[HorstFue]

The Round Earth is far too large to see curvature like that. If you could see vertical curvature, you should be able to see horizontal curvature on the horizon.

I've been out at sea: The horizon is a straight line all around you, 360°...
All points on the horizon have the same distance to the observer, so it's a circle, and you are nearly close to the center, a tiny bit above it. What is the projection of a circle seen from the side: A straight line.

Or make an analog experiment: Take a hula hoop or a similar ring with enough diameter, put your head in the middle of the ring, raise it to your eye level and hold it horizontal. What do you see: a straight line.

Or, if left and right ends of the horizon dip down, how can you connect them again, if you do a full 360° turn?

Related:  Experiment 7 in Earth not a globe
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za12.htm

At any altitude above the sea-level, fix a long board--say from 6 to 12 or more feet in length--edgewise upon tripods, as shown in fig. 17. Let the upper edge be smooth, and perfectly leveled. On placing the eye behind and about the centre of the board B, B, and looking over it towards the sea, the distant horizon will be observed to run perfectly parallel with its upper edge. If the eye be now directed in an angular direction to the left and to the right, there will be no difficulty in observing a length of ten to twenty miles, according to the altitude of the position; and this whole distance of twenty miles of sea horizon will be seen as a perfectly straight line.

Rowbotham does not give a hight above sea level, he said "any altitude", so I take 2 meters, than the horizon is about 3 miles (nautical) away. How does a line of 20 miles fit into a circle of 3 miles radius?

[Curious Squirrel]

I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do we agree these transmission lines exist?

Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?

Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.

Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.

Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?

He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.

He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.

That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.

Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.

1) Just because someone posts a video does not make it credible evidence to suggest anything other than they have an objective in sharing the video. With the quality of editing software, lenses and capturing equipment, processors and video cards there is no rational reason to believe what you see in a video. In fact, the way we have classically tested these things is with personal observations. You have observed Youtube.com and believe what you see. That's fine, but for you to expect anyone else to "dissprove" what you see and therefore choose to believe in fact is of faulty logic. There is no way for me or anyone to disprove your beliefs. You may believe The Lion King was 100% actual footage - this does not mean I have (or can for that matter) to prove to you that it is not actual footage for it to be what it actually is. The earth may still be flat no matter how foolish we all become. It may be a ball, there may be cheese inside, the cake may in fact be the truth. (The cake is a lie!)

2)One explanation was given as to how this would happen on a flat earth. Video editing. It happens to be a very solid answer. Have you visited this site? Have you done any actual observing of this perspective?

Final thoughts) Thork certainly made himself look foolish early on in this thread, there is no question of that. I don't think that makes his points any more or less valid so attacking his foolishness does not give any further credibility to the OP video. Here is one more video for you to take a look at, it contradicts the other video that you believe already, now you have to make a choice. Both videos hold the same amount of water for me.

<iframe width="642" height="392" src="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

1) Simply claiming "FAKE" to anything that disagrees with your worldview isn't how this works. He's posited that it's fake. He needs to conclusively back this up in order to dismiss the evidence presented. If you want to dismiss all video and photographic evidence on the basis of "Well anything can be faked nowadays" then why bother engaging in a debate or discussion? To dismiss such evidence you must present a compelling reason or evidence to it's fakery. Thork tried by claiming the towers did not exist, and some images that made sense within that context. Those images and that tweet now need more context, in light of the towers existing. By themselves they are not evidence of trickery, only a curiosity that could use some more information.

2) It's a good answer, but it requires actual proof. See answer to #1. Waving your hands and shouting "FAKE" only makes you look the fool.

As to your video, yes I've seen that one. Couple of issues with it though. First, his camera leaves much to be desired in resolution further out. Makes it hard to tell a whole lot. BUT I would point out how the pylons on the bottom appear to see less and less of them the further out you go. Why would that be? Could they be vanishing behind the curve? Second, the original photo and video makes use of a very specific perspective effect to enhance/embellish the appearance of a curve. I have no doubt looking at it in such a way as this video does could make them appear flat and level. The curve is very small compared to the 100 foot tall towers. Lastly, some commenters suggest he might be showing a different set of towers all together. I'm not certain how likely this is without more information, but it's at least a reasonable explanation regardless of how much stock one puts in it.

