[AATW]

The size of the earth is a statement you make solely based on the "alternative evidence."

True. Although by "alternative evidence" that isn't just photos from space. I've travelled enough to be confident that the world is pretty big, whatever shape it might be. But here's the point: an observation of a flat horizon, if that's what we are talking about, does not tell you what shape the earth is. It may rule some possibilities out - like us living on a very small sphere - but it doesn't give us enough information to leave only one possibility.

The earth could be flat or a sphere of a certain size and the point is that observation of a flat horizon doesn't distinguish between those two possibilities. Either of them being true would yield the same observation. And there are probably other possibilities which would yield that observation.

Everywhere I have been on this earth, it is personally perceived to be flat. That never changes.

What observation have you made which has led you to that conclusion?

[Action80]

The size of the earth is a statement you make solely based on the "alternative evidence."

True. Although by "alternative evidence" that isn't just photos from space. I've travelled enough to be confident that the world is pretty big, whatever shape it might be. But here's the point: an observation of a flat horizon, if that's what we are talking about, does not tell you what shape the earth is. It may rule some possibilities out - like us living on a very small sphere - but it doesn't give us enough information to leave only one possibility.

The earth could be flat or a sphere of a certain size and the point is that observation of a flat horizon doesn't distinguish between those two possibilities. Either of them being true would yield the same observation. And there are probably other possibilities which would yield that observation.

I am not going to write for Roundy, but I can write that a flat horizon matters not for me. For most of my day-to-day life, the horizon is cluttered with many objects obscuring its actual location.

Everywhere I have been on this earth, it is personally perceived to be flat. That never changes.

What observation have you made which has led you to that conclusion?

Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.

[AATW]

Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.

I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.

[Action80]

Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.

I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.

I look at something and I see it is flat. I look at my desktop and I see it is flat.

I look at the surface of the earth around me and I can see it, too, is flat, like the surface of my desk.

"...if we live on a globe..." Again, the only basis for offering communication of this nature is "alternative evidence."

I prefer to not extend my statements into the depths of conjecture you seem to prefer.

[mahogany]

Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.

I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.

I look at something and I see it is flat. I look at my desktop and I see it is flat.

I look at the surface of the earth around me and I can see it, too, is flat, like the surface of my desk.

"...if we live on a globe..." Again, the only basis for offering communication of this nature is "alternative evidence."

I prefer to not extend my statements into the depths of conjecture you seem to prefer.

The argument of: I look out my window and I see it is flat (The Earth) therefore it must be flat....is poor at best. I realize that this argument may be based on the handed down teachings of the Zetetic method of observing with the senses, but it presents a fallacy.

You know the surface of your desk is flat because you are able to see the desk in it's entirety.

If your desk is 6 feet across and you are observing your desk from a distance of 6 feet away your ability to understand what you are looking at is much different than say observing an object that is say 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter from a distance of 6 feet away.

In the desk example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 6 feet across.
In the object example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter.   
 

[DuncanDoenitz]

The "desk" thing is another interesting analogy.  Is it actually flat?  How do you know?  Have you measured it?  To what degree of accuracy? 

"It looks flat". 

I'm not talking about minor blemishes (maybe its wooden, does it have a grain, a surface texture)?  What I'm talking about is the overall flatness; x axis and z axis, edge to edge, corner to corner, and to a selection of datum points across its surface.  Is it cheap or of good quality.  Have you applied a certified straight-edge and measured for bow and sag?  You seem pretty sure, wonder if that's justified. 

Clever money says its not very flat at all. 

[Action80]

Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.

I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.

I look at something and I see it is flat. I look at my desktop and I see it is flat.

I look at the surface of the earth around me and I can see it, too, is flat, like the surface of my desk.

"...if we live on a globe..." Again, the only basis for offering communication of this nature is "alternative evidence."

I prefer to not extend my statements into the depths of conjecture you seem to prefer.

The argument of: I look out my window and I see it is flat (The Earth) therefore it must be flat....is poor at best. I realize that this argument may be based on the handed down teachings of the Zetetic method of observing with the senses, but it presents a fallacy.

