Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 229  Next >
1
Did they control for population like Thork pointed out? What does the "most common cancers seen" tell us? Why can't a place with low cancer rates also have a list of the "most common cancers seen"?

Another factor is that some areas of China eat more garlic than others.

From the last page:

https://books.google.com/books?id=t22vBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA244&ots=SQEqINl0gT&dq=allicin%20cured%20cancer%20in%20mice&pg=PA245#v=onepage&q&f=false




2
I'm talking about #227. The study says that it was tested in vivo.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29595070

Quote
Microarray analysis of tumor tissue identified 515 common anticancer genes in the garlic and cisplatin groups ([Formula: see text]). Gene network analysis of 252 of these genes using the Cytoscape and ClueGo software packages mapped 17 genes and 9 gene ontologies to gene networks. BC (NMIBC and MIBC) patients with low expression of centromere protein M (CENPM) showed significantly better progression-free survival than those with high expression. Garlic extract shows anticancer activity in vivo similar to that of cisplatin, with no evidence of side effects. Both appear to act by targeting protein-DNA complex assembly; in particular, expression of CENPM.

The sentence says that garlic shows similar anticancer activity to that of the chemotherapy drug cisplatin, in vivo, and without the side effects of a chemotherapy drug.
I'm not sure if you have actually read the study. Let me explain it to you:
- The study only takes into account the effect on bladder cancer in mice. They also only tested with one cell line.
- The study shows that Cisplatin in general has a stronger effect than garlic
- It also shows that the garlic has to be dosed very high to actually work (on humans that would be 80g garlic powder for an 80kg man... have fun eating that)
- There was only 6 mice in each group, which is very low and means randomness has a big influence
https://image.ibb.co/jZq01U/1.png

Do you still think, this study proves that 'Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items'?
Because I think this study only shows that garlic contains a molecule that can cause apoptosis if it's taken in very high doses. A fact that apparently is long known.
I do agree that research in that direction might be helpful in the fight against cancer, but the study certainly does not prove the title of this thread.

The study is one of numerous studies which states that garlic reverses cancer in animals. This one says that garlic performs similarly as a chemotherapy drug, and without the side effects. You can't do human experiments without permission from the government. They won't let you. Search Youtube and the web and you will find plenty of testimonies of people who claim to have had their cancers cured through garlic.

Why don't US doctors ever prescribe herbs to patients, despite that there is clear evidence that herbs do cure illnesses? Medicine used to be herb based, after all. Not anymore. If a patient went to a doctor and was prescribed herbs that would be highly illegal and the doctor would likely lose his license and perhaps go to jail. They have to "do it by the book," and that book does not say to give herbs to patients. At best, an honest doctor will eventually suggest off-the-record to the patient to try an alternative medicine doctor if the pharmaceuticals are not working. Seen it happen.

One cannot maintain that herbs do not cure when entire countries, such as China, have medical systems based around herbs.

You will never see US doctors prescribing herbs for any ailment because there is a conspiracy to promote commercial pharmaceuticals. Doctors in western countries do not prescribe herbs anymore, and as long as the status quo is maintained, they never will.

3

Sometimes the lighthouse is seen, at other times it isn't. The "sinking ship effect" is inconsistent.

How has your refraction idea been demonstrated?

By the sun still being visible even after it's astronomically below the horizon.

I believe you are talking about this:



Ignoring that this is really just an attempted explanation of why the sun isn't where it should be in RET, and an admission that the RET sun is wrong isn't really a demonstration that refraction is happening, the situation is far different. The light is traveling from vacuum to atmosphere.

The effects we are talking about happen at sea level. Temperatures across sea level are not constant, and will vary. We should be able to see some kind of distortion in the effects that project images of large bodies into the air. There must be some sort of evidence for it, surely?

Quote
You want to reject atmospheric refraction as being but a "magic wand." Fine. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to abandon the "magic wand" of refraction. But you still haven't defended why the earth is flat vice simply appearing slightly less convex than the earth curve calculators predict. Seeing more of something than what a curve calculator predicts doesn't automatically conclude the earth is flat.

