https://web.archive.org/web/20080925134 ... w/111/127/
HOW ATLAS' CAMERA LIES TO US!
Shown on FLYING SAUCERS' front cover this issue is a photo of the earth taken from an Atlas ICBM at an altitude of 100 miles, purporting to show the curvature of the Earth. As will be proved in this article, this cannot be a fact; that to use this or other photos as evidence of the curvature of the Earth is to misconstrue the evidence.
To those of us who have ever watched a ship sail to sea, it is evident that the Earth's surface is curved, and that the curvature drops away from our own position in all directions. We have watched the ship go hull-down over the horizon, its funnels and masts last to disappear. To an observer on the shore, standing six feet tall, the ship disappears very rapidly; and at the most, his limit of vision is 23 miles, the distance of the horizon. Also, allowing his eyes to travel around the horizon, he notes it to be curved, and if he is located on a ship at sea, he can turn about until he describes a full 360 degree circle and finds that the horizon returns to its starting point. He thus sees an area of the Earth's surface approximately 46 miles in diameter.
If our observer goes up in an airplane, perhaps to a height of a mile, he finds that the horizon (by what is called optical illusion?) ascends with him, so that although he has elevated himself a mile, the horizon also has seemed to elevate itself so that it is still directly ahead of him, at eye-level, and not below him, as he might suspect. Indeed, if he ascends ten miles, he finds the horizon still at eye-level.
As high as man has been, in balloon or plane, he has found that the horizon has kept pace with him. The only difference due to his variation in height is a variation in the total area of the Earth's surface he can see. At one mile, he can see a great deal more than he can at 6 feet. How much more can be accurately calculated by anyone with a little knowledge of geometry. But one thing is sure, it is a far cry from seeing the whole Earth.
On our front cover we have a picture which shows an area of the Earth extending approximately from Omaha, Nebraska to Mexico City, Mexico. The exact distance can be determined by anyone interested by consulting a map, or measuring it on a globe. In comparison to the total expanse of one hemisphere of the Earth, it is an area illustrated in Figure I accompanying this article. It is easy to see that Atlas' camera can see, from its 100-milehigh perch, an area of the earth considerably less than the area of the United States. In relation to the North American continent as a whole, it is actually an insignificant portion. In relation to the two American continents, Europe and Africa, and portions of Asia, it is certainly far from the area of one side of the Earth. No person in seriousness could claim that the curved line originating from the location given as Omaha and culminating in the location described as Mexico City would be the curvature of the surface of the Earth, for the obvious reason that it would reduce the diameter of the Earth to less than one-eighth its actual diameter!
It is easy to see that Omaha is not virtually on the other side of the Earth from Mexico City, yet in this photograph our eyes tell us that this is so! The camera (which does not lie?) tells us that to a person standing in Omaha, an inhabitant of Mexico City, like the traditonal "Chinaman," stands with his head downward, and his feet toward those of the citizen of Omaha! Obviously, this curve, which we are told is the curvature of the Earth, is not the curvature of a body 8,300 (approximately) miles in diameter, but merely the HORIZON as viewed from 100 miles up! The Atlas' camera is seeing no more proof of the curvature of the Earth than our original observer standing on the seashore, watching a ship disappear below the horizon! All Atlas' camera sees is a larger area than the earthbound observer. And it, is an area circumscribed by that very same horizon that limits the range of ground observers, except that it is farther away.
The curve noticed is an optical illusion, an additionally pronounced distortion of the straight line (viewed horizontally) of the horizon, which is a property of all lenses, including the human eye. As we increase the distance from a horizontally placed straight line, the apparent curvature of it increases, inversely with the square of the distance. At a sufficient distance, it becomes a complete circle.
This curved line which purports to show the curvature of the Earth from 100 miles up is the horizon as seen from the Atlas, and the area covered is demonstrated by Figure II, which shows the incidence of the line of sight from the Atlas with the surface of the Earth, which actually is curved, but is limited to our position and the abberations induced by circular lenses such as those of a camera and those of the human eye. In this Atlas photograph, the camera has still been aimed horizontally, at right angles to the perpendicular, and what is being seen is still at eye-level to the observer, be he human or camera!
Many of us have seen, on our television screens, the movies of the curvature of the Earth taken from an Atlas. We have noted the curved side of the Earth as it moves jerkily past us in a vertical direction, and have marveled at the wonder of seeing the actual curve of the Earth. But this, too, is an inadvertant (?) trick, for if we were to lie on our sides before our television set we would be treated to a peculiar illusion-the Earth curvature we marvel at as we sit erect now becomes merely the horizon, and even to our inexperienced eye, we know that it is in a straight line and the curve is only the progression of that line around us (as is the habit of horizons) in its effort to surround us completely in a full 360 degree circle!