Both videos can in fact show the truth. That's the fun part. There's no need for either to have doctored the videos using software, as with the naked eye those towers probably do look very flat! This is why the first video and the images brought in a very specific perspective effect to help amplify the appearance of the curve. There's no need whatsoever to have to pick one, when both can be correct in so far as what they're showing!

[a_violet_fluid]

I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do we agree these transmission lines exist?

Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?

Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.

Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.

Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?

He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.

He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.

That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.

Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.

1) Just because someone posts a video does not make it credible evidence to suggest anything other than they have an objective in sharing the video. With the quality of editing software, lenses and capturing equipment, processors and video cards there is no rational reason to believe what you see in a video. In fact, the way we have classically tested these things is with personal observations. You have observed Youtube.com and believe what you see. That's fine, but for you to expect anyone else to "dissprove" what you see and therefore choose to believe in fact is of faulty logic. There is no way for me or anyone to disprove your beliefs. You may believe The Lion King was 100% actual footage - this does not mean I have (or can for that matter) to prove to you that it is not actual footage for it to be what it actually is. The earth may still be flat no matter how foolish we all become. It may be a ball, there may be cheese inside, the cake may in fact be the truth. (The cake is a lie!)

2)One explanation was given as to how this would happen on a flat earth. Video editing. It happens to be a very solid answer. Have you visited this site? Have you done any actual observing of this perspective?

Final thoughts) Thork certainly made himself look foolish early on in this thread, there is no question of that. I don't think that makes his points any more or less valid so attacking his foolishness does not give any further credibility to the OP video. Here is one more video for you to take a look at, it contradicts the other video that you believe already, now you have to make a choice. Both videos hold the same amount of water for me.

<iframe width="642" height="392" src="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

1) Simply claiming "FAKE" to anything that disagrees with your worldview isn't how this works. He's posited that it's fake. He needs to conclusively back this up in order to dismiss the evidence presented. If you want to dismiss all video and photographic evidence on the basis of "Well anything can be faked nowadays" then why bother engaging in a debate or discussion? To dismiss such evidence you must present a compelling reason or evidence to it's fakery. Thork tried by claiming the towers did not exist, and some images that made sense within that context. Those images and that tweet now need more context, in light of the towers existing. By themselves they are not evidence of trickery, only a curiosity that could use some more information.

2) It's a good answer, but it requires actual proof. See answer to #1. Waving your hands and shouting "FAKE" only makes you look the fool.

As to your video, yes I've seen that one. Couple of issues with it though. First, his camera leaves much to be desired in resolution further out. Makes it hard to tell a whole lot. BUT I would point out how the pylons on the bottom appear to see less and less of them the further out you go. Why would that be? Could they be vanishing behind the curve? Second, the original photo and video makes use of a very specific perspective effect to enhance/embellish the appearance of a curve. I have no doubt looking at it in such a way as this video does could make them appear flat and level. The curve is very small compared to the 100 foot tall towers. Lastly, some commenters suggest he might be showing a different set of towers all together. I'm not certain how likely this is without more information, but it's at least a reasonable explanation regardless of how much stock one puts in it.

Both videos can in fact show the truth. That's the fun part. There's no need for either to have doctored the videos using software, as with the naked eye those towers probably do look very flat! This is why the first video and the images brought in a very specific perspective effect to help amplify the appearance of the curve. There's no need whatsoever to have to pick one, when both can be correct in so far as what they're showing!

When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.

There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.

Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.

[Curious Squirrel]

When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.

There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.

Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.

There's no need to bring faith in here in an attempt to steer the conversation away from facts. You don't need to act condescending, it's unbecoming.

Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded, and it was demonstrated how the effect seen could be created using certain techniques that were also shown to not create a curve where there is none. If we're to go with your court analogy, it's now on the defendant to cast doubt onto the evidence once again. Which has been attempted with the second video, and as I pointed out that video is taken both from a poor quality camera (and still might be displaying signs of curvature) but it doesn't appear to be using the correct angle required to create this visual 'trick' of enhancing the curve. Now, in a court case this would indeed be up to the jury how much they wish to allow this statement to allay the doubts about the original information that has been raised. But I would also point out (despite the FES insistence it's not the case) the default position is that of a round Earth. So while the second video may create doubt upon the first video, I personally feel even to a neutral observer there is not yet reason to doubt the evidence within the first.

You keep coming back to "You can't trust YouTube videos" which is fair. But when we have information presented to us from other sources showing how an odd effect is created, there creates more certainty for a video showing things correctly. You once again appear to be operating from this stance of "No visual media is to be trusted" which....alright. That's fine. But, why discuss or debate a visual media when you don't think it's reliable to begin with? Not to mention raising the second video. Why is that one any more trustworthy to you than the first? I would posit they are BOTH unedited in any way, and one is simply making use of a very specific technique to show something, while the other is not. Once again, even a couple feet of dip will be quite negligible compared to the heights of the towers, AND the supporting pillars at the bottom *appear* to become shorter in comparison to the height of the water in the second video. But as for the second bit, his video is not of sufficient quality to be certain.

[Roger G]

I'm back after my 3 day ban, having missed this entire thread. The OP asked what I thought of the video so I will respond to him first. I think the video is interesting and would be difficult to fake such a complex moving image in any software that I know. It would be possibly simpler if the video was not zooming in and out and showing handheld movement. It has certainly been taken with a high degree of zoom to enhance the effect of curvature, did someone say 83x? One of my video cameras has an optical zoom of 40 times and a digital zoom of 1500x so I can confirm from my own experiences that extreme zoom can give views that the naked eye wouldn't. The video shown by the OP seems to have been taken at a lower height then the later video and at a much more acute angle to the pylon line, which would make it much clearer if there apparent curvature in the relationship between the height of the towers receding into the distance. The second video is taken from a little higher as far as I can see, but more importantly, is taken at a far less acute angle and with a poor quality lens, probably a phone, so with less towers clearly visible close together it's not really practical to say there is no curvature visible. As has been said, neither video is conclusive proof of RE or FE, although the OP is more convincing. There are better bays to conduct the horizon experiment that I will have a go at next Spring as I am in a part of the UK that has some suitable areas. I will also be taking my boat out to sea again and taking some video of things appearing over the horizon in real time, both at deck height and with a masthead camera.

What is quite interesting from this thread is that both Baby Thork and Tom love to use the 'anything can be photo shopped' get out, but in common with many other denials quite clearly have absolutely no idea of what is possible and not possible in photo shop.I would love to here from either of them how they would go about the process in technical detail as evidence. Photo shop is a photographic processing software programme that can enable the user to do some amazing editing and is a programme that I use almost every day in my business. I also use a couple of video editing programmes daily, and after 35 years of making videos, would love to be able to do half the things that are claimed on this forum. Using High end film company CGI facilities, rotoscoping and very sophisticated techniques are possible to highly trained and skilled operatives, but they are hardly going to waste their time on amateur handheld footage when they can earn big money in the CGI industry.

Roger

[juner]

The OP asked what I thought of the video so I will respond to him first.

Just a FYI, OP didn’t ask you specifically. OP used the [you] tag, which displays the name of whoever is viewing the post. It is fine and fun in the lower fora, but misleading in the upper fora.

[Roger G]

The OP asked what I thought of the video so I will respond to him first.

Just a FYI, OP didn’t ask you specifically. OP used the [you] tag, which displays the name of whoever is viewing the post. It is fine and fun in the lower fora, but misleading in the upper fora.