Oh, and as for your special pleading, is Plymouth Sound a standing body of water? Is Monterey Bay?  How about the stretch from Malibu over land to San Jacinto? Rosario Straights? Lake Ontario. Lake Michigan? Salton Sea? All have been used to make a case for a flat earth. Why, if they don't qualify as "standing bodies of water?"

Sure, we don't have to talk about refraction.

We didn't film those experiments or select the locations. But they tend to show things contrary to RET. You conveniently ignored the other experiments from the infrared proofs thread in the Media Forum that did show no hidden areas.

Even Rowbotham makes the case that when the bodies are partially obscured, with more seen than what the RET predicts, that it is still a refutation against the model. These videos provide a compilation of evidence to consider, and should be shared. If you found some hidden bodies that perfectly match the globe, you are free to share them.

The sinking ship effect was one of the original points of evidence for the concept of a Round Earth. If it doesn't really reflect a Round Earth, and changes over time, then it is not really a definite proof that the earth is round, as it has been used as for centuries.

The collected evidence of inconsistency or non-existence detracts from the strength of the model. Even with some of the partially sunken scenes, the theory must still imagine that bodies are seamlessly projected into the air by refraction; and so such scenes should be collected and analyzed. Evidence that supports that refraction should manifest in some way, certainly, as should evidence of ground distortion or obfuscation.

4
When Samuel Birley Rowbotham...

As per Earth Not a Globe, the experiments should most properly take place on standing bodies of water to get consistent effects.

In the Mountain Experiment most of the experiment is done over land, not water, let alone standing water.

The island experiment was conducted on the Straight of Georgia, which is an outlet to the sea. It may be an area affected by tidal effects.

The fact that those experiments might not conform exactly to a Flat Earth on those environments is unsurprising, and is, in fact, what our literature already predicts.

You introduced both videos to make a case for a flat earth. I show how they do not do so and so now you make the special pleading why they might fail to do so.

It's not special pleading at all. The matter has been studied and demonstrated. Sometimes the sinking ship effect is seen, at other times bodies are fully visible or only partially seen. The fact that it changes is demonstration that there is something changing that is blocking it.

From the Perspective at Sea chapter of Earth Not a Globe:

On the Nab-light ship:

Quote
In May, 1864, the author, with several gentlemen who had attended his lectures at Gosport, made a number of observations on the "Nab" light-ship, from the landing stairs of the Victoria Pier, at Portsmouth. From an elevation of thirty-two inches above the water, when it was very calm, the greater part of the hull of the light vessel was, through a good telescope, plainly visible. But on other occasions, when the water was much disturbed, no portion of the hull could be seen from the same elevation, and with the same or even a more powerful telescope. At other times, when the water was more or less calm, only a small portion of the hull, and sometimes the upper part of the bulwarks only, could be seen. These observations not only prove that the distance at which objects at sea can be seen by a powerful telescope depends greatly on the state of the water, but they furnish a strong argument against rotundity. The "Nab" light-ship is eight statute miles from the Victoria pier, and allowing thirty-two inches for the altitude of the observers, and ten feet for the height of the bulwarks above the water line, we find that even if the water were perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should at all times be fourteen feet below the horizon. Many observations similar to the above have

p. 218

been made on the north-west light-ship, in Liverpool Bay and on light-vessels in various parts of the sea round; Great Britain and Ireland.

On Eddystone Lighthouse:

Quote
It is a well known fact that the light of Eddystone lighthouse is often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound, and sometimes, when the sea is very calm, persons sitting in ordinary rowing boats can see the light distinctly from that part of the Sound which will allow the line of sight to pass between "Drake's Island" and the. western end of the Breakwater. The distance is fourteen statute miles. In the tables published by the Admiralty, and also by calculation according to the supposed rotundity of the earth, the light is stated to be visible thirteen nautical or over fifteen statute miles, yet often at the same distance, and in rough weather, not only is the light not visible but in the day time the top of the vane which surmounts the lantern, and which is nearly twenty feet higher than the centre of the reflectors or the focus of the light, is out of sight.

A remarkable instance of this is given in the Western Daily Mercury, of October 25th, 1864. After lectures by the author at the Plymouth Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics' Institute, a committee was formed for the purpose of making experiments on this subject, and on the general question of the earth's form. A report and the names of the committee were published in the Journal above referred to; from which the following extract is made.

