The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2022, 11:48:30 AM

Title: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2022, 11:48:30 AM
If you perform a search for "flat earth" on youtube one of the top videos that comes up is a piece from National Geographic, which claims to have tested the curvature of the earth and found it to be round. Specifically, they brought in the Independent Investigations Group who were promoted as a group of science professionals to "test" the matter. They determined that the earth was curved and this was heavily promoted and featured by National Geographic in the video.

This is the National Geographic video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06bvdFK3vVU

Specifically, they lied about how many lines were seen when the boat and the board went into the distance:

At 7:54 the CFI Investigations Group says:

"We've lost about one and a half stripes; so this can only
happen because of the curvature of the earth"


In the video preview on the YouTube search page there is also a teaser for the video featuing the Independent Investigation Group stating that this can only happen because of the curvature of the earth.

However, it is clearly not the case that one and a half stipes were missing. If you look at the striped board from other views before it went into the distance the red line was always at the bottom.

Close up; boat leaves and begins going into the distance:

(https://i.imgur.com/9xgmRmh.png)

In the distance:

(https://i.imgur.com/U4dnwuZ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/hjaa30m.png)

There are no other shots of the boat in the distance. From this they concluded that one and a half stripes went missing. There is a little compression there, and it is possible that a very small portion of the bottom red line nearest the water might be missing for whatever reason, but it is clearly not the case that one and a half stripes went missing.

It is also apparent that the horizon is still behind the boat and the and the striped board, still intersecting it. If the boat and board were sinking into the horizon, then the bottom edge of the board is the waterline horizon and that is where the water would end. There should not be additional water seen behind the boat and the board cutting through behind it. If the bottom of the board and boat was the horizon then the surface of the water should curve away at that point.

If the boat is curving behind the horizon, you should not see a water horizon further in the distance. There is a diagram animated scene in the National Geographic video showing the boat receding from the observer, showing the surface of the Earth curving away into the red beneath the line of sight:

(https://i.imgur.com/4St3Wba.jpg)

Embarassing.

It is possible that all of this is a simple mistake. But considering all of the National Geographic production effort put into this, the hiring and promotion of an independent "science" group, and the fact that this was played on television as an educational video; the inability to count the lines on the target, or look at their own diagrams and see that the water horizon is still behind the boat, can be interpreted as a lie via negligence. If it is a matter of severe negligence then it is still a lie because they claimed to the public that they at least performed basic due diligence on the matter and did not. The video eggregously promotes this as the science truth.

Especially if this is pointed out to them and they still do not remove the video; if YouTube and National Geographic keeps the video up and promoted then it is a heinous lie to the public. I would go as far as to advocate that tfes makes this one of its next front page posts, demanding an apology and retraction of the video content from National Geographic. If they do not remove it then it is clear evidence of a lie to the public by a high profile science and education organization.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2022, 03:05:14 PM
I would go as far as to advocate that tfes makes this one of its next front page posts, demanding an apology and retraction of the video content from National Geographic. If they do not remove it then it is clear evidence of a lie to the public by a high profile science and education organization.
I will happily support this. Would you like to put together a post to that effect? Just post in any board and ping me so I can move it to Announcements.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 08, 2022, 05:06:21 PM
Why don't you conduct a similar experiment which conclusively proves your point of view, then?

Make it a nice, clear view, with no "compression", so that there's no doubt your point is proved. 

I've already been out and done mine. The seas around East Scotland, at least, are Not Flat.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: BillO on September 08, 2022, 07:33:30 PM
That was one poorly done experiment.  It really is quite astonishing that National Geographic actually let this get published.

National Geographic has been declining over time, but I had no idea they had sunk to these depths.

Heck, I'll even get on the band wagon to have them pull this rubbish.  All it shows is there can be variable refraction over water.  It certainly does not demonstrate the earth's curvature.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: stack on September 08, 2022, 07:50:53 PM
Yeah, that was a pretty lousy test. I'm not sure why that guy said in the Nat Geo video, "One and half stripes missing..." but from the CFI video (The folks who performed the test for Nat Geo, says at around 5:15:

"We did lose the majority of one stripe..."
(https://i.imgur.com/bxv6mnJ.png)

https://youtu.be/CnrjdD08dWg
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: AATW on September 08, 2022, 07:55:29 PM
Yeah, that was a pretty lousy test. I'm not sure why that guy said in the Nat Geo video, "One and half stripes missing..." but from the CFI video (The folks who performed the test for Nat Geo, says at around 5:15:

"We did lose the majority of one stripe..."
But even in that screenshot it looks like the horizon is behind the boat.
It is a complete mess, nothing wrong with the principle of what they did but they've documented it really poorly and if one and a half stripes did disappear when the boat was further away they've shown the wrong screenshot.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: stack on September 08, 2022, 08:31:53 PM
Yeah, that was a pretty lousy test. I'm not sure why that guy said in the Nat Geo video, "One and half stripes missing..." but from the CFI video (The folks who performed the test for Nat Geo, says at around 5:15:

"We did lose the majority of one stripe..."
But even in that screenshot it looks like the horizon is behind the boat.
It is a complete mess, nothing wrong with the principle of what they did but they've documented it really poorly and if one and a half stripes did disappear when the boat was further away they've shown the wrong screenshot.

Yeah, I agree, terrible "experiment". I was just speaking to what was up with that guy saying 1.5 stripes missing in the Nat Geo vid. Obviously not.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Kokorikos on September 09, 2022, 05:27:02 AM
Where do NG say that they "hired" this Independent group? They never claim that these are scientists or that they were hired by NG.
All they say is that there are some people that try to hit back on the flat Earth claim (and it seems that they found some of the most lazy/incompetent ones).

