I don’t think it’s reasonable to argue that this is CGI.


The curvature of the Earth is clearly seen approximately around the 33:30 to 34:30 minute mark.


https://www.youtube.com/live/pvAIxUJyALE?feature=shared

Wide angle lens.  They pulled the same thing with the Red Bull jump ... and even Neil de Grasse Tyson debunked that one.

You are constantly applying you confirmation bias to things, where "ah, look curvature.  Proof of globe."  Seems like you're desperate to cling to the globe model.

Of course, CGI is getting better and better, to that point that there will come a time where it's indistinguishable from reality ... whether faking "space" or deepfaking individuals.

That "Tesla in space" was exposed as a hoax, where the video glitched out and showed the same staging warehouse where the thing had been prior to "launch", and even Musk said, "you know it has to be real because it looked so fake.  We have better CGI than that."  That wasn't CGI, but green-screen.

There are no words….. The projection is palpable.   To be clear, I don’t believe the “Tesla in space” video.

BTW: It seems to me that the “wide angle lens” excuse would distort the ship also.

You and your followers have really elevated FE almost to a dogma. Actually, I believe that some of those posting here have.

There are no words….. The projection is palpable.   To be clear, I don’t believe the “Tesla in space” video.

BTW: It seems to me that the “wide angle lens” excuse would distort the ship also.

You and your followers have really elevated FE almost to a dogma. Actually, I believe that some of those posting here have.

You can't see enough of the ship to actually tell, and one would have to know what it should look like in the first place.  You can see the edge of the ship at the bottom of the screen curving up, which is actually a tell-tale sign of wide angle lens, where it curves up below the center line and curves down above it.  But then I don't know if the ship's edge there would normally have a curve, so I can't draw any conclusions ... unlike yourself who apply confirmation bias to anything that supports the globe.

Has nothing to do with dogma, just get tired of small-minded people who can't even apply reason and logic to the situation because they're wedded to their globe, due to some psychological attachment.  You dismiss solid evidence of no curvature on a regular basis, always claiming refraction and whatnot, but then refraction magically disappears when you think you see something that backs the globe.

Every FE once believed the earth was a globe, and many of us only slowly and reluctantly came to realize that the earth is in fact flat, by keeping an open mind and looking at the evidence objectively, something you're incapable of doing.  I don't have any "followers".  Most of the people here who came to accept the truth of flat earth went there independently, taking the same path I did, and did not simply "follow" me into constant derision and ridicule from the small-minded types such as yourself.

You dismiss solid evidence of no curvature on a regular basis, always claiming refraction and whatnot, but then refraction magically disappears when you think you see something that backs the globe.

.


Refraction does curve light over long distances, including lasers. Here is an article explaining this:

Over the years, many tests have been conducted to determine how far into the distance it is possible to see a laser at ground level, and whether this fits best with a globe-earth or flat-earth model. Unfortunately, these tests often have wildly different results that appear to be contradictory. Some show a laser beam apparently staying at the same height, implying that the Earth is flat. Others appear to show the laser disappear below the horizon as expected in the globe-earth model.

These discrepancies can be explained by understanding two things:

• Atmospheric refraction bends light.
• Laser beams get wider the farther they travel.

