*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3115
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2022, 06:13:58 PM »
...  the farther away you are from objects, especially those at ground or water level, the less likely you are to see them. Imperfections in the surface and atmoplane being what they are.

Which has no bearing at all on observations wherein we can clearly see the objects which disprove the geometry of flat seas.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2022, 08:41:09 PM »
No, because I understand the farther away you are from objects, especially those at ground or water level, the less likely you are to see them. Imperfections in the surface and atmoplane being what they are.

Then, as per my previous comment here, there is little point in debating the quality of the video, poor though it may be. If you don’t accept the fundamentals of the experiment, as it would seem to be the case with Mark Sargent, then it is a waste of time.

Both AATW and Tumeni make good points - interested in your thoughts on the disappearing ship video.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3115
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2022, 09:07:57 PM »
The thing is, you don't actually NEED to see the ship go over the horizon to see that the sea is Not Flat.

If it were, any sightline to the surface, from any height above the surface, would form a right-angle triangle, and from there, school-level geometry rules apply.

If I look out from 100m elevation to a ship of height 52m, I have a downward sightline. All sightlines from 100m to zero pass through the 52m level. Conversely, a sightline from 100 through 52 must meet the surface at zero. It cannot miss it.

Any situation where I'm looking out from 100m to a ship of 52m air draught (height above waterline) and do not see water behind and beyond the top of the ship shows the seas cannot be flat. 

Previous starting point - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19213.0
« Last Edit: September 12, 2022, 09:14:12 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2022, 09:19:17 PM »
The thing is, you don't actually NEED to see the ship go over the horizon to see that the sea is Not Flat.

If it were, any sightline to the surface, from any height above the surface, would form a right-angle triangle, and from there, school-level geometry rules apply.

If I look out from 100m elevation to a ship of height 52m, I have a downward sightline. All sightlines from 100m to zero pass through the 52m level. Conversely, a sightline from 100 through 52 must meet the surface at zero. It cannot miss it.

Any situation where I'm looking out from 100m to a ship of 52m air draught (height above waterline) and do not see water behind and beyond the top of the ship shows the seas cannot be flat.

You can go a step further. The existence of a clear, distinct horizon over what is essentially an apparently even, level surface like the sea or a desert must mean the earth isn’t flat. If the earth was flat, we would see a blurry, mushy horizon every time, rather like those we sea on hazy days, because the meteorological visibility would invariably be less than the distance to the ‘horizon’, which in the case of the flat earth would be the edge of the planet, however far away that is.

Should this be a different thread? We are veering away from the original.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2022, 02:58:00 AM »
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6858
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2022, 03:23:35 AM »
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Possibly for the same reason that some people here want to claim that the earth is flat despite the fact that land is well noted for possessing mountains and canyons frequently exceeding heights and depths of thousands of feet.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3115
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2022, 07:49:46 AM »
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.

100 feet is approximately 30 metres.

When observing a ship of 52 metres, I think I can clearly see that the "waves and swells" are not reaching 60% of the height of the ship .....

I'm not asserting "anyone here" has written or claimed it in writing. But it's a common claim amongst other flat-earthers, and don't you think it's implied in the overall terminology?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2022, 08:57:15 AM »
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Is that your answer to what the ships are going behind and emerging from in the video I posted? I mean, the sea looks pretty calm in that video. You’d think you’d be able to see the ships bobbing around more if it was swells.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2022, 09:41:44 AM »
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Possibly for the same reason that some people here want to claim that the earth is flat despite the fact that land is well noted for possessing mountains and canyons frequently exceeding heights and depths of thousands of feet.
The fact that mountains, valleys, canyons, etc., exist does not detract from the concept of an otherwise flat plane.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2022, 09:50:41 AM »
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Is that your answer to what the ships are going behind and emerging from in the video I posted? I mean, the sea looks pretty calm in that video. You’d think you’d be able to see the ships bobbing around more if it was swells.
No, it is my answer to the placard.