They do not focus on the particulars of the experiment at all. They probably should have, but the purpose of this video is not to prove that the Earth is round (it is clear that they take it for granted), but to discuss briefly about the flat Earth movement.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Clyde Frog on September 09, 2022, 12:41:19 PM
If I were to play apologist for NatGeo here, I'd guess they are counting the white stripes as stripes. Stripes can be white, too, after all. So they are counting all of the white on the bottom, plus half of the red stripe. Doesn't excuse the fact that you can you can clearly see the horizon behind the boat which runs counter to what they are claiming to show here, but I have a feeling that's where they are getting the "one and a half stripes" from.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 09, 2022, 03:17:08 PM
Whilst I think we all agree on the general sloppiness and inaccuracy of the experiment, isn’t the bigger point that it is somewhat irrelevant? If I’ve understood the FE position correctly, Tom, you would not accept such an experiment as being evidence for a round earth anyway, would you? One stripe or five, you would presumably argue that other factors were at work - right?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: stack on September 09, 2022, 06:24:14 PM
If I were to play apologist for NatGeo here, I'd guess they are counting the white stripes as stripes. Stripes can be white, too, after all. So they are counting all of the white on the bottom, plus half of the red stripe. Doesn't excuse the fact that you can you can clearly see the horizon behind the boat which runs counter to what they are claiming to show here, but I have a feeling that's where they are getting the "one and a half stripes" from.

Funny, this didn't even occur to me. I was too fixated on the colors, not the white stripes. So yeah, if this is the case, the guy's statement kinda makes sense now.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Clyde Frog on September 09, 2022, 06:45:34 PM
If I were to play apologist for NatGeo here, I'd guess they are counting the white stripes as stripes. Stripes can be white, too, after all. So they are counting all of the white on the bottom, plus half of the red stripe. Doesn't excuse the fact that you can you can clearly see the horizon behind the boat which runs counter to what they are claiming to show here, but I have a feeling that's where they are getting the "one and a half stripes" from.

Funny, this didn't even occur to me. I was too fixated on the colors, not the white stripes. So yeah, if this is the case, the guy's statement kinda makes sense now.
I mean, it's an extremely generous interpretation of their words, I am by no means trying to stand in their corner and champion that video as a paragon of excellence in science communication, but I think it might still be a fair interpretation. They need to be better though.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: stack on September 09, 2022, 09:20:36 PM
If I were to play apologist for NatGeo here, I'd guess they are counting the white stripes as stripes. Stripes can be white, too, after all. So they are counting all of the white on the bottom, plus half of the red stripe. Doesn't excuse the fact that you can you can clearly see the horizon behind the boat which runs counter to what they are claiming to show here, but I have a feeling that's where they are getting the "one and a half stripes" from.

Funny, this didn't even occur to me. I was too fixated on the colors, not the white stripes. So yeah, if this is the case, the guy's statement kinda makes sense now.
I mean, it's an extremely generous interpretation of their words, I am by no means trying to stand in their corner and champion that video as a paragon of excellence in science communication, but I think it might still be a fair interpretation. They need to be better though.

I agree all around. A craptastic "experiment" at best - A bobbing dinghy, stripes smeared on a bedsheet, and basically 2 miles distance (3 miles was hard to see apparently...)

They did another experiment at the same time that Nat Geo didn't show. Something with balloons. But I couldn't be bothered to even look at it thoroughly considering how lame the boat thing was.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: J-Man on September 11, 2022, 02:44:42 AM
This whole flat earth thinging has become obvious from these scientific studies. TY Tom
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 11, 2022, 01:25:40 PM
Seems like NG just came along to film it, and weren't responsible for protocol or method

https://cfiig.org/earth-curvature-test/

Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Iceman on September 11, 2022, 04:51:39 PM
Seems like NG just came along to film it, and weren't responsible for protocol or method

https://cfiig.org/earth-curvature-test/

Sure but if they film, edit, produce, release, and promote it - the blame for the content is theirs to share.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 12, 2022, 12:41:24 PM
If I were to play apologist for NatGeo here, I'd guess they are counting the white stripes as stripes. Stripes can be white, too, after all. So they are counting all of the white on the bottom, plus half of the red stripe. Doesn't excuse the fact that you can you can clearly see the horizon behind the boat which runs counter to what they are claiming to show here, but I have a feeling that's where they are getting the "one and a half stripes" from.
Your explanation might make sense, except for the fact there are only three white stripes. At what point does one of those white stripes go missing in order to add up to one and one-half?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 12, 2022, 12:56:45 PM
Your explanation might make sense, except for the fact there are only three white stripes. At what point does one of those white stripes go missing in order to add up to one and one-half?

Would any number of missing stripes, of any colour, have persuaded you that the earth might, in fact, not be flat?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 12, 2022, 03:38:21 PM
Your explanation might make sense, except for the fact there are only three white stripes. At what point does one of those white stripes go missing in order to add up to one and one-half?

Would any number of missing stripes, of any colour, have persuaded you that the earth might, in fact, not be flat?
No, because I understand the farther away you are from objects, especially those at ground or water level, the less likely you are to see them. Imperfections in the surface and atmoplane being what they are.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: AATW on September 12, 2022, 03:46:21 PM
No, because I understand the farther away you are from objects, especially those at ground or water level, the less likely you are to see them. Imperfections in the surface and atmoplane being what they are.
But in this timelapse you can clearly see a ship starting to sink and another rising

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYYZMJL5aBc

This is behaviour you'd expect if the objects are going behind something, or coming from behind something.
The parts of the ship you can see are clear as day, where's the rest of the ship? What's it behind?
EDIT: If this is about visibility then you'd surely expect parts of the ship to fade out but that isn't what is shown in that video.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 12, 2022, 06:13:58 PM
...  the farther away you are from objects, especially those at ground or water level, the less likely you are to see them. Imperfections in the surface and atmoplane being what they are.

