1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 22, 2023, 09:09:08 AM »

Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki

It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

If you go to that redirect and read the content it says that the horizon is not always at eye level. So why are you claiming that the wiki says that the horizon is always at eye level or that it is the official stance?

Because, quite simply, I was mistaken. Let me explain.

I was reading through ENAG to see what good old Sam had to say about the horizon, atmosphere, eye level, etc. And I came across this from Chapter 'PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA’ :
“…it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye…”

He refers back to FIG. 44 under EXPERIMENT 15:


And I swore that the wiki aligned with that belief being ENAG, Rowbotham and all. But I couldn’t find anything in the wiki specifically about it. So I searched the forum and found a suggestion thread from 2018 requesting that the following statement in the wiki under the page https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level be altered:

"A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.”

That particular suggestion thread somewhat died seemingly without a resolution.

However, apparently that statement was deleted in 2019 and the page redirected to https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Horizon_Dip.

It now appears that TFES no longer holds the Rowbotham position that the horizon always rises to eye level as it did back in 2018. At least FE and GE are now in agreement on one thing.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 20, 2023, 11:51:22 AM »

Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE.

They do have "much to do" with FE. The book is an important historical record, and provides useful context on how we developed over time. It used not to be available elsewhere, and has since once again become a well-known piece of our history. It absolutely "has much to do" with FE.

Unfortunately, this is on you for mindlesuquote-mining a resource you haven't bothered to familiarise yourself over the course of five years.

I personally wouldn’t consider presenting a passage explicitly stating that the horizon always rises to eye level taken from a former wiki page titled “Horizon always at Eye Level” as mindless quote-mining. But that’s just me.
 
Like I mentioned before, as this now seems to be something that the society no longer adheres to then that’s fine. I incorrectly had assumed otherwise.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 20, 2023, 02:45:00 AM »

Again, if I came here and started insisting that you defend something that "some RE'ers" believe (but which doesn't seem to have much to do with RE), you'd rightly think I'm out of my mind. Connect the dots.

Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE. I thought that was the point of the wiki, but apparently I was wrong. Lesson learned.

Stack, there's no nice way of saying this - you've spent half a decade here, and you still don't know how to use this site. You need to take a huge step back and start lurking - you should have done so in 2018. Learn to fucking read.

Cool. Thanks for the pro tips. It means a lot when you take the time to offer advice and guidance.

Edit: Oh yeah, I was remiss in not including the link regarding where it used to state in the wiki that the horizon always rises to eye level:

Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki

It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 19, 2023, 05:29:57 PM »

As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level

Have you considered bringing it up with the people who hold this view? You're unlikely to find them here, and repeatedly trying to bait people into this by saying "well, sOmE FE'ers claim this" only encourages people not to take you seriously.

SoMe Re'ErS can't even figure out the difference between velocity and acceleration. SoMe Re'ErS think that spirit levels can only operate thanks to the nigh-immeasurable differences in gravity affecting 2 ends of the tube. And that's just with things sOmE rE'eRs claim today - if we started digging up centuries-old beliefs, there's more fun to be had. We don't hold all of RE accountable to that, because that would be an utterly psychotic thing to do.

If you want an argument from your anonymous "some FE'ers", go talk to them.

A couple of things…

I was being cautious by using “some”. As in the past if I were to simply say, “FErs claim that blah, blah, blah…” I would get blasted by you for implying all FErs. So now, if I say “some”, that still seems to be an issue.

For two, there’s some stuff in the wiki regarding horizon/eye-level/dip experiments and observations that are stated as inaccurate. It appears to me as a refutation of GE’s claim of dip due to curvature considering that’s exactly what the experiments are designed to show: Water Level Devices

There’s also this in the wiki leading me to believe that some FEr's may dispute the dip:
“...since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.”
And
“...no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye…"

Also, there was a request back in 2018 to remove this from the wiki:

”A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see."

Since I can’t seem to find it in the wiki, I guess it was removed. Perhaps it was removed when a new redirect was created in 2019:

• Horizon always at Eye Level
#REDIRECT [[High Altitude Horizon Dip]]
39 bytes (5 words) - 14:33, 6 December 2019

All that said, if some or all FEr’s here are no longer in the horizon always at eye-level camp anymore then, I guess, never mind.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 19, 2023, 08:43:16 AM »

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

With all due respect, I’m not claiming anything about curvature in this thread. I’m taking issue with the blanket assertion that the horizon can never be clearly distinguished.

Posters on this thread should also be wary when they talk about curvature, are they talking in the sense of a curve appearing left to right as you look at the horizon, or in the sense of the curvature away from the observer that produces the horizon?