"OBSERVATION 6TH.--On the beach, at five feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out of sight."

p. 219

At any time when the sea is calm and the weather clear, the light of the Eddystone may be seen from an elevation of five feet above the water level; and according to the Admiralty directions, it "maybe seen thirteen nautical (or fifteen statute), miles," 1 or one mile further away than the position of the observers on the above-named occasion; yet, on that occasion, and at a distance of only fourteen statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn day, and a clear background existed, not only was the lantern, which is 80 feet high, not visible, but the top of the vane, which is 100 feet above the foundation, was, as stated in the report "entirely out of sight." There was, however, a considerable "swell" in the sea beyond the breakwater.

That vessels, lighthouses, light-ships, buoys, signals, and other known and fixed objects are sometimes more distinctly seen than at other times, and are often, from the same common elevation, entirely out of sight when the sea is rough, cannot be denied or doubted by any one of experience in nautical matters.

The conclusion which such observations necessitate and force upon us is, that the law of perspective, which is everywhere visible on land, is modified when observed in connection with objects on or near the sea. But how modified? If the water were frozen and at perfect rest, any object on its surface would be seen again and again as often as it disappeared and as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always more or less in.

p. 220

motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line.

At page 60 it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye; and that at a certain distance, less or greater, according to the elevation of the observer, the line of sight and the surface of the water appear to converge to a "vanishing point," which is in reality "the horizon." If this horizon were formed by the apparent junction of two perfectly stationary parallel lines, it could, as before stated, be penetrated by a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, however great, to which any vessel had sailed. But because the surface of the sea is not stationary, the line of sight must pass over the horizon, or vanishing point, at an angle at the eye of the observer depending on the amount of "swell" in the water. This will be rendered clear by the following diagram, fig. 85.


Fig. 85.

Let C, D, represent the horizontal surface of the water. By the law of perspective operating without interference from any local cause, the surface will appear to ascend to the point B, which is the horizon, or vanishing point to the observer at A; but because the water undulates, the line A, B, of necessity becomes A, H, S, and the angular direction of this line becomes

p. 221

less or greater if the "swell" at H increases or diminishes. Hence when a ship has reached the point H, the horizon; the line of sight begins to cut the rigging higher and higher towards the mast-head, as the vessel more and more recedes. In such a position a telescope will enlarge and render more visible all that part of the rigging which is above the line A, H, S, but cannot possibly restore that part including the hull, which is below it. The waves at the point H, whatever their real magnitude may be, are magnified and rendered more obstructive by the very instrument (the telescope), which is employed to make the objects beyond more plainly visible; and thus the phenomenon is often very strikingly observed, that while a powerful telescope will render the sails and rigging of a ship beyond the horizon H, so distinct that the different kinds of rope can be readily distinguished, not the slightest portion of the hull, large and solid as it is, can be seen. The "crested waters" form a barrier to the horizontal line of sight as substantial as would the summit of an intervening rock. And because the watery barrier is magnified and practically increased by the telescope, the paradoxical condition arises, that the greater the power of the instrument the less can be seen with it.

Sometimes the lighthouse is seen, at other times it isn't. One may speculate on the cause of the Sinking Ship effect, but the fact is that the "sinking ship effect" is inconsistent.

The inconsistent sinking ship effect is already codified and demonstrated in our literature. It is what is expected to be seen. It is exactly the reason why Roabotham suggests that the experiment be conducted on standing bodies of water.

Has the Round Earth permanent refraction idea that projects solid images of bodies into the air been demonstrated?

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Atmolayer lip hypothesis and its incorrectness
« on: August 17, 2018, 08:08:31 PM »
Polar highs are a RE phenomenon.  Can you explain how you can get a polar high in the south pole?  Is there a polar vortex rotating around the entire south pole ice wall?  What's the height of the atmoplane at the ice rim?  How can cold air descend at the south pole if it's a dome?

How do the poles maintain their high pressures, without leaking into the low pressure areas of the tropics? We were told like 20 times in this thread that pressures always equalize.
They do. The air just cycles back around due to the heat essentially.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/atmosphere/global-circulation-patterns

If they did cycle and depressurize, then there should be no Polar High, right?