Which has no bearing at all on observations wherein we can clearly see the objects which disprove the geometry of flat seas.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 12, 2022, 08:41:09 PM
No, because I understand the farther away you are from objects, especially those at ground or water level, the less likely you are to see them. Imperfections in the surface and atmoplane being what they are.

Then, as per my previous comment here, there is little point in debating the quality of the video, poor though it may be. If you don’t accept the fundamentals of the experiment, as it would seem to be the case with Mark Sargent, then it is a waste of time.

Both AATW and Tumeni make good points - interested in your thoughts on the disappearing ship video.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 12, 2022, 09:07:57 PM
The thing is, you don't actually NEED to see the ship go over the horizon to see that the sea is Not Flat.

If it were, any sightline to the surface, from any height above the surface, would form a right-angle triangle, and from there, school-level geometry rules apply.

If I look out from 100m elevation to a ship of height 52m, I have a downward sightline. All sightlines from 100m to zero pass through the 52m level. Conversely, a sightline from 100 through 52 must meet the surface at zero. It cannot miss it.

Any situation where I'm looking out from 100m to a ship of 52m air draught (height above waterline) and do not see water behind and beyond the top of the ship shows the seas cannot be flat. 

Previous starting point - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19213.0
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 12, 2022, 09:19:17 PM
The thing is, you don't actually NEED to see the ship go over the horizon to see that the sea is Not Flat.

If it were, any sightline to the surface, from any height above the surface, would form a right-angle triangle, and from there, school-level geometry rules apply.

If I look out from 100m elevation to a ship of height 52m, I have a downward sightline. All sightlines from 100m to zero pass through the 52m level. Conversely, a sightline from 100 through 52 must meet the surface at zero. It cannot miss it.

Any situation where I'm looking out from 100m to a ship of 52m air draught (height above waterline) and do not see water behind and beyond the top of the ship shows the seas cannot be flat.

You can go a step further. The existence of a clear, distinct horizon over what is essentially an apparently even, level surface like the sea or a desert must mean the earth isn’t flat. If the earth was flat, we would see a blurry, mushy horizon every time, rather like those we sea on hazy days, because the meteorological visibility would invariably be less than the distance to the ‘horizon’, which in the case of the flat earth would be the edge of the planet, however far away that is.

Should this be a different thread? We are veering away from the original.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 13, 2022, 02:58:00 AM
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: markjo on September 13, 2022, 03:23:35 AM
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Possibly for the same reason that some people here want to claim that the earth is flat despite the fact that land is well noted for possessing mountains and canyons frequently exceeding heights and depths of thousands of feet.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 13, 2022, 07:49:46 AM
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.

100 feet is approximately 30 metres.

When observing a ship of 52 metres, I think I can clearly see that the "waves and swells" are not reaching 60% of the height of the ship .....

I'm not asserting "anyone here" has written or claimed it in writing. But it's a common claim amongst other flat-earthers, and don't you think it's implied in the overall terminology?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: AATW on September 13, 2022, 08:57:15 AM
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Is that your answer to what the ships are going behind and emerging from in the video I posted? I mean, the sea looks pretty calm in that video. You’d think you’d be able to see the ships bobbing around more if it was swells.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 13, 2022, 09:41:44 AM
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Possibly for the same reason that some people here want to claim that the earth is flat despite the fact that land is well noted for possessing mountains and canyons frequently exceeding heights and depths of thousands of feet.
The fact that mountains, valleys, canyons, etc., exist does not detract from the concept of an otherwise flat plane.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 13, 2022, 09:50:41 AM
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Is that your answer to what the ships are going behind and emerging from in the video I posted? I mean, the sea looks pretty calm in that video. You’d think you’d be able to see the ships bobbing around more if it was swells.
No, it is my answer to the placard.

As far as your ship, it is irrelevant to the OP.

But in the case of your ocean liner, it is obviously not 100 ft swells at the particular points in question, but they would not need to be in order to obscure the portions of the ship at the given moments. If I am six feet tall standing on the beach, then six-foot swells three miles out are going to start concealing portions of that ship from my view, not to mention the effects/interactions of the atmoplane and water.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 13, 2022, 09:54:36 AM
not to mention the effects/interactions of the atmoplane and water.

What effects and interactions, precisely, are these? What could be happening to progressively obscure the lower portions of distant objects until they completely disappear from view?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 13, 2022, 09:55:43 AM
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.

100 feet is approximately 30 metres.

When observing a ship of 52 metres, I think I can clearly see that the "waves and swells" are not reaching 60% of the height of the ship .....

I'm not asserting "anyone here" has written or claimed it in writing. But it's a common claim amongst other flat-earthers, and don't you think it's implied in the overall terminology?
No. I do not think the terminology of "flat earth," implies, instigates, or fosters a belief that mountains, valleys, or canyons cannot exist. That is just another feeble line promulgated by RE.

The waves and swells do not need to be 100 feet to commence obscuring portions of the ship that would be visible to an observer from shore.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 13, 2022, 09:59:01 AM
not to mention the effects/interactions of the atmoplane and water.

What effects and interactions, precisely, are these? What could be happening to progressively obscure the lower portions of distant objects until they completely disappear from view?
Well, there is quite a bit of interaction between the atmoplane and water, depending on temperatures. Fog, haze, low-level precipitation, etc.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 13, 2022, 10:05:12 AM
Well, there is quite a bit of interaction between the atmoplane and water, depending on temperatures. Fog, haze, low-level precipitation, etc.

Indeed, but if those things were causing the obscuration, we wouldn't see a discreet horizon line across the ship, would we? What we see is a solid horizontal line, below which the ship is invisible, and above which it is clearly in view. As the ship gets further away, the ship progressively disappears below that line. What exactly are you saying that the horizon line is?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 13, 2022, 10:14:11 AM
Well, there is quite a bit of interaction between the atmoplane and water, depending on temperatures. Fog, haze, low-level precipitation, etc.

