Sure sign of one who knows he has lost the argument. He attacks his opponent's motives and character first! Thanks for confirming that thought.
I attacked your ludicrous claim first. Then I concluded you're being dishonest. I know keeping your lies straight is difficult, but do try to keep up with your own posts!
What ludicrous claim?
I am not lying, I have not been lying, so how can I hope to have a rational discullion with you!
The straight simple fact of the matter is that I posted those photos in completely good faith. I f you choose to believe otherwise there is nothing I can do about it!
I fitted the photos on one line simply to keep the post compact and for absolutely no other reason. I did not "dishonestly shrink the images to mask the blurring".
I've explained to you countless times that your abuse of BBCode is unhelpful, as have many others. You keep doing it nonetheless. At this point I pretty much have to assume malicious intent.
But okay, in the extremely unlikely event that you still don't understand, here's what your post looks like on a mobile device. Bear in mind that just about half of our visitors view this site on mobile devices (41.67% mobile phones, 7.84% tablets).
It is very difficult to believe that you would continue doing this if your intention is not to deceive.
OK, I get you point, but it was not done to deceive.
You are great at inferring motive on other people! In case you didn't know cloudy skies aren't blue.
[emphasis mine]
Ah, yes, "a sure sign of one who knows he has lost the argument". Clouds exist therefore we can dismiss obvious evidence of the atmosphere not being perfectly clear. Classic RE logic right there!
I do not know what you are bitching about! Clouds or not the horizon is still quite sharp. so I honestly do not know where your "Classic RE logic right there!" comes in.
Then in case you missed it the sky in two of the photos is blue
I'm glad you no longer deny this. We can finally put the "transparent atmosphere" argument aside!
I have NEVER claimed that the atmosphere is perfectly transparent. As it happens that is the whole point of my argument. Because the atmosphere is not transparent, the only way for the horizon to be sharp is for it to be relatively close.
the horizon quite sharp
"Quite" sharp, huh? How sharp is "quite" sharp? How much blurring are you willing to ignore? Because your photos are perfectly consistent with FET (doubly so bearing in mind your admission regarding the altitudes at which the photos were taken).
How do you explain a sharp horizon on the Flat Earth? If the surface of the ocean were flat the limit of vision would be set by the limited transparency of the atmosphere and I would expect it to fade into a blur as we see in high altitude photos from aircraft or mountains.
Do you have a comment on that?
So, you show us some photos of this horizon fading into an indeterminate distance caused by the "The atmolayer is not perfectly transparent."
You already did that! Are you trying to start one of these threads where everyone keeps posting the same picture over and over? Because those generally belong in CN.
No I did not. In the photos I showed any reasonable person would accept that the air-sea boundary is sharp, quite unlike what we see in high altitude photos like this one
[/quote]
Actually I quite agree, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, and even in the clearest air the visibility limit is from 100 km to a few hundred km depending on the colour.
I'm glad you agree!
Of course I agree, where have I said otherwise!
But the horizon distances on my photos is only a few kilometres. Maybe you have a better explanation for that.
Could you present some evidence to substantiate that claim? Could you also present some data to ascertain just how clear the air was in the heavily-polluted Queensland locations you named?
I believe I can at give the distance from Scarborough Beach at -27.201667°S 153.115833°E to the Beacon NE Scarborough at 27.183583°S 153.132746°E is just over 2.6 km.
The what? Why do you claim "the heavily-polluted Queensland locations you named".
Do you ever manage to have a reasonable discussion with anybody. I started out making what I honestly thought was quite a reasonable post and I get accused of being deliberately deceptive.
If it makes you happy to disparage everyone else like that you must lead a very unhappy life, but go for if if that's the way you want to live.
I do so apologise for intruding on you little retreat from reality.
By the way I don't suppose it interests you, but the calculated eye-height (camera height) for a horizon distance of 2.63 km is 0.55 m, which is about what the camera height was. But I did not post those photos as any evidence of the amount of curvature, just to show a sharp horizon - and whatever you might think I consider the horizon on the last two quite sharp, especially as they were taken with a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 1440 mm - that is quite a "long lens"!.