[Pete Svarrior]

I responded to a post which, it seemed to me, was the old "boats don't really go over the horizon, you can restore them with optical zoom"

You did. You also completely failed to address it, since that would require you to compare 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene. This is not a novel conversation - these exact failures were pointed out to you before when you used the exact same image. The exact same URL, even! You either have it saved somewhere, or you literally grabbed it from the previous discussions, which you could have just read instead.

At some point, you really ought to start adapting to new information, instead of just repeating the same failed arguments.

I don't think you can really tell how big the waves are in that picture by the way

Sure you can. The base of the wave is roughly around here:

[Dual1ty]

The globe relies on cherrypicked visual "proofsies" of "boats and things gone over the curve" that can easily be debunked by doing simple observations such as this:



No wonder the globe cult won't touch anything to do with a physical measurement of the curve with a 10-foot pole (only to say that it's impossible or a waste of time because they already know it's a globe). They want to stay on mirage/refraction/perspective (all of which they purposefully misunderstand, by the way) la-la-land for all eternity and just dismiss any of the hundreds (if not thousands by now) of long-distance observations that match FE predictions as "light bending over the curve at its exact rate". Not to mention the fact that no curvature has ever been measured anywhere despite the fact that it should be literally everywhere if Earth is really a globe (and they've had thousands of years to do so according to their own history).

[RonJ]

I agree that the picture of the sailboat shown has a wave blocking the view of the hull.  It was a poor example to demonstrate the shape of the earth.  For multiple decades I literally spent half my life at sea traveling worldwide on large ships, so I have some decent experience looking out over the ocean and making observations.  The best one is the view of Mt. Fuji as it’s peak slowly rises out of the Pacific Ocean as we are heading towards Japan to pick up and/or deliver some cargo.  We had some of the best telescopes available mounted on a stand welded to the deck of our ship.  It didn’t matter how much magnification you used, you couldn’t bring back the base of the mountain that was wider, bigger, and closer than the peak.  It was obviously concealed behind the earth’s curve.  As we got closer to Japan Mt. Fuji would appear to rise higher and higher out of the sea until we started to see the Japanese coastline.  This view was repeated countless times under many different weather conditions on multiple voyages.  If we were at the top of a large wave, we could see a bit more of the mountain.  Occasionally the seas would be quite smooth but that didn’t make any difference, Mt. Fuji would still be mostly hidden when we were 120 miles away.  Everyone liked the view because it also meant we would be docking soon and going ashore for a while.  This demonstrates the earth’s curvature and I have many other examples. 

[AATW]

I responded to a post which, it seemed to me, was the old "boats don't really go over the horizon, you can restore them with optical zoom"

You did. You also completely failed to address it

I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom. The second of them is from a timelapse where you can clearly see boats sinking below and emerging from the horizon. It addresses his claim that you can 'bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view'. You can't. If they've gone behind something (whether that something is the curve of the earth, waves or something else isn't relevant) then you cannot restore them with optical zoom.

The claim that distant things which you can't see with the naked eye can be seen with optical zoom isn't really controversial. Anyone who has mastered object permanence knows that they're not actually gone. I did actually do an "experiment" (not sure this really deserves that word) some time ago where I drew a "boat" with a thin hull and took photos of it from across the room without zoom and then zoomed in



Does that satisfy your request to "compare 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene"?
And in the zoomed in picture the hull has been "restored". Except...I don't even think I'd used that word. It just wasn't visible from across the room, but optical zoom made it visible again. BUT...and this is the point I made in the previous thread, the hull is at the top, so that doesn't explain the sinking ship effect. All it shows is that when objects are too small to see with the naked eye but you have clear line of sight to them you can see them by zooming in. Which I don't think is an astonishing revelation to anyone. But it isn't anything to do with the sinking ship effect either.

Obviously I adapt to new information if I'm convinced that the new information is valid. We've been through examples before where I have.

You either have it saved somewhere

It's that. But fair enough it's not the best example. Will find some better ones.

The base of the wave is roughly around here

I'm not sure that everything above that line is one big wave but even if it is, or it is waves obscuring the boat (which I admit is plausible), it doesn't change the fact that that ship can't be restored with optical zoom. Whether it's hidden below the curve or a big wave isn't really that relevant. It's the claim of restoration I was addressing. I see Dual1ty is now talking about mirages - which is surely a contraction to his previous post  and given the viewer height of 2 inches in his video I'm sure you can see why that's not a great argument either.