These are real phenomena. Anyone can see that laser beams spread out over distance (although it's hard to measure exactly), and that refraction happens when light travels through a medium of varying density. Indeed, atmospheric refraction is a known problem in many fields. Surveyors must minimize and account for refraction. Sailors navigating by the sky avoid stars that are too close to the horizon because their positions are distorted by refraction.
It is therefore surprising how many laser level experiments do not account for these issues. If you watch a long-range laser experiment that doesn't even mention atmospheric refraction or beam divergence, the experiment is incomplete and it's safe to assume the experimenter doesn't really know how to conduct this type of research.
Light rays are usually bent towards the surface of a large body of water. This is because the water tends to cool the air close to it, creating a temperature and density gradient close to the surface. This refracts light waves (including the laser beam) down. Importantly, the amount of refraction varies depending on environmental conditions. In some cases, refraction can even make the Earth's surface appear curved in a concave direction. Figuring out exactly how much refraction is occurring isn't easy, but there are calculation tools available to help.
The end result is this: As light rays get bent down, they stay closer to the curved Earth's surface and can remain visible for some distance over the horizon. If there's just the right amount of refraction, objects would also appear to stay exactly the same height above the surface.
By the way, many flat-earth experimenters make a point of positioning the laser close to the ground or water surface, as if this is a good thing. It isn't, because this is exactly where refraction has the most effect (the temperature gradient tends to be greatest near the surface). It would be better to position both the laser and the observer several metres above the surface.
In addition to atmospheric refraction, there is the problem that laser beams diverge (get wider) over long distances. If you're looking at a laser beam from several kilometres away, how do you know if you're looking at the centre of the beam? It's not as easy to tell as you might think. If you see an experiment that doesn't address this problem, it's not a valid test.
Ironically, the easiest way to solve the beam divergence problem is to not use a laser at all. The experiment's goal is to see if a horizontal ray of light stays the same height above the Earth's surface. You can do this by simply looking at an object—it doesn't need to be a laser beam.
This is actually an old experiment, going back at least to the famous Bedford Level experiment in the 19th Century. Of course they didn't use lasers then, but instead used flag poles placed at a consistent height over several kilometres. The Bedford Level experiment, like any well-conducted similar experiment today, shows that light rays are directed downwards, enabling things to be seen over the horizon as if the surface between them was flat.

Here's an alleged picture from the "cupola" of the SpaceX Blue Dragon.  To see this degree of curvature, you'd have to be halfway to where they claim the moon is.  This here is a clear wide-angle lens, and like with the one you posted, you can see a small upward curvature of the bottom.



In your video also, you can see the same upward curvature ...

The top picture definitely looks like CGI and the Earth looks way too small.

In the second picture, I agree with you that there is some curved distortion with the ship in your screenshot, but this could be due to the proximity of the lens attached to the ship since the curve starts closer to the camera, but seems straight further away. I will look at the video for other examples as the screen shot I took didn’t have that distortion.

FE, in the way everyone has presented it on this forum, can’t work. The ridiculous “models” presented here don’t work. It is impossible!

Come up with a reasonable model, a reasonable explanation that demonstrates the measurable distances between land masses and oceans. Give a reasonable explanation on how the Moon phases work with FE. How Solar and lunar eclipses work with FE.

Of course, the thing you want us to do is to verify the distances which would require absurd amounts of resources, time and dedication and let's ignore that you're just asserting that you know the distances and that they're correct. Says who?

The sad thing is that the two examples you say we should have to be able to explain you can't explain either.

Moon phases don't work with a globe because a sphere doesn't cast a circular shadow onto another sphere. It's a verifiable, observable, repeatable fact.

Furthermore, the globe "model" can't explain eclipses because it doesn't explain selenelions.

You have no model, yet you keep pretending that you do. You have a bunch of absurd nonsense like gravity keeping the atmosphere from dispersing into the infinite vacuum yet we can jump at the surface where it's much stronger.

Observable, repeatable experiments all point to a flat earth, everything else that's unsure must be dispensed with and made to conform with what is certain.

Holy Writ is correct, there is a solid firmament separating the waters above from the waters below. Theories of man can't compete with God's word.

You don't seem to understand. We don't need to have a working model of flat earth to disprove globe earth. The things you mentioned should be considered assumptions, they may or may not work, we believe they do because we have been taught that they are true. But the proofs for flat earth should make us question if they are really the way we think. When people doubted the Church due to (((heliocentrism))) they didn't have a working model, all the things we have today were slowly built up, and many things were added that don't actually make sense (eg tilt). Real science would start by investigating the flat earth first, then these other processes.

The point is we don't need nor require a working model because the lack of curve already disproves the ball earth meaning we should question or be suspicious of our understanding of the other processes related to it.

You place ALL of your “proofs” for a flat Earth SOLELY on information you read or watched on the internet. None of you are willing to do anything to scrutinize those claims. I’ve actually looked through telescopes, across distances, at the Moon, and planets. Millions upon millions of people have measured distances of continents and oceans. These measurements, when compared to every FE “model” that’s been presented on this forum, cannot be reconciled. Period.