[Max_Almond]

Here's a picture of some mountains in Washington and Oregon taken from the summit of South Sister at ~10,360 feet:


Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rhane/372202821/in/photostream/

Forgetting about the complete and total incompatibility of the apparent heights of the mountains with the flat earth model for a moment, please answer this simple question:

If the earth is flat, where is eye level?

[edby]

Here's a picture of some mountains in Washington and Oregon taken from the summit of South Sister at ~10,360 feet:


Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rhane/372202821/in/photostream/

Forgetting about the complete and total incompatibility of the apparent heights of the mountains with the flat earth model for a moment, please answer this simple question:

If the earth is flat, where is eye level?

Eye level must be close to the summit of Mt Jefferson (10,497) given that the photo was taken at a similar height. All distant points of that height will also be at eye level, if the earth is flat.

So what's the problem?

[Bobby Shafto]

If the earth is flat, where is eye level?

I thought I could do it using Mt Jefferson and the Middle Sister as a gauge, but produces a conflict with the more distant peaks of Mts Adam, Hood and Ranier.

But if I use one of those distant peaks, eye level is too low for the nearer peaks. 

 

[Max_Almond]

All I know is, if the earth is flat, eye level is quite a ways below Mount Rainier, and quite a bit higher than Olallie Butte.

[Bobby Shafto]

Here's a picture of some mountains in Washington and Oregon taken from the summit of South Sister at ~10,360 feet:


Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rhane/372202821/in/photostream/

Forgetting about the complete and total incompatibility of the apparent heights of the mountains with the flat earth model for a moment, please answer this simple question:

If the earth is flat, where is eye level?

This is quite the conundrum.

If the shot was really taken around 10,360 feet, then (if flat) the level line would have to be somewhere above the North Sister 10,090' summit but below 14,411' Mt Rainier.  Perspective won't allow something at an elevation of 14,411' to fall below eye level or something at 10,090' to go above eye level. They will both converge to eye level, but how could they flip-flop, with the higher, more distant peak going below eye level and the lower, near peak going above eye level?

Can't.

[Max_Almond]

I suppose that explains why no flat earther, either here or on YouTube, has taken on the challenge and engaged with the question.

[AATW]

Eye level must be close to the summit of Mt Jefferson (10,497) given that the photo was taken at a similar height. All distant points of that height will also be at eye level, if the earth is flat.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that if something is above your eye height then you look up at it, it remains above "eye level".
And if something is below your eye height then you look down at it, it remains below "eye level".
This is true no matter how far away the objects are, this can be easily confirmed by observations and explained by simple geometry.

So taking a few of the mountains and doing a very, very rough diagram of how they should look on a flat earth:



These 4 peaks should be very roughly in a straight line. Actually you'd be looking slightly up along the line of mountains but given the distances involved the angle would be very shallow.
But that isn't what we observe in that photo.
Adams is clearly lower than Hood and Hood is clearly lower than Jefferson despite Adams being taller than Hood and Hood being taller than Jefferson.
On a flat earth this is not what we should see.

I'm struggling to explain it.

[Cocopuff]

Because the Earth is not flat...

[Bobby Shafto]

That's aligned but not level.

Never mind. My reading mistake.

[AATW]

That's aligned but not level.

Not clear what point you're making here? The dotted line - light of sight - isn't level, it's sloping slightly upwards because the mountains get progressively taller so you'd be able to see Adams over Hood and Hood over Jefferson. On a flat earth.
But that isn't what the photo shows.

[Bobby Shafto]

I misread what you wrote. Sorry. I retract.

[Max_Almond]

Using a calculator, I was able to predict where each peak would appear according to each model, simply using the stated distances and elevations.

Here's where the peaks would appear if the earth was flat:



And here's where they would appear if the earth was a sphere:



Shall we have a vote on which model best matches reality?

[Tom Bishop]

As we have several different time lapses showing that a sinking effect is occuring in the distance half the time, single pictures don't really cut it anymore. We can equally find several "mountains prove flat earth" videos on YouTube.

The timelapses of the sinking ship effect cast doubt on all sinking photos. You need an experiment that controls for refraction.

It can sometimes get close to what a Round Earth predicts, but not exact. A member of our forums, Bobby, was taking pictures of a sinking effect that changed every day he looked, providing further evidence that this effect is an illusion.

The round earth excuse is that it was earth curvature + illusion, but that is neither here nor there.

[Max_Almond]

Lol. Nice one Tom: we can always rely on you to pull one out of thin air. ;-)

What's interesting is: all the photos I've seen from South Sister, taken by different people on different days, match.