I continue to be interested by your claim that the sinking ship effect is "one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there". Especially given other FE claims that the effect doesn't exist at all. How does the effect prove FE in your view? On a FE I'd expect to be able to see over the top of any wave if my viewer height is higher than the highest wave. If my viewer height is the same as the highest wave then this would be the situation:



It would only hide as much of the building as the height of the wave. So waves aren't an explanation for the Turning Torso video where at greater distances more of the building is hidden. The viewer height looks to be above the height of any waves or swells across a pretty calm channel.

[Pete Svarrior]

I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom.

No, you didn't, and I already told you why. Since you chose not to read my message, I'm not reading yours beyond this point either.

[AATW]

I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom.

No, you didn't, and I already told you why.

Incorrectly. His point cannot be responded to by "compar[ing]e 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene".
All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored, so those are the examples I used to address his point. A zoomed out view of those pictures (which I didn't take so can't show anyway) wouldn't demonstrate anything, they'd just be smaller versions of the images I used.

Since you chose not to read my message, I'm not reading yours beyond this point either.

As is your right. But I did read your message, I simply disagree with it and have responded in some detail to explain why.

[Dual1ty]

I agree that the picture of the sailboat shown has a wave blocking the view of the hull.  It was a poor example to demonstrate the shape of the earth.  For multiple decades I literally spent half my life at sea traveling worldwide on large ships, so I have some decent experience looking out over the ocean and making observations.  The best one is the view of Mt. Fuji as it’s peak slowly rises out of the Pacific Ocean as we are heading towards Japan to pick up and/or deliver some cargo.  We had some of the best telescopes available mounted on a stand welded to the deck of our ship.  It didn’t matter how much magnification you used, you couldn’t bring back the base of the mountain that was wider, bigger, and closer than the peak.  It was obviously concealed behind the earth’s curve.  As we got closer to Japan Mt. Fuji would appear to rise higher and higher out of the sea until we started to see the Japanese coastline.  This view was repeated countless times under many different weather conditions on multiple voyages.  If we were at the top of a large wave, we could see a bit more of the mountain.  Occasionally the seas would be quite smooth but that didn’t make any difference, Mt. Fuji would still be mostly hidden when we were 120 miles away.  Everyone liked the view because it also meant we would be docking soon and going ashore for a while.  This demonstrates the earth’s curvature and I have many other examples.

Nope. No curve when you use proper instruments on a clear day.

[Dual1ty]

By the way, could some mod move these last posts to the appropriate thread?

[Pete Svarrior]

All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored

You assert this with no evidence, and then insist that I accept that as a premise for further arguments. I do not.

When you're asked to prove your point, just stating it again with conviction doesn't quite cut it. Not to non-Anglos, at least.

A zoomed out view of those pictures wouldn't demonstrate anything, they'd just be smaller versions of the images I used.

Once again, you assert this without evidence. You can't just say "I'm correct, and since I'm correct, verifying my claims would just result in what I expect, so I would be correct". That's not how you do science, let alone Zeteticism.

(which I didn't take so can't show anyway)

Yes. Isn't it remarkable that every time people suggest that you perform a very simple experiment which would help clear your confusion, you refuse to do so and just post pictures you found on the Internet, usually ones that don't even pertain to the subject at hand?

[RonJ]

Nope. No curve when you use proper instruments on a clear day.

Well, if you want to rely on some IR photography for evidence then consider radar.  If you are familiar with the electromagnetic spectrum, then X band (or even better S band) radar would offer an even clearer picture. The earth’s curvature still hides the lower, closer, and wider parts of a mountain as you would expect on a globe earth.  Yes, we did have the proper professional equipment that works the best of a clear day but will work as well as possible on days when it isn’t.  That would be expected when there’s 100’s of millions of dollars of cargo at stake and the lives of the crew. 
The example video by J Tolan has already been accurately debunked. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.10273/  I am familar with the California coastline as I've been in and out of LA and San Diego countless times. The view of San Jacinto Mountain is familar and there's problems with the analysis that was offered in your previous post.  The problems are detailed in the hyperlink I provided.     

[Dual1ty]

The example video by J Tolan has already been accurately debunked. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-120-mile-shot-of-san-jacinto-proves-flat-earth.10273/  I am familar with the California coastline as I've been in and out of LA and San Diego countless times. The view of San Jacinto Mountain is familar and there's problems with the analysis that was offered in your previous post.  The problems are detailed in the hyperlink I provided.     

Please, no jokes.

Curvature of Earth would not make things SHRINK & COMPRESS TOGETHER; perspective does do that, though.

Your argument was that that all the buildings + coastline are supposed to be behind the curve along with the base of the mountain, and they clearly are not.