Those polar areas are of high pressure all year around. By "cycling" you are asserting that areas of low pressure are traveling into areas of high pressure, which is the opposite action of how we are told pressure equalizes. There clearly must something keeping the environment high pressure at the poles, that can counteract the want of the atmosphere to equalize.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Atmolayer lip hypothesis and its incorrectness
« on: August 17, 2018, 07:36:03 PM »
Polar highs are a RE phenomenon.  Can you explain how you can get a polar high in the south pole?  Is there a polar vortex rotating around the entire south pole ice wall?  What's the height of the atmoplane at the ice rim?  How can cold air descend at the south pole if it's a dome?

How do the poles maintain their high pressures, without leaking into the low pressure areas of the tropics? We were told like 20 times in this thread that pressures always equalize.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Atmolayer lip hypothesis and its incorrectness
« on: August 17, 2018, 06:05:17 PM »
Yes, the atmosphere does decrease in pressure and temperature until it literally drops out of the air. Yes, that is what is happening in this demonstration. It is already happening wherever those scientists are on Antarctica, and is generally the case in the Arctics as well.

As the atoms move outwards into the thousands of miles of fridged tundra, and temperatures gets colder and colder, they will freeze and drop.
And what force is stopping the gas molecules over the earth from moving to this area, freezing and dropping?
Pressure will try and equalise. You have a heat source over the earth, the sun, you don't have a heat source elsewhere. So the pressure over the earth will be higher than in the " thousands of miles of frigid tundra" around it. What is stopping that high pressure from leaking into the low pressure?

Also, you have no evidence for this thousands of miles of frigid tundra even existing. By definition it's not something which has been explored or observed in any way.

As pressure decreases and atoms slow down due to the temperature, it also causes the atmosphere to collapse and squish. Antarctica, in fact, is already a much higher pressure than the inward latitudes. This acts as a "wall." Look at the Polar Highs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_High

Quote
The polar highs are areas of high atmospheric pressure around the north and south poles; the north polar high being the stronger one because land gains and loses heat more effectively than sea. The cold temperatures in the polar regions cause air to descend to create the high pressure (a process called subsidence), just as the warm temperatures around the equator cause air to rise to create the low pressure intertropical convergence zone. Rising air also occurs along bands of low pressure situated just below the polar highs around the 50th parallels of latitude. These extratropical convergence zones are occupied by the polar fronts where air masses of polar origin meet and clash with those of tropical or subtropical origin.[1] This convergence of rising air completes the vertical cycle around the polar cell in each latitudinal hemisphere. Closely related to this concept is the polar vortex.

Surface temperatures under the polar highs are the coldest on Earth, with no month having an average temperature above freezing. Regions under the polar high also experience very low levels of precipitation, which leads them to be known as "polar deserts".

When the atmosphere gets less dense, it lowers in elevation and is compressed against the earth.

What stops the high pressures of Antarctica escaping onto the lower pressures of the tropics is likely the same mechanism that keeps it from escaping into the outer fringes of the atmoplane.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 17, 2018, 02:46:00 PM »
Trump 'trusted' more than Democrats to boost economy, keep US safe

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trump-trusted-more-than-democrats-to-boost-economy-keep-us-safe

Quote
A new poll that shows Republicans “catching up” to Democrats leading into the fall midterm congressional election also shows that voters trust President Trump more than liberals on fixing the economy and keeping America safe.

By a wide 45 percent to 34 percent margin, the latest Zogby Analytics poll found that voters trust Trump more to “grow the U.S. economy.”

And by a similar 45 percent to 38 percent margin, they also trust Trump “to keep America safe.”

In both cases, the Trump approval numbers show steady gains while the Democrats have remained flat in the survey provided to Secrets.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 17, 2018, 02:45:19 PM »
Good morning. What is today's outrage?


10
Should the photographs and other forms of documentation gathered by remotely operated submarines exploring the ocean depths be dismissed just because you don't have the resources to make your own deep sea submarine?
If repeatable empirical evidence contradicts it, or at least introduces considerable doubt - yes.
What repeatable empirical evidence contradicts, or introduces considerable doubt, about the validity of photographs from earth observing satellites or the personal observations of over 500 astronauts?