As far as your ship, it is irrelevant to the OP.

But in the case of your ocean liner, it is obviously not 100 ft swells at the particular points in question, but they would not need to be in order to obscure the portions of the ship at the given moments. If I am six feet tall standing on the beach, then six-foot swells three miles out are going to start concealing portions of that ship from my view, not to mention the effects/interactions of the atmoplane and water.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2022, 09:54:36 AM »
not to mention the effects/interactions of the atmoplane and water.

What effects and interactions, precisely, are these? What could be happening to progressively obscure the lower portions of distant objects until they completely disappear from view?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2022, 09:55:43 AM »
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.

100 feet is approximately 30 metres.

When observing a ship of 52 metres, I think I can clearly see that the "waves and swells" are not reaching 60% of the height of the ship .....

I'm not asserting "anyone here" has written or claimed it in writing. But it's a common claim amongst other flat-earthers, and don't you think it's implied in the overall terminology?
No. I do not think the terminology of "flat earth," implies, instigates, or fosters a belief that mountains, valleys, or canyons cannot exist. That is just another feeble line promulgated by RE.

The waves and swells do not need to be 100 feet to commence obscuring portions of the ship that would be visible to an observer from shore.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2022, 11:16:21 AM by Action80 »
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2022, 09:59:01 AM »
not to mention the effects/interactions of the atmoplane and water.

What effects and interactions, precisely, are these? What could be happening to progressively obscure the lower portions of distant objects until they completely disappear from view?
Well, there is quite a bit of interaction between the atmoplane and water, depending on temperatures. Fog, haze, low-level precipitation, etc.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2022, 10:05:12 AM »
Well, there is quite a bit of interaction between the atmoplane and water, depending on temperatures. Fog, haze, low-level precipitation, etc.

Indeed, but if those things were causing the obscuration, we wouldn't see a discreet horizon line across the ship, would we? What we see is a solid horizontal line, below which the ship is invisible, and above which it is clearly in view. As the ship gets further away, the ship progressively disappears below that line. What exactly are you saying that the horizon line is?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2022, 10:14:11 AM »
Well, there is quite a bit of interaction between the atmoplane and water, depending on temperatures. Fog, haze, low-level precipitation, etc.

Indeed, but if those things were causing the obscuration, we wouldn't see a discreet horizon line across the ship, would we? What we see is a solid horizontal line, below which the ship is invisible, and above which it is clearly in view. As the ship gets further away, the ship progressively disappears below that line. What exactly are you saying that the horizon line is?
Are you claiming those things do not sometimes occur on a highly localized point, thereby allowing views of objects further in the distance, yet obscuring portions of, or even all of, objects closer to the viewer?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2022, 10:16:21 AM by Action80 »
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2022, 11:16:41 AM »
Are you claiming those things do not sometimes occur on a highly localized point, thereby allowing views of objects further in the distance, yet obscuring portions of, or even all of, objects closer to the viewer?

What exactly are you suggesting the horizon line is? Because it clearly isn't mist / fog etc in a 'highly localised point'.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2022, 11:18:41 AM »
Are you claiming those things do not sometimes occur on a highly localized point, thereby allowing views of objects further in the distance, yet obscuring portions of, or even all of, objects closer to the viewer?

What exactly are you suggesting the horizon line is? Because it clearly isn't mist / fog etc in a 'highly localised point'.
The discussion is not about the horizon, Bob, but I am going to try and clarify.

Sometimes I can see an object ten feet in front of my nose.

Sometimes I can even see objects claimed to be millions or billions of miles distant.

Other times, I cannot even see my own outstretched hand, held level in front of my face, because of the weather; yet, If I simply turn my gaze toward the sky, I can clearly see the moon and some stars at the same exact time.

The horizon is malleable and is dependent on a lot of conditions and location.

If I was on an otherwise flat desert and a sandstorm was afoot a mile away, I wouldn't see anything 1 mile and 1 inch away, if it was behind that sandstorm, yet I could see potentially see an automobile three miles away if I slightly turn my eyes to the left or right.