Peakfinder and other panorama makers match these images.

All the measurements involved in this scene match the sphere earth mathematics, and are totally at odds with flat earth mathematics.

All other shots of mountain ranges I've looked at also agree with the above.

Of course, nobody disputes that views over water from low elevation are very changeable. But it's not really the same thing.

Anyway, I know you're not to be convinced, and there's probably nowhere sensible we can go with this, but just to point out your fallacy and move on.

Cheers.

[stack]

As we have several different time lapses showing that a sinking effect is occuring in the distance half the time, single pictures don't really cut it anymore.

Can you be more specific regarding "half the time"? Sure, we've all seen some miraging timelapses, like the skunk bay one, but I would hardly be so bold to say that they account for 50% of all sinking ship videos, if that's what you're claiming. And none of which ever account for the sinking ship completely 'sinking'.

We can equally find several "mountains prove flat earth" videos on YouTube.

Do share then.

The timelapses of the sinking ship effect cast doubt on all sinking photos. You need an experiment that controls for refraction.

If you mean skunk bay, no they don't cast doubt on any sinking photos. If you have other timelapses that show miraging I have just as many that don't. So this is neither here nor there.

Describe an experiment that controls for refraction. What do you mean by that exactly?

It can sometimes get close to what a Round Earth predicts, but not exact. A member of our forums, Bobby, was taking pictures of a sinking effect that changed every day he looked, providing further evidence that this effect is an illusion.

Time and time again, the margin of error is far more in favor of RE than FE. Even in the Turning Torso examination we found RE off by 10% and FE off by 80%, both not accounting for refraction. I'm ok with 10% margin of error.

And as for Bobby's experiments of late, the changes were not daily. There were some days when significant miraging occurred and many days when it did not.

The round earth excuse is that it was earth curvature + illusion, but that is neither here nor there.

It's kind of disingenuous to point the refraction/miraging magic wand solely at RE when it's gainfully employed in explaining sunsets and sunrises in ALL circumstances for FE. There is no greater use of 'illusion' than that.

[Tumeni]

As we have several different time lapses showing that a sinking effect is occuring in the distance half the time, single pictures don't really cut it anymore.

The presence of a time lapse of something else forms no sort of disproof of the content of this photo, especially when you haven't accounted for the other half of the time lapses .....

We can equally find several "mountains prove flat earth" videos on YouTube.

Where? Which videos?

You need an experiment that controls for refraction.

You need to show whether or not there's any refraction to be accounted for in the first place.

[AATW]

The timelapses of the sinking ship effect cast doubt on all sinking photos. You need an experiment that controls for refraction.

It can sometimes get close to what a Round Earth predicts, but not exact. A member of our forums, Bobby, was taking pictures of a sinking effect that changed every day he looked, providing further evidence that this effect is an illusion.

Why do you keep repeating this lie?

It provided evidence that the atmospheric effects are complicated.

Honestly, the way you hop around from explanation to explanation about this effect is ridiculous.
First it doesn't exist at all, ships can be restored with magnification.
Then when clear evidence is provided of ships zoomed in and not restored it's "waves".
And now it's all an illusion.

[Tom Bishop]

The daily changing nature of the effect was proof that an illusion was occuring.

Your excuse of "it's curvature of the earth + illusion" is not evidence. It is an assertion, and a baseless one.

[Max_Almond]

All this talk of illusion and atmosphere is deflecting from the topic of the thread, which is the photo taken from South Sister.

Can I bring everyone's attention back to the fact that the mathematical sphere earth prediction for where the mountain peaks would appear in a photo matches to an incredibly high degree of accuracy? Whereas the flat earth predictions are incredibly inaccurate.

Take another look at the two images above. Let that sink in. There's no effect on earth that would put those mountains where they would be if the earth was flat.

[AATW]

The daily changing nature of the effect was proof that an illusion was occuring.

Yes. Refraction is a thing. It is complex and difficult to account for to make observations perfectly match a simple model of a globe earth with no atmosphere. There will be some margin of error.

Your excuse of "it's curvature of the earth + illusion" is not evidence. It is an assertion, and a baseless one.

The photos above demonstrate we live on a globe. They don’t in any way match a FE model. If you are disagreeing and saying the photos don’t demonstrate a globe then it is YOUR excuse of “flat earth + illusion” which is a baseless assertion.

If you want to post a video of mountains showing a flat earth for review then that would help move things on.