ha…
I think you missed post number 17.
It is round and you are lazy.
The part I don’t get is, it’s not even a matter of one photograph vs. thousands. The one photograph the OP shows doesn’t even show the ground curving upwards, either.
Yes, you don’t get it.
It curves in front of you. Got it now ?
You see the result, buildings and parts of land you should not see at all.
Read post 13.
Also see this: http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/
A little (well, a lot) of clarification is needed.
What’s the underlying premise here? That this single photo somehow demonstrates fundamentals errors in physics? That’s quite a lot of weight to be carried on the back of a grainy JPEG.
I’m way too busy to spend a lit of time on this, but I’d appreciate of the OP could expand on this:
If you are basing this on the illustration at the top of the page, as seems to be the case, how do you know that the image accurately represents the actual position of the camera and objective at the time the image of Manhattan was made? There is nothing in the article that confirms this was the case.
Meanwhile, later today, I’ll be on an Air France flight to Paris. I’ll be sure to remind the pilot that the horizon is an optical illusion, that he’s wasting fuel by taking a curved route from IAH to CDG, and that he should just go straight there instead.
karol, if you want to debate stuff, start a thread in Great Debates. I’m hereby declaring MPSIMS off-limits to you for these threads.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
twickster: Jonathan Chance and I have a little list–and you are now on it.