Indeed, but if those things were causing the obscuration, we wouldn't see a discreet horizon line across the ship, would we? What we see is a solid horizontal line, below which the ship is invisible, and above which it is clearly in view. As the ship gets further away, the ship progressively disappears below that line. What exactly are you saying that the horizon line is?
Are you claiming those things do not sometimes occur on a highly localized point, thereby allowing views of objects further in the distance, yet obscuring portions of, or even all of, objects closer to the viewer?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 13, 2022, 11:16:41 AM
Are you claiming those things do not sometimes occur on a highly localized point, thereby allowing views of objects further in the distance, yet obscuring portions of, or even all of, objects closer to the viewer?

What exactly are you suggesting the horizon line is? Because it clearly isn't mist / fog etc in a 'highly localised point'.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 13, 2022, 11:18:41 AM
Are you claiming those things do not sometimes occur on a highly localized point, thereby allowing views of objects further in the distance, yet obscuring portions of, or even all of, objects closer to the viewer?

What exactly are you suggesting the horizon line is? Because it clearly isn't mist / fog etc in a 'highly localised point'.
The discussion is not about the horizon, Bob, but I am going to try and clarify.

Sometimes I can see an object ten feet in front of my nose.

Sometimes I can even see objects claimed to be millions or billions of miles distant.

Other times, I cannot even see my own outstretched hand, held level in front of my face, because of the weather; yet, If I simply turn my gaze toward the sky, I can clearly see the moon and some stars at the same exact time.

The horizon is malleable and is dependent on a lot of conditions and location.

If I was on an otherwise flat desert and a sandstorm was afoot a mile away, I wouldn't see anything 1 mile and 1 inch away, if it was behind that sandstorm, yet I could see potentially see an automobile three miles away if I slightly turn my eyes to the left or right.

The discussion is about objects you can or cannot see and why.

And I think I even need to take my own advice, and just keep it focused on this crappy placard.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 13, 2022, 12:01:11 PM

The discussion is not about the horizon, Bob, but I am going to try and clarify.

Sometimes I can see an object ten feet in front of my nose.

Sometimes I can even see objects claimed to be millions or billions of miles distant.

Other times, I cannot even see my own outstretched hand, held level in front of my face, because of the weather; yet, If I simply turn my gaze toward the sky, I can clearly see the moon and some stars at the same exact time.

The horizon is malleable and is dependent on a lot of conditions and location.

If I was on an otherwise flat desert and a sandstorm was afoot a mile away, I wouldn't see anything 1 mile and 1 inch away, if it was behind that sandstorm, yet I could see potentially see an automobile three miles away if I slightly turn my eyes to the left or right.

The discussion is about objects you can or cannot see and why.

And I think I even need to take my own advice, and just keep it focused on this crappy placard.

But it is about the horizon, because the horizon, whatever you think it may be, is clearly in between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship in the video (or indeed the badly drawn placard in the original NG video). You are absolutely correct in saying that, of course, on many days we can't see far at all - the lower layer of the atmosphere contains water or particulate matter that limits the visibility. If it's bad enough, even looking out to sea you won't get a distinct horizon at all. But if it's clear enough, we see that distinct horizontal line, clearly visible cutting across the ship in the video.

So again, what exactly do you think the horizon is?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 13, 2022, 12:24:39 PM

The discussion is not about the horizon, Bob, but I am going to try and clarify.

Sometimes I can see an object ten feet in front of my nose.

Sometimes I can even see objects claimed to be millions or billions of miles distant.

Other times, I cannot even see my own outstretched hand, held level in front of my face, because of the weather; yet, If I simply turn my gaze toward the sky, I can clearly see the moon and some stars at the same exact time.

The horizon is malleable and is dependent on a lot of conditions and location.

If I was on an otherwise flat desert and a sandstorm was afoot a mile away, I wouldn't see anything 1 mile and 1 inch away, if it was behind that sandstorm, yet I could see potentially see an automobile three miles away if I slightly turn my eyes to the left or right.

The discussion is about objects you can or cannot see and why.

And I think I even need to take my own advice, and just keep it focused on this crappy placard.

But it is about the horizon, because the horizon, whatever you think it may be, is clearly in between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship in the video (or indeed the badly drawn placard in the original NG video). You are absolutely correct in saying that, of course, on many days we can't see far at all - the lower layer of the atmosphere contains water or particulate matter that limits the visibility. If it's bad enough, even looking out to sea you won't get a distinct horizon at all. But if it's clear enough, we see that distinct horizontal line, clearly visible cutting across the ship in the video.

So again, what exactly do you think the horizon is?
Obviously, you think it is the horizon that is between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship, only because the view is highly focused on just that ship. Pray tell, what is the FOV in question regarding the ship or even the placard at that particular distance, given the sole focus is those particular objects in the distance? How do you know the camera could not pick up something else visible a little further distant if it just diverted its direction left or right?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 13, 2022, 12:30:35 PM

Obviously, you think it is the horizon that is between the viewer and the bottom bit of the ship, only because the view is highly focused on just that ship. Pray tell, what is the FOV in question regarding the ship or even the placard at that particular distance, given the sole focus is those particular objects in the distance? How do you know the camera could not pick up something else visible a little further distant if it just diverted its direction left or right?

