[model 29]

Here's a height difference of approximately 20 feet looking at a hillside 12 miles away.  The left shot was taken from 6-8 inches.  The higher objects have sunken toward the waterline while the lower structures (which would be below the waterline under other atmospheric conditions) still appear above the waterline, but compressed due to refraction/superior mirage. 

[model 29]

Please give proof regarding the two heights of the camera,

I'll take a picture of the location next time I'm there.

the distance and the heights of the bridge and trees (as is and the difference).

Taken from approximately lat 47.138682  lon -122.632160  (47.08'19.43"N  122.37'55.64"W)
Looking at approximately lat 47.300028  lon -122.533325  (47.18'00.37"N  122.32'00.18"W)
Bridge is Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Washington state.  Shooting location is Solo Point.  The hillside is Point Defiance and the elevation ranges from 200-300feet, which is hard to define as it's covered in trees of varied heights.  About 9.7 miles to the bridge, and 12 to the shore.  20 feet is an estimate for camera height difference.  Could be 18-25.  The tide was low and it was a gentle slope from the parking lot down to the water's edge.  Possibly about 150 feet, not an easily measurable straight down drop.

Then, if there is a difference between what is seen and what should (not) be seen, please explain why,

Higher picture extends horizon, reducing amount of drop between horizon and hill, allowing for more of the hill to be visible above the horizon. 

Lower picture means the horizon is much closer, increasing amount of drop between horizon and hill, resulting in more of hill being further below horizon.

Refraction due to warmer air over cooler air results in light curving downward slightly, resulting in compressed appearance of shoreline objects while allowing them to remain visible.

backed up with evidence.

See picture I posted.

[huh?]

I think that your ship video is fairly good evidence that the Earth is not flat.

Your distance estimates (particularly after the red buoy) are just guesses and your optics are not very good.

Refraction can vary with atmospheric conditions but you could certainly set up some experiments to get a reasonable indication of how it effects objects. 

But the ship clearly sinks and when it is way out there you are just looking at the top of it and calling it the whole ship
and then another ship passes by with a high part on both ends so it looks like one part is following the other because you can not see the main body of the ship.

With a better lens you would be able to observe this easier. 

[geckothegeek]

I like to have as much fun as anyone else on this forum, but I do try to stick to facts on subjects of which I am more certain. If I don't know the answer I try to research it and find sources for an answer.

That is the reason I suggested you contact some sources for your questions about the effect of atmospheric conditions affected what you would see in relation to the horizon. Those sources listed would be from experts and experienced personnel who would give you more precise answers. My experience along these lines were mostly in perfect conditions when there was no interference from any adverse conditions.

So, you are making statements, but you are not sure they are correct. You don't have any evidence that backs it up.

Thank you for admitting it.

My evidence was  what that my statements were correct -  based on normal conditions. A clear day on a calm sea. One of my off- duty things to do while at sea was to watch ships, land, etc. I noticed that they disappeared bottom first and appeared top first. I noticed that once they disappeared over the horizon they could not be restored by looking at them with a telescope. I do know that you can estimate the distance to the horizon. On some of those times if I saw a  ship on the horizon I would check the range on the radar and it would coincide with the estimate according to the height of the radar antenna. These were just common every day occurrences.

I would really suggest that you just check this question about the ship going over the horizon with some one who is on active duty in the Navy. Or if you can afford it take a cruise on a ship to prove it for your self. From experience in the Navy we just took this as a normal thing and didn't give it much thought .

And if you really get down to the nitty-gritty, there is really no question about the shape of the earth. The earth has been explored, charted and mapped and recent aerial and satellite views prove the shape of the earth is a globe. That is why most people wonder why anyone would still think the earth was a flat disc.

As to the videos of the windmills it was very apparent that you were seeing only the tops of the windmills in the distance and the entire heights of the windmills close up which proved the curvature of the earth.

I don't see what more evidence would convince you of the curvature of the earth or more proof that the earth is a globe.

Also if you won't take a round earther's word for it, why don't you just go and do it for your self if you want to prove that the round earther is wrong ? Why not just  do it your self instead of always asking for some one  else to do it for you if you really want to prove your point  ?

[geckothegeek]

I like to have as much fun as anyone else on this forum, but I do try to stick to facts on subjects of which I am more certain. If I don't know the answer I try to research it and find sources for an answer.

That is the reason I suggested you contact some sources for your questions about the effect of atmospheric conditions affected what you would see in relation to the horizon. Those sources listed would be from experts and experienced personnel who would give you more precise answers. My experience along these lines were mostly in perfect conditions when there was no interference from any adverse conditions.

So, you are making statements, but you are not sure they are correct. You don't have any evidence that backs it up.

Thank you for admitting it.

My evidence was  what that my statements were correct -  based on normal conditions. A clear day on a calm sea. One of my off- duty things to do while at sea was to watch ships, land, etc. I noticed that they disappeared bottom first and appeared top first. I noticed that once they disappeared over the horizon they could not be restored by looking at them with a telescope. I do know that you can estimate the distance to the horizon. On some of those times if I saw a  ship on the horizon I would check the range on the radar and it would coincide with the estimate according to the height of the radar antenna. These were just common every day occurrences.

I would really suggest that you just check this question about the ship going over the horizon with some one who is on active duty in the Navy. Or if you can afford it take a cruise on a ship to prove it for your self. From experience in the Navy we just took this as a normal thing and didn't give it much thought .

And if you really get down to the nitty-gritty, there is really no question about the shape of the earth. The earth has been explored, charted and mapped and recent aerial and satellite views prove the shape of the earth is a globe. That is why most people wonder why anyone would still think the earth was a flat disc.

As to the videos of the windmills it was very apparent that you were seeing only the tops of the windmills in the distance and the entire heights of the windmills close up which proved the curvature of the earth.

I don't see what more evidence would convince you of the curvature of the earth or more proof that the earth is a globe.

Also if you won't take a round earther's word for it, why don't you just go and do it for your self if you want to prove that the round earther is wrong ? Why not just  do it your self instead of always asking for some one  else to do it for you if you really want to prove your point  ?

Why are you interested in my experiments? You made up your mind already.
I am not interested in talking to you.

I find this website interesting and found your experiments interesting.

If you are trying to prove the earth is flat, forget it. It is impossible. There are those of us in the real world who work in a globular shaped earth all the time. We don't need to prove it since  it simple a well known fact that the earth is a globe  and it has worked for many centuries.

For a start if you can supply an accurate flat earth map of the entire earth, we would be interested in seeing it.

[geckothegeek]

Just trying to be of help. Good luck on your proving the earth is flat.

[geckothegeek]

Just trying to be of help. Good luck on your proving the earth is flat.

What a joke. You want to be right, that's all you are interested in.

And I'm sure you want to have to last word.

No ! No ! No !

I am leaving you with the option of having the last word. I want YOU to have the last word !

For a start when you produce an accurate flat earth map of the entire earth.

For a last word when you prove that the earth is flat.