Sorry Junker I must still be battered by the ban, so it would be great if you could explain please. The OP concluded his original post with 'What do you think, Roger G? Good shit, or bunk shit?' My apologies if I misunderstood, but he did appear to be asking me what I thought, especially as I hadn't previously viewed it as you banned me earlier.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but it would help my future posting if I understand 

Thanks for your help,

Roger

[Rama Set]

Roger if you go back and use the quote function on the OP you won’t see your name but a bbcode tag instead.

[a_violet_fluid]

When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.

There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.

Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.

There's no need to bring faith in here in an attempt to steer the conversation away from facts.

Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...

YOU are the one bringing faith into this discussion. You believe the youtube tapes are fact, or you at the very least use that position as a basis for your argument. I am saying they can be disputed and lack the credibility of personal observation and data gathering. Your faith in this document as representing fact is being passed off as just beliving a fact when it is presented. This aims to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with you as a denyer of fact since they do not accept the evidence presented as a legitimate document. The video is not enough, we need reliable data based on ovservation that can be interperated, taught, understood, and observed.

Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...

They were never PROVEN unfounded. Certainly he made himself look like a fool, but it gave no new credibility to the video, and it did not PROVE anything.

Lastly, I won't engage in this back and forth with you any longer. You throw words like "fact" and "proven" around like they are tools to sharing your point of view. This is futile if you refuse to play by the rules of argument.

[Curious Squirrel]

When you bring evidence into a court the burden of proof is never on the jury. The burden lies on the prosecution and they build their case in such a way that the evidence presentation corroborates and may even expand upon the case they have built. This is sound logical approach for the jury since they remain on the fence in order to see both sides soundly in an attempt to find the truth in order to help the judge serve justice. If the jury just believed everything you rolled in on a TV/VCR cart then Disney would be the best team of lawyers on earth who would win 100% of cases. There is not much more for me to try to illustrate you, video evidence was presented, it was challenged and refuted and as I have no actual observations from the point of the shot, I have to dismiss the evidence as incredible. It's a cute video for sure, but nothing more. Just think about our real world for one minute. When you measure a distance from city to city, you get a number. You can share that number and a friend and he can corroborate that observation by making a same or similar observation. This video fails that test hard. There is another video from a similar perspective and its vastly different... so how can you look at either as relevant? You have look at other real world results that we ourselves can observe and corroborate as concrete evidence. I'm sorry, but movies are not one of those things.

There is one plausible reason that we might look at the presented video and go forward with it as evidence of it's creators claims. Faith. Religion. Belief. You don't need any verifiable reality to be scared of ghosts as you walk down into a dark basement, you don't need any proof to believe there is 99 virgins waiting for you wherever allah is chilling these days. There is nothing wrong with this IMO, just be sure you know this is where you stand on the issue. This matters because I am arguing logic and reasoning against your faith and religion. If you cannot see that for what it is, we will never get through the other side. I'm not saying the video is right or wrong, I am saying it is unverifyable nonsense irrelevant to the OP topic, even though it was the OP.

Lastly I don't mean to attack your religion. The earth may be round, youtube videos may tell the truth, I don't know - but I know that's not where my faith is.

There's no need to bring faith in here in an attempt to steer the conversation away from facts.

Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...

YOU are the one bringing faith into this discussion. You believe the youtube tapes are fact, or you at the very least use that position as a basis for your argument. I am saying they can be disputed and lack the credibility of personal observation and data gathering. Your faith in this document as representing fact is being passed off as just beliving a fact when it is presented. This aims to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with you as a denyer of fact since they do not accept the evidence presented as a legitimate document. The video is not enough, we need reliable data based on ovservation that can be interperated, taught, understood, and observed.

Thork raised objections to the video. They were proven unfounded...

They were never PROVEN unfounded. Certainly he made himself look like a fool, but it gave no new credibility to the video, and it did not PROVE anything.

Lastly, I won't engage in this back and forth with you any longer. You throw words like "fact" and "proven" around like they are tools to sharing your point of view. This is futile if you refuse to play by the rules of argument.