Look out your window.
I'm sorry Tom, but how is looking out my window even remotely comparable to looking at the earth from orbit?  ???

You asked for empirical evidence. Asking me to look at photographs or claims from NASA is not empirical evidence. It seems you have failed here.

11
Should the photographs and other forms of documentation gathered by remotely operated submarines exploring the ocean depths be dismissed just because you don't have the resources to make your own deep sea submarine?
If repeatable empirical evidence contradicts it, or at least introduces considerable doubt - yes.
What repeatable empirical evidence contradicts, or introduces considerable doubt, about the validity of photographs from earth observing satellites or the personal observations of over 500 astronauts?

Look out your window.

12
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Video Plugin for the Wiki
« on: August 15, 2018, 01:37:56 PM »
Thanks!

If this is MediWiki, VideoEmbed claims to provide support for over 24 popular video sharing services. Or, one that can support flash embed would be even better. Embedding flash content was another issue of mine.

13
Those aren't "standard refraction" effects, Tom.  Standard refraction is based on a steady rate of temperature and air density increasing with altitude. And as light passes through this standard layer over a curved surface, it encounters that less dense air of higher elevations as the earth and its atmosphere slope away. Thus, in accordance with refraction, light "bends" back toward the earth. This is not anomalous. It's a function of a "standard" density change in atmosphere and curve. That's why it's a rule-of-thumb factor and never is presumed to be an actual predictor of current or local conditions. "Standard" refraction has the net effect of making the earth's radius seem to be 7/6x larger, or a little "flatter" if you will.

I do not believe that "Standard Refraction" is an explanation for this viewing of the island on the Round Earth model. The MetaBunk Earth Curve Calculator has a section for "Standard Refraction" which uses the 7/6*r figure.

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Distance: 19.5 Miles
Height: 17 Feet

Results ignoring refraction
Horizon = 5.05 Miles (26659.33 Feet)
Bulge = 63.39 Feet (760.69 Inches)
Drop = 253.57 Feet (3042.79 Inches)
Hidden= 139.25 Feet (1671.04 Inches)
Horizon Dip = 0.073 Degrees, (0.0013 Radians)

With Standard Refraction 7/6*r, radius = 4618.83 Miles (24387440 Feet)
Refracted Horizon = 5.45 Miles (28795.37 Feet)
Refracted Drop= 217.34 Feet (2608.1 Inches)
Refracted Hidden= 112.77 Feet (1353.25 Inches)
Refracted Dip = 0.068 Degrees, (0.0012 Radians)


Not really much different. That was not 112.77 feet that was hidden of the island. I pose that "Standard Refraction" does not explain what you are seeking to explain.

14
When Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied this over a period of three decades he said that the only consistent Flat Earth water convexity tests took place on standing bodies of water such as canals and lakes, which is why the main experiments in the book take place on the Old Bedford Canal.

The sinking ship effect would actually occur on standing water and on the sea, with the difference being that the Sinking Ship Effect is reversible with a telescope on standing bodies of water, and the Sinking Ship Effect on the sea is at times not reversible.

On standing bodies of water the Sinking Ship Effect is caused by limits to angular resolution. On the sea, the Sinking Ship Effect is caused both by angular resolution limits and also the waves of the sea (either by the swells themselves or tidal effects).

See:

- Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before the Mast-Head
- Perspective on the Sea

As per Earth Not a Globe, the experiments should most properly take place on standing bodies of water to get consistent effects.

In the Mountain Experiment most of the experiment is done over land, not water, let alone standing water.

The island experiment was conducted on the Straight of Georgia, which is an outlet to the sea. It may be an area affected by tidal effects.

The fact that those experiments might not conform exactly to a Flat Earth on those environments is unsurprising, and is, in fact, what our literature already predicts.

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« on: August 15, 2018, 01:53:21 AM »
What about blindly believing in all that you are told. Is that a better life to live?

16
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
All the while, you avoid explaining where the missing 40-50' of Clark Island is, just like you avoided the missing 7000' of San Jacinto.