You know the surface of your desk is flat because you are able to see the desk in it's entirety.

If your desk is 6 feet across and you are observing your desk from a distance of 6 feet away your ability to understand what you are looking at is much different than say observing an object that is say 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter from a distance of 6 feet away.

In the desk example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 6 feet across.
In the object example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter.   
 

I am not stating I can the entirety of the surface of the earth from 6 feet away.

I am stating I can see the various areas within my view during goings to and fro.

And wherever I have been, currently am, and wherever I will be in the future (i have no reason to doubt), I have seen, do see, and will see that the evidence is the earth is flat.

There is nothing fallacious about this statement at all and I would ask you recant your mischaracterization of my statement, as it borders on libel.

[Action80]

The "desk" thing is another interesting analogy.  Is it actually flat?  How do you know?  Have you measured it?  To what degree of accuracy? 

"It looks flat". 

I'm not talking about minor blemishes (maybe its wooden, does it have a grain, a surface texture)?  What I'm talking about is the overall flatness; x axis and z axis, edge to edge, corner to corner, and to a selection of datum points across its surface.  Is it cheap or of good quality.  Have you applied a certified straight-edge and measured for bow and sag?  You seem pretty sure, wonder if that's justified. 

Clever money says its not very flat at all.

I would not take your bet, as it obviously isn't perfectly flat. My desk is a miniature example of the surface of the earth in regard to those imperfections being akin to those hills/valleys/dales.

[Action80]

Once again, there seems to be no answer as to why one would feel inclined to accept the "alternative evidence," of supposed "space travel" in lieu of personally gleaned observation. Plenty of swings, but too many whiffs.

[Pete Svarrior]

Is it actually flat?

You would have thought that after four years here you'd know that nobody proposes that the Earth is a perfectly flat surface, or even a particularly flat one at all (though it does happen to be flatter than a pancake); much like how RE'ers do not propose that the Earth is a perfect ball.

Thus continues the plight of RE zealots - no matter how low the bar is set, you lot demonstrate that you're capable of being even worse.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Pete, I already discounted the grain and blemishes (the mountains and valleys, if you will).  My suggestion is that Action80's desk probably has an overall curvature.  He proposed it as an analogy to the observed Earth (despite the fairly obvious difference in perspective) and stated that it is flat, but has so far provided no evidence to this effect. 

(4 years; my my).   

[Pete Svarrior]

Pete, I already discounted the grain and blemishes

So have I.

My suggestion is that Action80's desk probably has an overall curvature.

Yes, I understood you; and I despair over your thinking that this is insightful. You've seen Ferguson's map, right?

[DuncanDoenitz]

Ferguson's Map; indeed.  Other brands also available.

Is it not clear to you that I am not debating the multitude of possible forms of map, but directly Action80's contention that the Earth is flat, "everywhere (he) goes". 

Like his desk.  And most of the maps. 


(Oh, and "zealot" btw?  Thank you; "praise indeed"). 

[mahogany]

Wherever I have been, the majority of it was flat, aside from hills/valleys/dales.

I just don't know what you mean by that. For one thing, as you say there are hills and valleys and so on. So it isn't flat. Secondly, the formula the FE community love to quote is 8 inches per mile squared - not completely accurate, but it's close enough for most practical purposes. The point being, even if the earth was a perfect sphere, a point a mile away would only be 8 inches lower than you. How do you think you could discern that?
I don't know what you'd be expecting to see, if we live on a globe, that you're not seeing.

I look at something and I see it is flat. I look at my desktop and I see it is flat.

I look at the surface of the earth around me and I can see it, too, is flat, like the surface of my desk.

"...if we live on a globe..." Again, the only basis for offering communication of this nature is "alternative evidence."

I prefer to not extend my statements into the depths of conjecture you seem to prefer.

The argument of: I look out my window and I see it is flat (The Earth) therefore it must be flat....is poor at best. I realize that this argument may be based on the handed down teachings of the Zetetic method of observing with the senses, but it presents a fallacy.