Agreed, I don't care about curvature left to right, nor whether the horizon line is fuzzy or crisp or somewhere in between. As I've stated before, I'm way more interested in the observed dip at altitude, the perceived curvature away from the observer that produces a horizon line. As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level whereas GE contends that it dips below eye-level with altitude as it curves downward and away...



I'm looking for an explanation of this.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 19, 2023, 04:39:52 AM »

It's simply a weak argument. The photographer is clearly faking earth curvature in some of his works, and the image in which the curvature is clearly manipulated the photographer calls an "Air to Air Photograph" without disclaimer that the shape of the horizon in the scene was not as we would see it.

Hmmm, how do you know photographer is clearly faking earth curvature? By you saying so it seems that you somehow know what is real earth curvature and what is fake earth curvature. Your source on this is your own self and your personal opinion, which is a poor method of inquiry and creates a poor argument.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 11:34:53 PM »

Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:

So you admit that pictures labeled as Adrian Meredith Photography is not actually pure "Photography" and concordephotos.com picture are not actually "Photos" and that an artistic license is applied to the images.

All images are altered as soon as they committed to a sensor inside a camera or on to a strip of film. Even more so when developed or imported. Even more when printed or exported.

But I guess you are saying that if a photographer adjusts anything in one image, all images they have ever taken have been similarly adjusted. Ok, sure. If that's the hill you want to die on, go for it.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 11:29:03 PM »

Respects to Stack but, gentlemen, you're just going down a wormhole here. 

One minute on the concordephotos site shows that the picture was taken from a Tornado; the air defence version has a maximum ceiling of 50,000 feet.  In practice, military aircraft never get anywhere near their stated ceiling, so I would be very surprised if this was much above a normal airliner cruise altitude of 40k.  And if you magnify the image, I think you'll find that both the cabin window line and the roof line have curvature. 

Yes, the Earth's a globe, but posting this as "evidence" is a non-starter.

It's reported that the shot was taken at 55k'.

I'm not seeing what you are seeing. A comparison between the high altitude image and a low altitude image...



Just to be clear, this discussion started with Lackey taking an old AATW quote out of context, the context being the image in question. Whether the image was cropped, distorted, etc., I obviously can't say for sure. And no one else can either except for Mr. Meredith himself. So yeah, the argument is sort of pointless.

Aside from all of this, for me, it's whether the observed dip of the horizon line at altitude is caused by a globe earth or the potential fuzziness of the line between the sky and ground/water. That's what I think really needs to be addressed.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:54:13 PM »

Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:

Here’s the only picture of Concorde flying at supersonic speed
The image was taken by Adrian Meredith who was flying a Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado jet during a rendezvous with the Concorde over the Irish Sea in April 1985.

Although the Tornado could match Concorde’s cruising speed it could only do so for a matter of minutes due to the enormous rate of fuel consumption.

Several attempts were made to take the photo, and eventually the Concorde had to slow down from Mach 2 to Mach 1.5-1.6 so that the Tornado crew could get the shot. The Tornado was stripped of everything to get it up to that speed as long as possible.

After racing to catch the Concorde and struggling to keep up, the Tornado broke off the rendezvous after just four minutes, while Concorde cruised serenely on to JFK!

Like I said, buy the photo, rip it out of the frame, and see what's hidden behind the 2" matte.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:29:32 PM »

Even that signed photo was cropped. Compare the sky and clouds to the left of the plane cockpit area of the signed photo to the first picture you posted.

Signed photo:



From the first picture you posted:



There is clearly more area to the left of the cockpit first picture you posted than the area to the left of the cockpit in the signed photo.

This is evidence that the signed photo is also cropped.

Could be. Or maybe the matte in the frame is covering it. We don't know. So no, it's not necessarily evidence it is cropped. Buy it, rip it out of the frame and find out.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:18:46 PM »

Yes, stack...

I can unequivocally state you have nothing to offer relevant to the op.

Wrong as usual.

Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.

Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

I see. So again, you're just saying so without saying how so. What is this dictatorial math you keep ambiguously referring to without saying what it is. Why so cryptic? Why not just lay out this math you claim exists. Or are you just in the business of making claims without backing them up? Seems to be your MO.

If you can't bring yourself to put your money where your mouth is, I've got one for you...

Anyway, the math dictates that from the altitude of the Concorde, you are able to see curvature.

High enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

There you go, case closed.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:03:33 PM »

The Concord photo is from 1985 and could have been cropped by a number of sources along the way to us in 2023, including by the original author or the original publishing company. Therefore this is a very poor piece of evidence.