Have you actually watched the ship video? If you had you would see the camera clearly pan around the horizon as it tracks several ships, including the two it focusses on, one disappearing and one reappearing as it sails closer. If you are seriously suggesting that is something other than the horizon then I’m out of ideas and this is pointless. It’s the horizon. I don’t know what else to say. 
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 13, 2022, 12:37:52 PM
Yeah, I have watched them. The camera panning is not anything like you describe it to be for one, and yes, you are labeling the horizon as the point where sky seems to meet surface. A lot of factors go into that particular point. No clue at all about surface conditions at the spot of the ship can be garnered by any observer from land.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 13, 2022, 01:04:02 PM
Yeah, I have watched them.
Good

The camera panning is not anything like you describe it to be for one
well, what does the camera do then? I thought that was a reasonable description - it clearly moves left and right, and horizon is visible throughout and, importantly, consistent - it doesn't change shape or angle.

you are labeling the horizon as the point where sky seems to meet surface.

well, yes, that's a pretty standard definition of the word 'horizon'. In the case of a relatively flat surface like the sea, lake or maybe a salt flat, then it is also a 'true horizon' in the sense that it isn't something like a mountain range, where there might be other objects in view were it not for the higher foreground. In a true horizon, it is the curvature of the earth, ie the viewer's sightline forming a tangent to the curve that causes the distinct line. That is modified somewhat by refraction, hence the viewable distance varying somewhat day-to-day, but the essential principle remains. You would clearly disagree with that, but your stubborn refusal to actual state what you think is happening at a true horizon is somewhat undermining your credibility.

A lot of factors go into that particular point.
Ok then - what factors, exactly?

No clue at all about surface conditions at the spot of the ship can be garnered by any observer from land.

Are you suggesting that, somehow, in the ship video we have discussed, that the sea conditions in the immediate vicinity of the ships might be so rough that half the ship is obscured from the viewer? All while not once changing the perfect horizontal line cutting across the ship? Or rocking the ship at all?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 13, 2022, 01:14:20 PM
The waves and swells do not need to be 100 feet to commence obscuring portions of the ship that would be visible to an observer from shore.

.. but, as I said in my opening line of reply #22 - "you don't actually NEED to see the ship go over the horizon to see that the sea is Not Flat."

I'm not talking about anything obscuring the ship. I'm talking about the situation where the observer, at a height of 100m, observes the ship of 52m, and should, if the sea is flat, see clear water behind and beyond the topmost point of the ship, but does not. Indicating the sea cannot be flat.

With the observer at 100m, every sightline to the water is a downward one, and must pass through every height between 0 and 100 on the way. 90, 80, 70, down to zero, including 52m

If the ship is 52m high, and the observer looks down from 100m, the continuation of the sightline to 52m must continue to zero. IF the sea is flat.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: BillO on September 13, 2022, 03:17:29 PM
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Action gets it wrong again and just makes shit up.  100 feet is the highest wave ever recorded, and that was the largest ever recorded tsunami and occurred in 1958 near Alaska.

Mid ocean waves during storms might reach 33-34 feet, normally they are 5-10 feet.  The earth's diameter is nearly 42 million feet.  So the big stormy mid ocean waves of 34 feet don't amount to a pinch of coon shit.  The ocean is smoother than anything you have ever seen.  Smoother than electropolished metal.

Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 14, 2022, 06:03:24 AM
I have no idea why any of you want to claim anyone here has written or claimed seas are flat. Seas are well noted for possessing waves and swells, frequently exceeding heights of 100 feet.
Action gets it wrong again and just makes shit up.  100 feet is the highest wave ever recorded, and that was the largest ever recorded tsunami and occurred in 1958 near Alaska.

Mid ocean waves during storms might reach 33-34 feet, normally they are 5-10 feet.  The earth's diameter is nearly 42 million feet.  So the big stormy mid ocean waves of 34 feet don't amount to a pinch of coon shit.  The ocean is smoother than anything you have ever seen.  Smoother than electropolished metal.
The wave in Alaska (Lituya Bay, I believe) was over 1700 feet high.
I am not making anything up.

You are.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 14, 2022, 06:06:33 AM
The waves and swells do not need to be 100 feet to commence obscuring portions of the ship that would be visible to an observer from shore.

.. but, as I said in my opening line of reply #22 - "you don't actually NEED to see the ship go over the horizon to see that the sea is Not Flat."

I'm not talking about anything obscuring the ship. I'm talking about the situation where the observer, at a height of 100m, observes the ship of 52m, and should, if the sea is flat, see clear water behind and beyond the topmost point of the ship, but does not. Indicating the sea cannot be flat.

With the observer at 100m, every sightline to the water is a downward one, and must pass through every height between 0 and 100 on the way. 90, 80, 70, down to zero, including 52m

If the ship is 52m high, and the observer looks down from 100m, the continuation of the sightline to 52m must continue to zero. IF the sea is flat.
Maybe I missed the picture.

Got one?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 14, 2022, 08:08:50 AM
Maybe I missed the picture.  Got one?

(https://i.imgur.com/XwrQpgh.jpg)

It doesn't need to be a ship, either. Can do the same with lighthouses and islands. YouTuber Flatsa's video below shows the same geometric proof of Not Flat that my own video does. I won't post a link to my own, else Pete will slap me down for "spamming" my own. But here's his; the first minute or so shows that the seas around are Not Flat. See the comments at that video for my explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMkL_bMfIMs

Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 14, 2022, 08:20:03 AM
[
The wave in Alaska (Lituya Bay, I believe) was over 1700 feet high.
I am not making anything up.

You are.

A bit of a silly argument. Lituya Bay was a unique situation and, critically, was not open water, which is the situation we are discussing. The biggest wave ever was believed to have occurred off Portugal, and came in at 100 feet (visible by satellite, if any FE folks are interested!), but the biggest ever measured properly was more like 60 feet, and that was highly unusual. I went with info from this site, although Bill may well have something better:

https://www.livescience.com/tallest-wave-recorded-on-earth (https://www.livescience.com/tallest-wave-recorded-on-earth)

The bottom line is that Bill is right - waves are typically very small compared to the height of large ships, so trying to invoke them somehow in explaining the obscuration of distant vessels is a pretty desperate argument.