All that is being seen in every photo of the Earth taken from space is the horizon, and nothing else. And it is not curved; the whole thing is the very familiar optical illusion. The extent of the horizon does not tell us the Earth is roundit is the "hull-down" effect of a ship as it proceeds away from us, not the "passing in review" before us. The only way a photo from space could prove the Earth to be round would be by the portion of the launching rocket seen falling away from us (as in the photos seen on television) until is disappears OVER the horizon, and goes "hull-down," exactly as a ship does on the sea!
Lest the reader think we are saying the Earth is not round, let us hasten to reassure him. The hull-down effect proves that it is not flat, at least. We find the evidence quite convincing. But to take this matter of apparently curving horizons as evidence is beyond all reasoning, and beyond all justification.
If we assume that we get an Atlas camera out into space say 100,000 miles, and then turn the camera back and take a picture of the earth, we will still see only the horizon, but now, because of the distortion factor of lenses, and because of our much greater height, we will see the whole horizon, in its full 360 degrees, without the necessity of having to wheel about in our tracks. But, as in Figure III, it will be obvious that we are still not seeing the entire extent of the area of the Earth's 180 degree hemisphere. There is still a narrow area beyond the horizon which we cannot see! And no matter how far we go into space, be it light years away, due to the fact that the lens with which we view the Earth is literally a point in space, while the Earth is 8,300 miles in diameter, there will always remain an infinitesimal area (or might it really be gigantic?) between the horizon and the actual boundary of the sphere itself which we will find "hull-down" from our point of vantage.
The foregoing fact is unassailable. If it is, then parallel lines meet in less than infinity, and Einstein's "curved universe" is not only curved, but tangled up like a huge ball of spaghetti!
When we look at the moon, the outer rim of its circumference is not really its outer rim, but its horizon. There is a portion on that rim we cannot see, although it is not behind the moon. 'The only way the actual limit of the circumference could be seen is for us to be able, by some legerdemain, to widen the distance between our two eyes to approximately 3000 miles, so that the rays of light from the moon would literally be parallel, and those from one side of the moon's apparent diameter fall into one eye, and those from the other into the other eye. And even then it would be a matter of mental perceptive rationalization. Certainly to the single lens of the camera, or the telescope, the full diameter of the moon cannot be seen, because the portion below the horizon will remain forever invisible.
Diagram
It is a well-known fact that different kinds of light (ultra violet and infra red as examples) give different dimensions to observed objects. Even in natural light, the lighted side of a half moon seems to have a greater diameter than the dark side, and a photograph will show this to be true. Called an optical illusion, astronomers have failed to explain why a camera is subject to optical illusions.
Dave Garroway, in his Today program, showed the movie films we have previously mentioned, which supposedly show the curvature of the Earth (and indeed, the expert who was present to demonstrate the actual procedure in taking the pictures said it was the curvature of the Earth!), and noting the peculiar jerkiness and rocking motion of the film, and the amazing speed with which the curvature passed before the camera, asked the reason for it, and whether the film was not "speeded up," and actually had been taken at much slower frame speed. The expert explained as follows: The camera, mounted in a horizontal plane, was photographing the curvature of the Earth as the rocket ascended straight up, and the jerky rocking effect was the rocket's own wavering motions as it ascended, but that the apparent speed was not real, that the rocket was rotating on its vertical axis as well as climbing, and that was the reason the camera could photograph the entire curvature of the Earth. He made it plain to Garroway (and to this writer) that the rocket was not actually going around the Earth in an orbit, but had merely been fired straight up, to fall almost straight back.
This writer submits that it must be a deliberate action to run the film (or mount the camera) so that the motion would be in a perpendicular fashion, rather than horizontal, in order to create the illusion of curvature, rather than of the straight horizon which it would obviously be if run past the observer's eyes in the proper style, to conform with the proper erect horizontal mounting of the camera in the side of the rocket which is ascending straight upward.
We have also seen photos (movies) taken from the rear of a detaching nose cone, showing the rocket falling away below. This was taken at a considerately greater altitude, but shows no curvature, or horizon whatever. At no time is the supposed curvature of the edge of the Earth, or even a horizon, in view. The reason is obvious-the rocket (at 300 or more) miles, was not at all high enough for the field of the camera's lens to take in more than a small area of the ground directly below.
The next time you see a picture of the Earth's curvature, turn it on its side, view it properly, and you will see only the horizon, which may be more distant than you are accustomed to viewing, but your mind will tell you that it is not curved, only appears to be so because no matter at which point on the line you look, the distance is the same, and if the line were straight, logically it should appear to bend away from you as the angle of viewing became greater. This is the true "optical illusion" of the horizon.
The Atlas' camera has not shown us the curvature of the Earth, only a more distant horizon. To say that it proves the Earth is curved is to misconstrue and distort the evidence. The Earth is surely curved, but the evidence is SOLELY visible in the familiar "hull-down" phenomenon, and no other!
The scientists are so anxious to show off the knowledge that we all possess anyway from our own simple observations, that they are not averse to a little "subterfuge" to get into the limelight. Either that , or they actually cannot tell the difference between the curvature of the Earth and the horizon. In which case it would be better to give the cameras to someone with the ability, to use them correctly!
THE END