[inquisitive]

Are you saying the horizon is horizontal to you, whatever your altitude?  That cannot work from multiple locations.

[model 29]

I'm not going to perform hand held surveying experiments by holding a water device in one hand and a camera in the other,

What if this is done with the water level and camera both on tripods and steady with the camera centered vertically on the water level?

[AATW]

In theory Tom's experiment of a building being the obstacle between you and the horizon would be a good test of horizon dip but there are two problems
1) Buildings are, in general, not that tall. And significant horizon dip can only be seen and a fairly high altitude
2) The experiment only works if the building and camera are EXACTLY the same height. And how can you accurately determine that?

This is where the water level experiment wins because you can take the equipment to any height and because the two tubes are connected you can be sure that they are the same level as each other. So long you're looking across them so the level in the two tubes match up you know you're looking straight ahead and can determine whether the horizon is the same level or higher or lower.

The only reasonable objection to the video of the water experiment is that it's hand held and thus harder to see the result, but it's still clear enough as these stills show:



This is proof which there is no reasonable objection to.
Tom's real objection is that it clearly shows a result which he doesn't believe in so he has to dismiss it. Which is weird as horizon dip is not a matter of belief, it's something which can be clearly shown and measured. He isn't serious about investigating the truth or taking his own empirical measurements. He could easily reproduce this experiment at minimal cost. If his objection is that the camera and tubes are hand held then put the camera on a tripod, keep the water tubes still somehow. You'll get the same result.

He's only interested in empirical measurements which appear to back up the dogma he chooses to believe in. It's confirmation bias writ large.

[HorstFue]

He is standing in HIS seventh floor room, and horizon i aligned with THE TOP of seventh floor of the other building.
How high was he holding the camera?

That's not the only issue:
There's no evidence, that these two buildings are same hight.

• The hight of the floors maybe different. A seven floor building does not need to have the same hight as another seven floor building
• The ground the buildings are build on, may have different elevation

[Tumeni]

I ask why the experimenter in the water video did not first align the furthest spout of water with the horizon, and then attempt to align the closest spout with that line? Maybe because it might show something that is contrary to what he was trying to show?

It's water. It always "finds its own level" as all the best YouTube flat earthers keep saying. The rig is two vertical, connected tubes, and you can see that the single body of water occupies the two vertical and one horizontal tube between them by the way it sloshes about as the operator moves the rig.

Whatever angle the rig is held at, the water always finds a level - unless you disagree with this most basic of concepts?


....far fewer surveying errors since everything is set on the ground rather than being dependent on aligning angles in a device of unknown calibration or holding everything in your hands.

There's no need to align the rig at any particular angle. All that's needed is to hold it such that there's at least some water in each vertical tube. These two columns will form a level.

THEN move the camera to be LEVEL with this.

[AATW]

You either align your eye or the camera so the two water levels are the same and you’re looking across the top of them, that’s what happens in that video and you can clearly see the horizon is below that level at altitude and the amount below it increases with altitude. Or you align your eye/the camera with the first tube and the horizon and then see whether the other tube appears at the same level. It’s logically the same thing although the first is more intuitive.

[SiDawg]

The only time it's not at eye level is if there's hills mountain's on the horizon. Go up in a plane, the horizon matches your eyes. Look straight ahead, it remains at eye level. The sea? Level. Dr Rowbotham was able to explain this.

What part of what I said are you disagreeing with? Try this... look at a point on the ground 1.5 meters in front of you... your heads at about a 45 degree angle yeah? Now look at the ground about 3 meters infront of you...  whats that, about 30 degrees below eye level? Now 10 meters... now 50 meters...

Do you understand now? The angle to the ground NEVER reaches zero, just gets really really close to it... if it was "zero" then it wouldnt be below you would it, it would literally be infront of you. This is also essentially how perspective works. [Edit: I'm really just arguing a technicality here, not the "core" argument... and i'm describing perspective on an infinite flat plane. I think it's important FE understand how perspective works so they can understand exactly what it means when they say "the horizon rises to eye level" and exactly why that happens, but that's essentially a seperate debate, i'll shutup now lol. That video with the two tubes of water is brilliant... there's really no arguing your way out of that, clearly shows the curve of the earth]

[Tumeni]

You either align your eye or the camera so the two water levels are the same and you’re looking across the top of them, that’s what happens in that video and you can clearly see the horizon is below that level at altitude and the amount below it increases with altitude. Or you align your eye/the camera with the first tube and the horizon and then see whether the other tube appears at the same level. It’s logically the same thing although the first is more intuitive.

OR

Do the experiment with a single body of water, rather than two connected tubes.



Turn a tray like this upside down, set it on a firm support, introduce a few cms of water, wait for it to settle, and sight the camera along the level of the water.

[AATW]

Yes, that would work. As discussed I'm flying today - but it might be dark by the time we get to altitude.
Will be daytime when I come back and I don't have a window seat but if I can get a cup of water and can see the horizon clearly I can try and take a photo.
Have a feeling I won't be able to, will try and get a window seat next time!

[Max_Almond]

Here are six simple ways for measuring whether the horizon is at eye level or not:

1. Use a professional theodolite. Eye level is where the crosshair is:



2. Download and properly calibrate a theodolite app. Eye level is where the crosshair is:



3. Make your own theodolite using a spirit level. Eye level is level with the top of the spirit level, when you're sighting along it:



www.metabunk.org/posts/204999

4. Use parallel lines to find the vanishing point (which is always at eye level):



5. Take a picture of some actual eyes, with the camera at eye height, and see where the horizon is:



6. Use a homemade water level. Eye level is where the surfaces of the water are aligned:

[Max_Almond]

Nah, there's no way you could see this with the naked eye anyway. The top of the building is gonna resolve at at least that sort of angle. This is no proof at all. Your experiment is in fact the worst of the bunch unless you get much higher!

This exact experiment has been done at higher altitudes.

First of all, the buildings in Hawaii 'experiment':

1. Are we sure the buildings are the same design and dimensions?
2. Are we sure that they're exactly the same height above sea level (e.g., could one be a little bit downhill from the other)?
3. As shown, does anyone really think 7 storeys is high enough to tell whether eye level is at or above the horizon?
4. In actual fact, there's no real difference between this and the homemade water level experiments - other than the water level experiments are much better.

Now on to the Jon McIntyres 'Mountain of Evidence' video:

1. When done properly, it's a very good experiment, and a foolproof way of demonstrating the shape of the earth.
2. The problem with this one is that it wasn't done properly: in a nutshell, he had his viewing position and observer elevation wrong, which messed up his results (very easily verifiable, as shown here: www.metabunk.org/posts/191401).
3. Tom, are you aware that Jon himself has refuted the video, having realised his error?
4. Inspired by this experiment, I devised a method to use any suitable mountain range where observer location and elevation is known to figure out the shape of the earth. It's perhaps a little complex for most, but absolutely undeniable once understood: www.metabunk.org/posts/207142.