I’ll ask again: what do you think the horizon actually is? What is causing it? If the earth is flat, why do we see a crisp line between sea and sky at a distance relatively close to us, compared to the size of the earth?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tron on September 14, 2022, 09:37:34 AM
So far photographing objects in the distance are beginning to look unreliable as to whether its physical in nature or a refracted image.

Leaving waves and perspective aside, its clear that sometimes depending on the weather ships and other objects will sink beneath the horizon or in front of it as is the case with the Nat Geo experiment.
 Objects will also remain level with the horizon or even float above it as is the case with "Superior Mirages"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy9adgmxQ_A
https://www.oldsaltblog.com/2021/03/good-ship-fata-morgana-hovering-above-the-horizon/

When the air is hotter at the surface and cooler above it, it can bend images down and produce a sinking ship effect.  When the air is cool at the surface and gets hotter going up, then images can be bent upwards and appear to float above the horizon.

I suppose the real disagreement is about the nature and affects of refraction. 
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 14, 2022, 11:02:56 AM
[
The wave in Alaska (Lituya Bay, I believe) was over 1700 feet high.
I am not making anything up.

You are.

A bit of a silly argument. Lituya Bay was a unique situation and, critically, was not open water, which is the situation we are discussing. The biggest wave ever was believed to have occurred off Portugal, and came in at 100 feet (visible by satellite, if any FE folks are interested!), but the biggest ever measured properly was more like 60 feet, and that was highly unusual. I went with info from this site, although Bill may well have something better:

https://www.livescience.com/tallest-wave-recorded-on-earth (https://www.livescience.com/tallest-wave-recorded-on-earth)

The bottom line is that Bill is right - waves are typically very small compared to the height of large ships, so trying to invoke them somehow in explaining the obscuration of distant vessels is a pretty desperate argument.

I’ll ask again: what do you think the horizon actually is? What is causing it? If the earth is flat, why do we see a crisp line between sea and sky at a distance relatively close to us, compared to the size of the earth?
The bottom line is that Bill is wrong, He claimed it was near Alaska, when it was Alaska, and he was wrong about the height.

You are wrong in writing that he was right because he obviously is not.

You are correct in stating it really has nothing to do with the current discussion and that is primarily why I never even mentioned Lituya Bay, to begin with.

The bottom line is you are writing as if there are thousands of boats at any given time wandering the oceans, with the primary purpose of measuring wave height.

Pro-tip, there are not.

Regardless, as any object moves further away it will become less visible and that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

The difference between water and sky is a very tricky thing to discern most of the time.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 14, 2022, 11:06:29 AM
Maybe I missed the picture.  Got one?

(https://i.imgur.com/XwrQpgh.jpg)

It doesn't need to be a ship, either. Can do the same with lighthouses and islands. YouTuber Flatsa's video below shows the same geometric proof of Not Flat that my own video does. I won't post a link to my own, else Pete will slap me down for "spamming" my own. But here's his; the first minute or so shows that the seas around are Not Flat. See the comments at that video for my explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMkL_bMfIMs
So, you are just making a broad claim about an issue with no actual visual.

Thank you, but no thank you.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: AATW on September 14, 2022, 11:19:21 AM
Regardless, as any object moves further away it will become less visible and that has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
This is true, for two reasons.
1) Optical resolution, at some point you will no longer be able to discern an object. But so long as you have a clear line of sight to it you can zoom in with the right equipment to see it
2) Visibility. This varies from day to day, but there will be a distance at which visibility becomes an issue, in that case no amount of zooming in with optical equipment will render the object visible.

Quote
The difference between water and sky is a very tricky thing to discern most of the time.
It really isn't. Almost always there's a very clear line between them. Random picture from a recent holiday:

(https://i.ibb.co/sjq0nrD/Horizon.jpg)

Is that clear enough for you? So here's the question - what causes that line? It can't be visibility, that wouldn't cause a sharp line between sea and sky. On a foggy day you don't get a sharp horizon, if the visibility is less than the distance to the horizon then it just fades out like in this picture:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

And it's not optical resolution because
1) The sea is really big and
2) Zooming in doesn't reveal any more sea.

So what's with the sharp horizon line? RE's claim is that the earth is a globe and thus the sea curves away from you. That's why at some point you get a sharp line beyond which you can't see. That's also why the distance to the horizon increases with height, you can see further over the curve. What is your take on why these things occur?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 14, 2022, 11:58:52 AM

This is true, for two reasons.
1) Optical resolution, at some point you will no longer be able to discern an object. But so long as you have a clear line of sight to it you can zoom in with the right equipment to see it
2) Visibility. This varies from day to day, but there will be a distance at which visibility becomes an issue, in that case no amount of zooming in with optical equipment will render the object visible.

Quote
The difference between water and sky is a very tricky thing to discern most of the time.
It really isn't. Almost always there's a very clear line between them. Random picture from a recent holiday:

(https://i.ibb.co/sjq0nrD/Horizon.jpg)

Is that clear enough for you? So here's the question - what causes that line? It can't be visibility, that wouldn't cause a sharp line between sea and sky. On a foggy day you don't get a sharp horizon, if the visibility is less than the distance to the horizon then it just fades out like in this picture:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

And it's not optical resolution because
1) The sea is really big and
2) Zooming in doesn't reveal any more sea.

So what's with the sharp horizon line? RE's claim is that the earth is a globe and thus the sea curves away from you. That's why at some point you get a sharp line beyond which you can't see. That's also why the distance to the horizon increases with height, you can see further over the curve. What is your take on why these things occur?

Thanks - that pretty much exactly what I would have said.

Action80, again, I ask - what do you actually think the horizon is, and why is it there if the earth is flat?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 14, 2022, 12:05:53 PM


Thanks - that pretty much exactly what I would have said.

Action80, again, I ask - what do you actually think the horizon is, and why is it there if the earth is flat?
The horizon is as far as you can see.