The discussion is about objects you can or cannot see and why.

And I think I even need to take my own advice, and just keep it focused on this crappy placard.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2022, 11:47:14 AM by Action80 »
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #37 on: September 13, 2022, 12:01:11 PM »

The discussion is not about the horizon, Bob, but I am going to try and clarify.

Sometimes I can see an object ten feet in front of my nose.

Sometimes I can even see objects claimed to be millions or billions of miles distant.

Other times, I cannot even see my own outstretched hand, held level in front of my face, because of the weather; yet, If I simply turn my gaze toward the sky, I can clearly see the moon and some stars at the same exact time.

The horizon is malleable and is dependent on a lot of conditions and location.

If I was on an otherwise flat desert and a sandstorm was afoot a mile away, I wouldn't see anything 1 mile and 1 inch away, if it was behind that sandstorm, yet I could see potentially see an automobile three miles away if I slightly turn my eyes to the left or right.

The discussion is about objects you can or cannot see and why.

And I think I even need to take my own advice, and just keep it focused on this crappy placard.

But it is about the horizon, because the horizon, whatever you think it may be, is clearly in between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship in the video (or indeed the badly drawn placard in the original NG video). You are absolutely correct in saying that, of course, on many days we can't see far at all - the lower layer of the atmosphere contains water or particulate matter that limits the visibility. If it's bad enough, even looking out to sea you won't get a distinct horizon at all. But if it's clear enough, we see that distinct horizontal line, clearly visible cutting across the ship in the video.

So again, what exactly do you think the horizon is?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2022, 12:24:39 PM »

The discussion is not about the horizon, Bob, but I am going to try and clarify.

Sometimes I can see an object ten feet in front of my nose.

Sometimes I can even see objects claimed to be millions or billions of miles distant.

Other times, I cannot even see my own outstretched hand, held level in front of my face, because of the weather; yet, If I simply turn my gaze toward the sky, I can clearly see the moon and some stars at the same exact time.

The horizon is malleable and is dependent on a lot of conditions and location.

If I was on an otherwise flat desert and a sandstorm was afoot a mile away, I wouldn't see anything 1 mile and 1 inch away, if it was behind that sandstorm, yet I could see potentially see an automobile three miles away if I slightly turn my eyes to the left or right.

The discussion is about objects you can or cannot see and why.

And I think I even need to take my own advice, and just keep it focused on this crappy placard.

But it is about the horizon, because the horizon, whatever you think it may be, is clearly in between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship in the video (or indeed the badly drawn placard in the original NG video). You are absolutely correct in saying that, of course, on many days we can't see far at all - the lower layer of the atmosphere contains water or particulate matter that limits the visibility. If it's bad enough, even looking out to sea you won't get a distinct horizon at all. But if it's clear enough, we see that distinct horizontal line, clearly visible cutting across the ship in the video.

So again, what exactly do you think the horizon is?
Obviously, you think it is the horizon that is between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship, only because the view is highly focused on just that ship. Pray tell, what is the FOV in question regarding the ship or even the placard at that particular distance, given the sole focus is those particular objects in the distance? How do you know the camera could not pick up something else visible a little further distant if it just diverted its direction left or right?
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 756
    • View Profile
Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« Reply #39 on: September 13, 2022, 12:30:35 PM »

Obviously, you think it is the horizon that is between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship, only because the view is highly focused on just that ship. Pray tell, what is the FOV in question regarding the ship or even the placard at that particular distance, given the sole focus is those particular objects in the distance? How do you know the camera could not pick up something else visible a little further distant if it just diverted its direction left or right?

Have you actually watched the ship video? If you had you would see the camera clearly pan around the horizon as it tracks several ships, including the two it focusses on, one disappearing and one reappearing as it sails closer. If you are seriously suggesting that is something other than the horizon then I’m out of ideas and this is pointless. It’s the horizon. I don’t know what else to say.