Thork's objections were based on the fact the poles did not exist. They were shown to exist, and as such proven unfounded. You are the one who can't seem to figure out the rules of debate. You've presented no evidence to doubt the contents of the video beyond "It's a video and could have been doctored". We've had one person commenting as well that the amount of work doing such a thing would take is beyond the paygrade of most home shop people. The second video shown doesn't dispute the contents of the first video in any way. If you refuse to take anything presented at face value until proven otherwise (or because of knowledge you hold yourself) then I have to ask once again. Why bother discussing anything? I take the video at face value because other images have shown the effect is one that can be properly duplicated, and objections to it have not been properly sourced. As well I cannot find reason to suspect the author was acting in poor faith in this instance. Has Thork raised the potential for tomfoolery with the video? Sure. But has it conclusively rejected the video? Not at all. What he's presented lacks context, or has been demonstrated to be false.

We have data given on how to recreate the video. We have data showing how the video was created. As it stands I see no reasonably supported objection to the video. Yes, it 'lacks the credibility of personal observation and data gathering' but if you only trust or believe what you yourself experience and witness, there's no discussion to be had. I don't have the equipment to recreate such an effect, much less live close enough to do it. But a friend with more knowledge in the field assures me such an effect is possible as well.

[nickrulercreator]

Here's some solid goodness:

A classic experiment to demonstrate the curvature of a body of water is to place markers (like flags) a fixed distance above the water in a straight line, and then view them along that line in a telescope. If the water surface is flat then the markers will appear also in a straight line. If the surface of the water is curved (as it is here on Earth) then the markers in the middle will appear higher than the markers at the ends. Here's a highly exaggerated diagram of the effect by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870:



This is a difficult experiment to do as you need a few miles for the curvature to be apparent. You also need the markers to be quite high above the surface of the water, as temperature differences between the water and the air tend to create significant refraction effects close to the water.

However Youtuber Soundly has found a spot where there's a very long line of markers permanently fixed at constant heights above the water line, clearly demonstrating the curve. It's a line of power transmission towers at Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, Louisiana.

What do you think, Guest? Good shit, or bunk shit?

This is some good shit. It'd take too much faith for it to be fake. Too many plans, photos, and 3rd party videos all showing the same thing for it to be fake. In no way would it converge if it were perspective. Those power lines are perfectly straight. Can't be anything but curvature.

[StinkyOne]

I'm confused, are we still at the point where Baby Thork says there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain?
Here are images taken for Google Street View, nothing to do with this particular person you claim is a hoaxster:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0768638,-90.402843,3a,75y,22.28h,90.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVUWxPl82X6d4jV1OgR1Hsw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do we agree these transmission lines exist?

Here's a zoom and slightly better angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0772081,-90.4033617,3a,15y,19.76h,89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLNqcDcqaUoVmv-LDOCZ1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Do you doubt it's possible to go there and get a photograph of higher quality than this?

Thork was right to question the very existence of those transmission lines, considering that the person who presented them as evidence was shown to be a liar.

Well, having proven their existence, can we get back to how the existence of curvature shown in these photo's is explained in the FE hypothesis? I think it was pretty clearly demonstrated in the original thread and linked images that the only way to produce a look of a curve using this technique is for the curve to already exist.The forced perspective technique being used simply highlights and enhances a curve already there, but was shown to not create one where one didn't exist.

Its a photoshop hoax that was used to win an argument. Thork has shown that pretty clearly. What more is there to explain?

He claimed the towers didn't exist, and was shown to be wrong quite conclusively I thought. We have records of them being put up, we have multiple sources unrelated to flat Earth conjecture/debate showing they exist. They have been proven to exist without a doubt.

He appeared to claim (which you are now stating) that it was an editing job. But the 'proof' for this is inconclusive at best. Especially when it's been shown the effect of the enhanced/magnified curvature can be created through simple camera and perspective tricks.

