[Tumeni]

Based on RE theory, the super-imposed tower that you see there would have to have been taken at a much closer distance than the overall picture since you would have to get closer to get over the curve (unless of course the earth is flat).

Yes

The relative size of the tower taken at a close distance should be a different size than the very distant tower in the overall picture. How is it that they are aligned so perfectly in this picture? I'm not buying it. The super-imposed picture appears to have been modified to fit the size of the overall picture.

Yes, the smaller picture has been resized so that the building is the same size in both. The comparison is meaningless otherwise.

You would need to use a camera with a higher zoom and aspect ratio to see closer to the base of the tower in order to determine if you can, or cannot actually see its base.

More zoom in the big picture? Surely that's the point - zooming in doesn't restore the base, you need to get closer to do that

[Mikefaith13]

This is a photo of the Toronto skyline taken from Olcott, New York (elevation around 30 feet above the lake) about 39 miles away.



Question is: where is eye level?

If you can, please draw a line in paint or photoshop and repost the picture.

PS You may want to bear in mind the following:

1. When pictures are posted showing that the horizon appears to be below eye level, flat earthers tend to state that the horizon is obscured by haze, and that the horizon would actually be at eye level - ie, level with the horizontal red line in the picture below - but we just can't see it.



2. When pictures are posted of distant skylines obscured by water, such as this one:



flat earthers tend to state that it's actually waves or haze that's obscuring the bottoms of the buildings.

The interesting thing about this, though, is that #1 puts the actual flat earth horizon above the horizon in the photo, and #2 puts the actual flat earth horizon below the horizon in the photo.

(To explain #2: the photographer was 30 feet above the lake. The lower 600 feet of the CN Tower is hidden. Therefore 30 feet above the lake on the Toronto side - which must also be at the same level as the photographer - ie, "eye level" - is quite some distance below the horizon in the picture.)

"Eye level" - and therefore "the actual horizon" - can't be both below and above the horizon we see in the photo at the same time.

This is especially obvious if we imagine a photo which both includes a way to measure eye level and a view across water to a distant skyline.

Something like this:



So, given that "eye level" is not that difficult to calculate, discover, and draw, where is eye level in this pic?

the horizon always follows eye level

[Mikefaith13]

Eye level follows the horizon seems nomatter how hi u go

[Max_Almond]

Eye level follows the horizon seems no matter how high you go.

Can you explain that, or show evidence to back it up?

[Tumeni]

Eye level follows the horizon seems nomatter how hi u go

How hi have you been?

[QED]

This thread raises an interesting issue that is testable. If the Earth is flat, then objects at a distance should appear smaller, but we should still see the entire object. If the Earth was curved, then we would see only the tops of the objects, since the bottoms would lay below the horizon. This is related to the pictures shown in this thread and the ideas discussed.

Hence, as a ship approached us, we would see the tops first in RET. This example is probably well known to the fora.

Now, one challenge to REers in regards to these statements is how do we demonstrate that the bottoms of the ships are not simply merging into the horizon line? Indeed, it is difficult to identify objects at such large distances with adequate resolution.

If we use a magnifier, however, we can test this scenario. Simply bring a pair of binoculars (or a cheap telescope) to the coast and use it to watch advancing ships. This is easy for me since I live in Auckland, which is a large port city with many ships arriving and leaving.

When you use an optical aid, you see definitely that the bottoms are below the horizon. Such observations are in disagreement with the FET, which postulates that you would see the entire ship.

[Max_Almond]

That's true. And flat earth theory also postulates that eye level is always in the same place as the horizon. In fact, it's one of their most basic tenets.

Why, then, is it so seemingly impossible for them to point to it in this photo?