It is there, just the same as it would be there if I was in a known to be perfectly level, hallway say of 10 miles distance.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 14, 2022, 12:12:33 PM

The horizon is as far as you can see.

It is there, just the same as it would be there if I was in a known to be perfectly level, hallway say of 10 miles distance.

If it is as far as you can see, why can we see objects behind it? Why can I see the horizon, for example, in front of the lower half of a distant ship? Or the sun?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 14, 2022, 12:23:43 PM

The horizon is as far as you can see.

It is there, just the same as it would be there if I was in a known to be perfectly level, hallway say of 10 miles distance.

If it is as far as you can see, why can we see objects behind it? Why can I see the horizon, for example, in front of the lower half of a distant ship? Or the sun?
Why does the ceiling in the hallway appear to start merging with the floor at a distance?

And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

You are not going to detect any bobbing action on a ship that large from that far away, even if you are zoomed in.

The cruise ship video, in other words, is another lousy distraction inserted to deflect from an entirely different OP.

Typical tactics.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: AATW on September 14, 2022, 12:59:43 PM
Why does the ceiling in the hallway appear to start merging with the floor at a distance?
It doesn't.
I mean, if you were in a long enough corridor then I guess at some distance you might not be able to make out the ceiling from the floor.
But you could zoom in with a decent camera and see clearly the gap between them.
But the horizon is a clearly defined line on a clear day and remains so no matter how much you zoom in.
It clearly isn't "as far as you can see". The horizon is only a few miles away if you're standing on the beach. You can clearly see the tops of ships further away than that behind it.
And you can clearly see distant land masses too, much further away than the horizon. But not all of them, some of them are hidden. What are they hidden behind?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 14, 2022, 01:20:49 PM
So, you are just making a broad claim about an issue with no actual visual.

I provided you with a photo taken by myself and a video by another YouTuber.

What is there about these that leads you to say "no actual visual"? 
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 14, 2022, 01:22:53 PM

Why does the ceiling in the hallway appear to start merging with the floor at a distance?


Because the angular distance between the ceiling and floor will, at some point for any human, reduce below the resolving power of the viewer's eyes - typically around an arc minute for somebody with good eyesight. If, however, you then picked up some binoculars and looked down the corridor, you would then be able to discern them as two separate things again.

That is the fundamental difference between your corridor scenario and what we see in examples such as the ships half-disappeared over the horizon - if we zoom in on the ships, we don't see anything different, just a zoomed in image of the half-disappeared ship. The horizon doesn't change - it is, to go back to your example, akin to the wall at the end of the corridor. You can zoom in on it, but you can't see behind it because it is in between you what lies behind. The horizon is the same - it is in between you and what lies behind - the lower half of the ships in the example video.

And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

I don't propose...looking at images I'd suggest not much (in open seas) - 1m or so? I'm not an expert on boat wakes. What's your point?

You are not going to detect any bobbing action on a ship that large from that far away, even if you are zoomed in.

The cruise ship video, in other words, is another lousy distraction inserted to deflect from an entirely different OP.

Typical tactics.

Bobbing action? Are you saying that a ship bobbing around might be responsible for the lower part of it becoming progressively more obscured with increasing distance? That makes no sense at all.

As for deflection...not at all. I think we all agree that the NG video experiment is a shoddy piece of work. I was trying to steer us onto the central issue, which is, as far as I can tell, the fact that you have fundamentally different ideas about what the horizon actually is. I'm trying to get that from you, and I'm grateful for your answers so far.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 14, 2022, 01:24:50 PM
So far photographing objects in the distance are beginning to look unreliable as to whether its physical in nature or a refracted image.

Leaving waves and perspective aside, its clear that sometimes depending on the weather ships and other objects will sink beneath the horizon or in front of it as is the case with the Nat Geo experiment.
 Objects will also remain level with the horizon or even float above it as is the case with "Superior Mirages"

That's fine. Just disregard all photos where the ship "appears to be floating", then. There's plenty more evidence available where they do not appear to be so.

I refer you back to my photo and the video I cited above. Does it look a like any of the ships or islands are floating?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tumeni on September 14, 2022, 01:32:28 PM
And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

It will only make a wake to the rear of the ship, with a bow wave spreading out from the sides, always behind the bow.

So, in the video above, where one ship goes away, the other approaches the camera, the second one will have no wake between it and the camera or observer.

Let's do the long hotel corridor, then;

The corridor is 12 ft high from floor to ceiling. You, the observer, are 6ft 4ins tall, so your eyes are at exactly 6 feet above the floor, and 6 ft below the ceiling.

Let's ignore what's happening in the far distance for the moment. Yes, the ceiling, floor and walls APPEAR to converge to a point, but we all know the corridor does not get narrower or shallower.

Do you agree that the floor is, at all points, below your eye level? Eye level is parallel to the floor, at 6 ft above it, so you must be looking downward when you look at the floor, right?

Do you agree that if you look at a point on the floor some 20 ft away, your line of sight to that point, from 6 ft above the floor, passes through a level of 5 ft, 4, 3, 2, 1, 6 inches, down to zero?

It's a straight line of sight, isn't it? No refraction, fog, or other atmospherics to distort it? It doesn't curve upward, then back down to reach the floor. You're looking straight at the floor. Right?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 14, 2022, 02:00:01 PM
Why does the ceiling in the hallway appear to start merging with the floor at a distance?
It doesn't. I mean, if you were in a long enough corridor then I guess at some distance you might not be able to make out the ceiling from the floor.
ITT - AATW writes the classic, "It doesn't, but it does."
But you could zoom in with a decent camera and see clearly the gap between them.
And then further past the original point of merging, a new merging would occur.
But the horizon is a clearly defined line on a clear day and remains so no matter how much you zoom in.
All things appear to be clearly defined on a clear day and this has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Action80 on September 14, 2022, 02:02:17 PM

The horizon is as far as you can see.