That leaves you with a few option if you are going to approach this honestly.
1) Present actual, conclusive and compelling evidence the curvature was faked in some manner. We currently have an image with no context, and a tweet with no context. Thork fabricated the context for both of these to fit the point/side he was presenting, but presented no evidence his context is correct.
2) Explain how this works on a flat Earth. How can there be an appearance of a curve upon a flat plane? This is what must be answered.

Alternatively do exactly what you just did and claim there is nothing left to discuss and leave the thread as Thork has done.

1) Just because someone posts a video does not make it credible evidence to suggest anything other than they have an objective in sharing the video. With the quality of editing software, lenses and capturing equipment, processors and video cards there is no rational reason to believe what you see in a video. In fact, the way we have classically tested these things is with personal observations. You have observed Youtube.com and believe what you see. That's fine, but for you to expect anyone else to "dissprove" what you see and therefore choose to believe in fact is of faulty logic. There is no way for me or anyone to disprove your beliefs. You may believe The Lion King was 100% actual footage - this does not mean I have (or can for that matter) to prove to you that it is not actual footage for it to be what it actually is. The earth may still be flat no matter how foolish we all become. It may be a ball, there may be cheese inside, the cake may in fact be the truth. (The cake is a lie!)

2)One explanation was given as to how this would happen on a flat earth. Video editing. It happens to be a very solid answer. Have you visited this site? Have you done any actual observing of this perspective?

Final thoughts) Thork certainly made himself look foolish early on in this thread, there is no question of that. I don't think that makes his points any more or less valid so attacking his foolishness does not give any further credibility to the OP video. Here is one more video for you to take a look at, it contradicts the other video that you believe already, now you have to make a choice. Both videos hold the same amount of water for me.

<iframe width="642" height="392" src="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?

[Tom Bishop]

You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?

Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.

[StinkyOne]

You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?

Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.

Google something along the lines of "Chicago skyline from lake Michigan" or "Toronto skyline from lake Ontario". There are plenty of pics where people have zoomed in from long distances that show portions of the skyline hidden by the curve of the Earth. I'm guessing you've seen them as they do show up on this site from time to time.

[TomInAustin]

You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?

Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.

Try these

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Chicago+skyline+from+lake+Michigan%22&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd6Mj0kajYAhVo6YMKHb5tBLsQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=949#imgrc=jLqjHFTGpFLeMM:

[Tom Bishop]

You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?

Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.

Google something along the lines of "Chicago skyline from lake Michigan" or "Toronto skyline from lake Ontario". There are plenty of pics where people have zoomed in from long distances that show portions of the skyline hidden by the curve of the Earth. I'm guessing you've seen them as they do show up on this site from time to time.

Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea.

Show us something that looks like things are actually curving away, like the images in the op, but taken by someone else.

[StinkyOne]

You might have a point if there weren't thousands of photos online showing the same effect that were taken by people who aren't even aware "flat earth" is still a thing. Like it or not, the evidence for a round Earth is massive. What can FEH predict that isn't already explained on a round Earth?

Show us some of these "thousands of photos" by those people.

Google something along the lines of "Chicago skyline from lake Michigan" or "Toronto skyline from lake Ontario". There are plenty of pics where people have zoomed in from long distances that show portions of the skyline hidden by the curve of the Earth. I'm guessing you've seen them as they do show up on this site from time to time.

Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea.

Show us something that looks like things are actually curving away, like the images in the op, but taken by someone else.

Here you go. Same subject. Different person, no zoom, different angle - curve still visible in the far distance. Further, this person appears to be just a photographer - I see no mention of FE/RE.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/romamar76/6993318942

[Pete Svarrior]

So, where's the curve?

[Rama Set]

Towards the horizon. It’s tough to tell if it is a linear recession due to shrinking angular diameter of the towers or if the line is curving though. It looks like it could be curving but without a visual aide it is fought to tell if it is a tromp d’oeil or not.

[Rama Set]

Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea.

No they aren’t. Unless light bends in strange and erratic ways while appearing to travel in a straight line, ENaG utterly fails to explain how stadiums and the lower half of office towers can be missing.