Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:
Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions.
- A "stronger zoom lens" can never "bring something back" if it is really hidden!
- You didn't bother watching the video. It's about much more than the horizon hiding things.
If you really want to talk about curvature or lack thereof, then chew on this.
Chicago can be seen from shore from almost 60 miles away. At that distance no part of the cities buildings should be seen. Did you understand that?
The tops of the buildings should not be visible, but be several hundred feet below an alleged curve if Earth were a Ball. Did you get this? Not seen at all. Zip.
The tallest building in Chicago is 1650'. Please do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball. Please enlarge the pic below.
Sorry, it doesn't work thst way. You're making the claim so you "do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball."!
That's a true Checkmate.
Not so fast with your Checkmate!
Of course "the professional weather man was caught be surprise" because that much of Chicago cannot usually be seen across Lake Michigan.
I imagine that you mean this photo?
Which looks very like "
Looking toward Chicago - Joshua Nowicki" taken about 91 km (~56.5 miles) from Chicago.
Now
Joshua Nowicki's photo was claimed to be a "mirage", though it's not really a mirage,
just a bit more refraction than usual, called looming.
And please note the light band along the horizon - that's a pretty good sign of some unusual optical conditions.
But I wonder why the newsreader would bother even presenting such a photo if it could be seen at any time.
It is painfully obvious to anyone that it was featured on the evening TV news
because it was a rare event.So what about this photo showing most of Chicago hidden from 40 miles away? It has quite a sharp horizon and far more hidden.
Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)
. . . . . . .
Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?
Some of Chicago is hidden from 56.5 miles away and much more is hidden from 40 miles away so "something's going on".
Something is hiding the lower part of Chicago in both cases and
none should be hidden if the earth were flat - so what is it?
Now when you come along with the height of the camera above the water when
Joshua Nowicki took "Looking toward Chicago" I bother looking further
.
The viewing height is extremely important in calculating "hidden distance".
PS I'm quite prepared to admit that more might be hidden than expected but if that weren't so, "Why would it have made the evening TV news?".
[/quote]
It doesn't matter if it made the news or not. I do know seeing Chicago from that distance is common.
Joshua Nowicki was standing on shore at a park. The news reported this.
This is not an isolated event. There are many. The world record is 275 miles across water. (At later date)
What is hiding more of the city at 40 miles is worse atmospheric conditions than from 56 miles away.
Oh, yes, it's
Checkmate because all of it should be under an alleged curve of a Ball with a 3959 mile radius, but I don't expect you to believe it nor do I care. I only care for those seeking truth.
Do you know how to prove Earth has curvature with a curvature chart? If you can, why haven't you or any other Globie done this already?
Bye for now.