[RonJ]

No Jokes here.
The earth’s curvature will not make things SHRINK or COMPRESS. That is true.  Buildings and the coastline can go ‘behind the curve’ if the observer is too far away and at an elevation too low relative to the object observed. An object that is invisible can often be seen if the lookout can increase his elevation.  This fact was known a long time ago.  The old sailing ships had a ‘crows nest’.  One of its functions was to allow an observer in it to see a coastline more quickly than the helms man at a much lower elevation. Land birds were also used to find land because they could circle the ship at a much higher elevation than the 'crows nest'. 

[markjo]

The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window.

What if that window is on a spacecraft orbiting the moon?

[Dual1ty]

No Jokes here.
The earth’s curvature will not make things SHRINK or COMPRESS. That is true.  Buildings and the coastline can go ‘behind the curve’ if the observer is too far away and at an elevation too low relative to the object observed. An object that is invisible can often be seen if the lookout can increase his elevation.  This fact was known a long time ago.  The old sailing ships had a ‘crows nest’.  One of its functions was to allow an observer in it to see a coastline more quickly than the helms man at a much lower elevation. Land birds were also used to find land because they could circle the ship at a much higher elevation than the 'crows nest'.

Yes, and that has nothing to do with "curvature of the Earth". You're simply raising above ground/sea level, so you can see further. Horizon rises with you also - impossible if the horizon is physical (which we know for a fact it's not).

[honk]

The Freemasonry connection is almost certainly a red herring, though.

NO, IT'S NOT.

Nah, I don't buy it. A conspiracy spanning centuries with no genuine motive in sight just isn't feasible to me, and I'd need more evidence than the fact that a number of these historical astronomers were members of a silly club to convince me otherwise.

[AATW]

Horizon rises with you also

This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways

https://flatearth.ws/c/horizon-dip

The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.

[Dual1ty]

Horizon rises with you also

This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways

https://flatearth.ws/c/horizon-dip

The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.

I didn't say it doesn't "dip" - I said it rises with you, which is a fact.

Horizon being apparently below eye level does not debunk that fact. So as always, your "FE debunking" fails the reality test, and you fail to understand what is being said.

[Dual1ty]

Nah, I don't buy it. A conspiracy spanning centuries with no genuine motive in sight just isn't feasible to me, and I'd need more evidence than the fact that a number of these historical astronomers were members of a silly club to convince me otherwise.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that you think heliocentrism is just a coincidence and there is no organized conspiracy associated with it?

[AATW]

Horizon rises with you also

This is incorrect, and can shown to be incorrect in multiple ways

https://flatearth.ws/c/horizon-dip

The horizon dips below eye level in a way which can be measured and demonstrated.

I didn't say it doesn't "dip" - I said it rises with you, which is a fact.

Horizon being apparently below eye level does not debunk that fact. So as always, your "FE debunking" fails the reality test, and you fail to understand what is being said.

It's a common FE claim that "horizon rises to eye level". It doesn't and that can be demonstrated in multiple ways shown in the link I provided.
I thought that's what you were asserting. If not then fine. But I'm not clear why you think this is a problem for a globe earth.
When you say it "rises with you" - the horizon is miles away even at viewer heights close to sea level. So of course when you ascend it doesn't dip noticeably. Why would it?
But I would suggest that the angle dip to the horizon and the distance to the horizon are both consistent with a globe morel. There may be FE explanations, but neither of these things are a problem for RE, it's what you'd expect to observe - you can see further over the curve with more height and the angle you look down at the horizon increases - the latter of these being hard to perceive but can be measured. Why do you think that's an issue?

[Dual1ty]

It's a common FE claim that "horizon rises to eye level". It doesn't and that can be demonstrated in multiple ways shown in the link I provided.
I thought that's what you were asserting. If not then fine. But I'm not clear why you think this is a problem for a globe earth.
When you say it "rises with you" - the horizon is miles away even at viewer heights close to sea level. So of course when you ascend it doesn't dip noticeably. Why would it?
But I would suggest that the angle dip to the horizon and the distance to the horizon are both consistent with a globe morel. There may be FE explanations, but neither of these things are a problem for RE, it's what you'd expect to observe - you can see further over the curve with more height and the angle you look down at the horizon increases - the latter of these being hard to perceive but can be measured. Why do you think that's an issue?

No. If the horizon was the curve it would stay fixed as you rise, it would never rise with you. Not even an inch. Of course, it does not rise to eye level and I have never made that claim. But it does visibly rise as you go higher. Impossible if Earth is a ball like I said.