The video and images I have shown clearly shows evidence that refraction distorts, stretches, and compresses near the horizon. There is already something which can distort the horizon between the object and the observer, which we saw evidence of in the video. Where is the evidence for what you are proposing?

There has yet to be evidence of your large-scale refraction that can project large bodies into mid air. There is no evidence that refraction can bring anything up from behind a curve or hill. Your Clark Island needs to be floating over a hundred feet in the air and your San Jacinto needs floating over a thousand feet in the air, all creating crisp images without any distortion at all.

Surely if this large scale projecting of bodies in the air were so common place we would often see large bodies floating in mid air. On the occasion when we do see something floating in mid air due to refraction, it's always a wavy mess.

None of the images we have seen "jibe" with a Round Earth model. You always need some kind of odd and perfect refraction excuse: "I know that none of what we see supports a Round Earth... but refraction!" That position is coming off as quite ridiculous.

17
Narration from the segment:

Quote
The atmosphere can cause distant objects to stretch, to compress, to mirror, and to be obscured by a false horizon line. You can see it all. Unfortunately, what you don't see is see objects arcing over curvature due to refraction. Unfortunately, dishonest globe propagandists use distortion as proof of curvature when clearly it is not.

I have repeated this demand on many occasions to the globe faithful: Produce one video of an object geometrically hidden behind a hill, which then arcs over a hill only to refraction. To date, not one globe supporter has produced the arcing over the hill proof and the flat earth proofs keep rolling in.

He is right. "Refraction" is used as a magic wand to explain whatever you want to explain. In the particular case of this thread it is being asserted that an image of the island is projected by a mirage over one hundred feet into the air to peek above the horizon without any noticeable distortion of its features in order to explain a Round Earth.

Let us look at what happens in these timelapse videos:





The general Round Earther Explanation: "The peninsula was below the horizon, and then it was projected up into the air above it!" "Refraction effect!"

This would be the usual remark. However, this does not hold. Look at where the horizon/water line is located the revealed version:



In the revealed version the horizon is behind the island... If the peninsula were below the curve of the earth in the first image, and then refraction projected the peninsula into the air, to peek over the real horizon in the second image (and all without distortion of landmass features, as odd as that sounds), we would just be seeing the peninsula peeking above the horizon line. It is clear, at least to me from the full motion video and the images above, that the phenomenon of refraction is nothing more than distortion in front of the peninsula.

We can watch more time-lapse videos, if you wish, to see whether these concepts hold as bodies are revealed and hidden.

18
Regarding refraction, take a look at Experiment 34 in this video for a few minutes at the 1:44:58 mark and listen to the narrator. There is a timelapse of what happens over the water's surface. I've embedded it with the time spot:


19
Here is a picture of Clark Island from closer up, with the boat positioned on the opposite side of the island from where the author was looking at it from. The trees near the water line look pretty similar to that the video author in the OP saw:
You're showing me an image of the western side of the island which you acknowledge is the opposite side from that the video image presented, and you're saying that it looks pretty similar?

Why would you do that? What point does that serve?

It's the same island, just taken closer up and on the opposite side of the photographer. I flipped it horizontally in my second image. Images two and three have the same side on the right hand side of the island. The trees are close to the shoreline, just like the telescopic versions. Very little of the island is missing. If we compare to the gauge you made here:



Presuming that the gauge above is correct... we can see that only about 30 feet was missing from the close up view.

Telescopic IR View:



Close Up View, Flipped Horizontally:



Compare the dip in the tree line on the right hand side of the island. Can you see that only very little of the island is missing, only about 30 feet or so, according to your gauge?

However, according to the earth curve calculator, at 19.5 miles and 17 feet in elevation, under the Round Earth model, 139.2627 feet should be missing.

20
Here is a picture of Clark Island from closer up, with the boat positioned on the opposite side of the island from where the author was looking at it from. The trees near the water line look pretty similar to that the video author in the OP saw:



Link source

Here it is flipped because the boat was on the opposite side of the island.



with the IR telescopic version:



Comparing the same side to the island in the video in the op, only very little of the island seems to be missing to me.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 229  Next >