You know the surface of your desk is flat because you are able to see the desk in it's entirety.

If your desk is 6 feet across and you are observing your desk from a distance of 6 feet away your ability to understand what you are looking at is much different than say observing an object that is say 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter from a distance of 6 feet away.

In the desk example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 6 feet across.
In the object example, one is standing 6 feet away from an object that is 41,712,000 feet across or in diameter.   
 

I am not stating I can the entirety of the surface of the earth from 6 feet away.

I am stating I can see the various areas within my view during goings to and fro.

And wherever I have been, currently am, and wherever I will be in the future (i have no reason to doubt), I have seen, do see, and will see that the evidence is the earth is flat.

There is nothing fallacious about this statement at all and I would ask you recant your mischaracterization of my statement, as it borders on libel.

The Earth is going to look flat to you because you are right up against an object that is ten of millions of feet in diameter or length. One is not going to be able to discern the true shape of an object reliably nor make a good conclusion either way that the Earth is flat or spherical. It's a poor method with which to draw a reliable conclusion.

I believe that you are drawing upon the Zetetic methodology of observing with the senses but without really applying some critical thought.

If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?   

[Tom Bishop]

That's not the Zetetic method. Please read the material.

Also, those sinking ship observations have been studied and debunked - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

The effect is not consistent and and tends to change constantly. There are plenty of examples of this, some in the above link

Bobby Shafto, who came to our forum as a Round Earther (and presumably still is), was interested in this in apparent honesty (more than most people who have come here) and has looked at the material and concluded that the sinking ship effect is not consistently reproducible, and he has also concluded that the sinking doesn't even match the RE curvature.



Video description:

"These are stills from the last 23 panning videos captured by Pablosdog from UCSB Campus Point and sweeping across the panorama from Santa Barbara's Mesa Lane to Point Mugu. This is of oil rig Platform Henry at a distance of 16.88 miles in the foreground with the hills of Ventura County at 50-55 miles and the Santa Monica mountains at 70+ miles in the background.

Details:
Camera location: varies slightly. Within 50 ft north/south of 34°24'32"N 119°50'32"W
Camera height: approximately 45 ft with tripod.
Platform Henry: 34°19'59"N 119°33'42"W
Ventura County "ridge" in background aligned with Henry: 34°09'35"N 118°55'46"W
(see    / @pablosdog2808   for more information)

None of these depict the earth as one might expect if it is a globe with radius of 3959 miles without the optical effects of an atmosphere under varying conditions."

[mahogany]

That's not the Zetetic method. Please read the material.

Also, those sinking ship observations have been studied and debunked - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

The effect is not consistent and and tends to change constantly. There are plenty of examples of this, some in the above link

Bobby Shafto, who came to our forum as a Round Earther (and presumably still is), was interested in this in apparent honesty (more than most people who have come here) and has looked at the material and concluded that the sinking ship effect is not consistently reproducible, and he has also concluded that the sinking doesn't even match the RE curvature.



Video description:

"These are stills from the last 23 panning videos captured by Pablosdog from UCSB Campus Point and sweeping across the panorama from Santa Barbara's Mesa Lane to Point Mugu. This is of oil rig Platform Henry at a distance of 16.88 miles in the foreground with the hills of Ventura County at 50-55 miles and the Santa Monica mountains at 70+ miles in the background.

Details:
Camera location: varies slightly. Within 50 ft north/south of 34°24'32"N 119°50'32"W
Camera height: approximately 45 ft with tripod.
Platform Henry: 34°19'59"N 119°33'42"W
Ventura County "ridge" in background aligned with Henry: 34°09'35"N 118°55'46"W
(see    / @pablosdog2808   for more information)

None of these depict the earth as one might expect if it is a globe with radius of 3959 miles without the optical effects of an atmosphere under varying conditions."

Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.

Am challenging the notion that one could confidently glean the true shape of our Earth just by what they see around them or out of their window; especially when an observer's sight line is a few feet above a surface that is tens of millions of feet across in length or diameter.

