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 that the Earth is round _ it 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.

It is a well-known fact that different kinds of light (ultraviolet and infrared 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.