

This photo taken from a bit further away would seem to disagree with you:

Haha.

Tell me please, should there be a definite curvature of Earth from the height of more than 250 km ?

Tell me please, are reputable scientific sources like kryptonite to you?

Tell me please, are you attached to the official explanations ?

The Earth is still round.

Here’s something on refraction and distance to the horizon:

I appreciate that you’ve taken the time honoured tradition of scribbling crazy ramblings on a piece of paper to digital form. That shows commitment. Unfortunately that still doesn’t make your argument more compelling. Also, the bible is not a reliable scientific source.

Whoah, what a ‘counterargument’

Here is the counterargument:

Are we done?

Ha ha. Nice ‘photo’
Where is the curvature on more than 250 km ? Should there be any ?

Are you asking me to comment on a 60 year old photograph of questionable provinance? Or to simply accept it as fact while ignoring the plethora of evidence gathered by the various space programs conducted over the past 60 years?

At the risk of getting muddy wrestling with a pig… here goes.

You’re going to have a hard time disproving nearly 2600 years of round-earthism by showing us some grainy, funky-ass looking 60 year old photo and claiming that it proves something that thousands of years of mathematics and direct observation clearly disprove.

More than likely, what you’re seeing is a difference in elevation between the camera and the target (distance to horizon varies with elevation above sea level), combined with some optical aberrations inherent to the camera.

Well, so much sophistry that I don’t know where to start.
Here’s sth you didn’t read: The hoax of refraction and angular declination of the horizon. - Google Docs

Elevation of the camera is 1 m.

Prove those ‘optical aberrations’ You can’t because it has nothing to do with the subject.

For bump and others too lazy to read:

[1] The camera is at the beach of Atlantic Highlands** about 1m (39 in.) above ground level.**

[2] The camera, as well as the telescope is directed upwards, which shows that the photo was not taken from any elevated point, and that any objects behind the horizon must be situated higher.

[3] **An island being 6 km (4 mi.) distant is shown in its entirety (looking down on it). The sea inlet behind it, 14 km wide (9 mi.), as well as the wharves of the Coney Island harbor are shown without being covered.
**
[4] That is not all. The photo allows a view of the roofs of the harbor city behind it, optically includes the peninsula Brooklyn and another sea inlet and clearly shows the skyscrapers of Manhattan.
If this earth were a convex solid ball, and light rays would travel perfectly straight, all this should be 100 m (330 ft.) below the horizon.

In summary we can say: The horizon has nothing to do with the supposed spherical shape of the earth since it can be optically resolved.
If, however, opponents of the geocosmic world have the excuse that the light ray is bent around the convex, solid earth, we would be very happy to hear that statement made.
This would take away the basis for the Copernican world-view, the straight beam of light.

Karol, have you ever left the ground? Ever have the window seat on a commercial daytime flight cruising at 35,000 feet?

Blah, blah.

Yes and you ? Have you imagined the ‘curvature’ well enough to ‘see’ it ?
The horizon is flat on 32 km as well as on 283 km. So what would you like to talk about ?

What?
Video of the free fall/parachute from 24 miles above the Earth, done in 2012. This isn’t horizon you’re seeing in the video, it’s the curvature of the planet Earth.

Also, The first link in the OP has my computer’s security pinging, it’s a risky website so I didn’t open it.

32km: http://i.imgur.com/wQl9VSs.jpg
283 km: http://i.imgur.com/8zS0nK7.jpg

Watch from 6:38 - 6:45

My proof that the earth is round: Michael Palin. Your argument is invalid.

What ?
Are you serious ? Well done !

http://imgur.com/4Io7z2w You will get it even though it’s in Polish. Or…maybe you want ? Anyway you will surely find something new.

:smack:

There’s nothing left to say. Enjoy your insane fantasy.