It could have been cropped over the years...or not. Here's a print signed by Adrian Meredith, the original photgrapher. Whether he cropped it back in 1985, unknown.



The horizon seems to be in the center of the image, yet still arc'd. And if barrel distortion was present, I would expect to see the Concord itself sufficiently bent considering it's location in the image. Interesting.

Here's what I would expect from fisheye barrel distortion...



I guess from now on the only acceptable evidence is something that came straight from the source with a letter of provenance guaranteeing that it has never been altered in any way. And the same standard shall be applied to anything and everything you post.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 09:21:11 PM »

You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.

That is according to RET dimensions as presented.

Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.

I guess you and I are seeing two different things. It happens.

What RET dimensions are you referring to? I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.

And does crispness or fuzziness of the horizon line account for the observed dip of said line at altitude?

You are the RE expert, remember?

You come here spouting how the globe must exist because of math, yet ask me for the dimensions of the globe?

Anyway, the math dictates that even from the altitude of the Concorde, you were not able to see curvature.

Not high enough given the dimensions of the earth as stipulated by RE.

You are a smart guy, figure it out.

As expected, I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.

Thanks for proving my point.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 09:10:47 AM »

You cannot see curvature of the earth in that photo either.

That is according to RET dimensions as presented.

Again, just stop with the equivocation (and in this case), with the outright falsehoods.

I guess you and I are seeing two different things. It happens.

What RET dimensions are you referring to? I only ask because you seem to have a tendency to state something as unequivocal without providing anything to back it up. You know, just words, no substance.

And does crispness or fuzziness of the horizon line account for the observed dip of said line at altitude?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 05:25:40 AM »

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.



AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."

Curvature is curvature.

Just stop with the equivocation.

There is no curvature.

Compelling argument. I guess if you simply say so, then it must be true. I can't think of anyone who would know better considering the level of thought and intellect you've poured into the discussion. Clearly the curve shown in the Concorde image is not a curve as you have just commanded that it isn't. My fault for not running the image by you first so that you could determine what is seen by the rest of us and what isn't. Thanks for applying your acute observation skills to an otherwise indeterminate and murky situation.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 17, 2023, 07:07:36 PM »

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.



AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 16, 2023, 06:02:44 PM »

Perhaps it's also because of the dip.

Perhaps; but that would directly contradict your compatriots' position that the opposite is happening because of the dip. That's pretty much the sad state this thread has been reduced to.

Possibly. Sometimes it looks like a crisp line, sometimes it doesn't. When crisp, trying to determine exactly how crisp, to what degree, is probably impossible. Perhaps with magnification, maybe a theodolite. Is it fuzzy 1" above the water, 1', 10', hard to tell. But I imagine in some circumstances the fuzziness is very small and in others, very large, and everywhere in between.

And then there's the dip which may contribute, but may also be an entirely different issue that needs an explanation all unto itself.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 16, 2023, 05:37:47 PM »

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.

You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.

Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.

On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.

Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?

Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.

Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.

Perhaps it's also because of the dip.

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Investigating flight paths experiment for round earthers

« on: March 14, 2023, 08:08:25 AM »

Here are a couple from the list. Comparing GE to FE using Google Globe & Mercator projections and the two most common FE "maps" I've seen, the North Pole Centered Lambert Azimuthal Equidistant & Bi-Polar Lambert azimuthal equal-area.



The reasons I've seen from some FEr's are:

- The flights are fake, don't exist
- One from the other site, same as above but with a twist - In order to cull the homeless populations, airlines load them on to these fake flights, fly out over the ocean a bit, flight attendants shove the homeless out the cabin door, then turn around and head back to the origination airport
- The GE maps are wrong/fake in terms of the paths allegedly taken
- The distances are wrong/fake

Interesting to note as well, the two common FE "maps", the North Pole Centered Lambert Azimuthal Equidistant & Bi-Polar Lambert azimuthal equal-area, are actually projections from a globe. I'm not sure how FE reconciles this.

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question for my research

« on: March 13, 2023, 05:28:34 AM »

Forgive me, but I was more looking for actual events and concrete instances of lying instead of the conspiracy/meme side.

I already provided what you ask for. You're not going to get MSM news articles from me, sorry. NASA lies constantly, so what is your point? It's like asking for evidence of actors lying during a scripted scene because you want to believe that it wasn't scripted. If all you're doing is looking for news articles, good luck with your "research". Natural science has nothing to do with news articles. Enough said.

I didn't see anything in what you provided as evidence that anyone is lying. Do you have anything with actual evidence?