An example I provided of where an observer may report seeing one thing but doesn't reflect reality is: a ship moving away from an observer that appears to be "sinking" but that isn't actually "sinking" in the water OR a ship far off in the distance from an observer that appears to be floating above water but that isn't actually floating above water.         

Also, I've never spoken to Bobby Shafto, and his theories or assumptions are not relevant to this website. One guy saying something somewhere is also not "the flat earth community", or even a representation of the FE community.

[Action80]

Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.

Yet...

If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?   

To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"

[mahogany]

Am not arguing for or against sinking shipping observations.

Yet...

If an observer stands on a beach and see's a ship in the distance moving away from said observer, they will observe with their own eye's that the bottom of the ship is disappearing into the water. In some cases of atmospheric phenomena, the observer may see the ship appear to be hovering above the water. Using the Zetetic method of observing, should one conclude that the ship is sinking or hovering above the water?   

To quote Brandon: "Come on, man!"

Understand your issue. But, am still trying to understand your logic of how you equate seeing that your desk is flat to being able to see and confidently conclude that the surface of our Earth (that is tens of millions of feet across) is flat.   
   

[Pete Svarrior]

Is it not clear to you that I am not debating the multitude of possible forms of map, but directly Action80's contention that the Earth is flat, "everywhere (he) goes". 

Like his desk.  And most of the maps. 

It's quite clear. Your "gotchas" are already accounted for, and have been for a long time.

Just repeatedly restating your point and saying "nuh uh you dun get it" is not gonna be very productive in the upper. Please either address the point or concede it and move on. If you don't understand the point, ask clarifying questions.

Who knows, you might even earn yourself an actual compliment from someone, rather than just thriving on others pointing out that you're being silly.

[AATW]

Also, those sinking ship observations have been studied and debunked

And your source for that is...your own Wiki page. Come on, dude!

The effect is not consistent and and tends to change constantly.

This is incorrect by the way you define "inconsistent" on that Wiki page. You say:

It has been found that the Sinking Ship effect is inconsistent. At times it occurs and at other times it does not occur.

My emphasis. That part is simply not true. It is true that the level of refraction varies with atmospheric conditions and that does vary the distance to the apparent horizon, but the claim that at times the sinking ship effect does not occur is not true. There is no observation of a ship going away from the observer and never sinking below the horizon.

Bobby Shafto, who came to our forum as a Round Earther (and presumably still is), was interested in this in apparent honesty (more than most people who have come here) and has looked at the material and concluded that the sinking ship effect is not consistently reproducible, and he has also concluded that the sinking doesn't even match the RE curvature.

In the video he's saying the camera height is 45ft and the platform is just under 17 miles away.
A simple earth curve calculator which does not take refraction into account says the target hidden height should be 51ft.

This is some documentation of that oil-rig:

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/about-boem/BOEM-Regions/Pacific-Region/DPPs/DPP_1_1971-08-Proposed-Installation.pdf

From page 20:

The production deck will be located 37 feet above mean low low water and the drilling deck located 61 feet above the same reference. The drilling .deck will be 80 by 125 feet. The top of the drilling derrick will be at an elevation of 223 feet above the water level

So you should always be able to see the drilling deck and above. Without refraction you wouldn't be able to see the production deck. In some of those photos it appears you can, but as we've noted refraction exists and is variable depending on atmospheric conditions. In some of those photos the legs of the rig are completely hidden. What are they hidden by?

You claim in the Bishop experiment that:

With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore near Lovers Point 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore.

You're claiming that from a much lower viewer height and a further target distance. And you go on to claim that:

Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."

Why weren't you getting the inconsistencies which you now claim occur?

None of these depict the earth as one might expect if it is a globe with radius of 3959 miles without the optical effects of an atmosphere under varying conditions."

They certainly don't depict a flat earth. In all of the photos some of the rig is hidden. If your Bishop experiment result is accurate you should be able to see all the rig from a viewer height of 20 inches. Can you?