It is there, just the same as it would be there if I was in a known to be perfectly level, hallway say of 10 miles distance.

If it is as far as you can see, why can we see objects behind it? Why can I see the horizon, for example, in front of the lower half of a distant ship? Or the sun?
Maybe the words, "where two levels meet," would be satisfatory.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on September 14, 2022, 02:24:52 PM
Maybe the words, "where two levels meet," would be satisfatory.

No, they would not be satisfactory at all. They would not because they are, firstly, wholly unsatisfactory as a definition or explanation of what the horizon is. Furthermore, they don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. What is a 'level'? What two 'levels' are we talking about, in the context of a seascape? The sea and the sky? Since when is the sky a 'level'? And if it's where they meet, why is the horizon so close, in relative terms, and what is going on beyond it? Why does it vary in distance with the elevation of the observer?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: AATW on September 14, 2022, 03:14:33 PM
But the horizon is a clearly defined line on a clear day and remains so no matter how much you zoom in.
All things appear to be clearly defined on a clear day and this has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
It kinda does. A sharp line is usually the edge of something. So in this diagram.
The distant coloured bar would not be visible from a low altitude. From higher up the top portion of it would be visible. From even higher you'd see more.
And the horizon - marked by the smaller black lines - is further away as you ascend.

(https://i.ibb.co/jbX19Xs/Horizon2.jpg)

That's what we observe and it can be explained by a globe earth. At the bottom I've shown the FE scenario. Why would there be a sharp horizon line and why would you only see the top of distant objects? You said the horizon is "as far as you can see". But that can't be true because you can clearly see things beyond the horizon. You just can't see the bottom of them. Why not? The bottom is as far away as the top.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: stack on September 14, 2022, 04:51:37 PM
And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

Apparently, not that big...

(https://i.imgur.com/22QJ2TD.gif)
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: BillO on September 14, 2022, 08:10:05 PM
The wave in Alaska (Lituya Bay, I believe) was over 1700 feet high.
I am not making anything up.

You are.
You are misinterpreting the event.  Read the analysis.   The actual swell in the water (the wave) was about 100 feet however it's momentum drove it (run-up) over 1,700 up the head of the bay.  If there was nothing there to stop it it would never have reached over 100 feet.  It was also an unusual wave that was not traveling at the normal speed of waves in water for that depth.  It was in effect a shock wave that, had it propagated out to open sea, would have slowed dramatically.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SimonC on November 21, 2022, 04:03:38 PM
And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

Apparently, not that big...

(https://i.imgur.com/22QJ2TD.gif)

Was the curvature put in for good measure or just a wide angle lens proving that these days the camera always lies?  :D
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: stack on November 21, 2022, 09:54:05 PM
And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

Apparently, not that big...

(https://i.imgur.com/22QJ2TD.gif)

Was the curvature put in for good measure or just a wide angle lens proving that these days the camera always lies?  :D

No. It's a fish-eye lens. And the video has nothing to do with curvature. The intent of the video, which you have completely missed, is to show that cruise ship wakes aren't monstrously large as suggested by another poster. You might want to actually read the posts and understand the context before launching into something completely irrelevant.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SimonC on November 22, 2022, 01:34:45 PM
And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

Apparently, not that big...

(https://i.imgur.com/22QJ2TD.gif)

Was the curvature put in for good measure or just a wide angle lens proving that these days the camera always lies?  :D

No. It's a fish-eye lens. And the video has nothing to do with curvature. The intent of the video, which you have completely missed, is to show that cruise ship wakes aren't monstrously large as suggested by another poster. You might want to actually read the posts and understand the context before launching into something completely irrelevant.

I think if you reread my post you will see that it was an incidental comment and coincidentally it is relevant as the topic was concerned with curvature of the earth. And fish eye lenses don't help with proving that theory. I completely accept you were videoing the wake and found it humorous that a false curvature was incorporated into the images. 
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tron on November 22, 2022, 04:26:05 PM
Technically, if the earth were round, wouldn't the horizon take a spherical shape?

(https://i.imgur.com/x1aOeHr.jpg)
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on November 22, 2022, 04:51:28 PM
Technically, if the earth were round, wouldn't the horizon take a spherical shape?

(https://i.imgur.com/x1aOeHr.jpg)

No. It would be appear level, because the horizon on a sphere, to an observer, is a circle whose radius varies with the observer’s height above the surface. The higher you are, the bigger the circle, but it’s the same in every direction. So no, it wouldn’t appear to curve.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: AATW on November 22, 2022, 04:55:41 PM
If the earth were flat then why would there be a horizon at all? Why would there be a sharp line beyond which you can't see?
It's not visibility, you can see the top of ships and landmarks beyond the horizon.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tron on November 22, 2022, 05:40:11 PM
If you watched three sail boats sailing away and slowly disappearing because of the earths curvature, then wouldn't you need to assume that the tops of those ships wouldn't be parallel to one another? 

(https://i.imgur.com/pEeyTQ6.jpg)

Sorry to hijack this post, but it is similar.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on November 22, 2022, 06:17:14 PM
If you watched three sail boats sailing away and slowly disappearing because of the earths curvature, then wouldn't you need to assume that the tops of those ships wouldn't be parallel to one another? 

(https://i.imgur.com/pEeyTQ6.jpg)

Sorry to hijack this post, but it is similar.

Great question.

Yes…sort of. For a typical situation out at sea, for example, the horizon is usually single digit or low double digit numbers of miles away - it depends on your elevation above the water, and on the atmospheric conditions. For those kind of distances, the difference in angle between the masts wouldn’t be noticeable. If you elevated yourself tens of miles above the surface, then you would notice a difference, not just in the left / right angle of the masts as per your diagram, but also the ‘dip’ as the ships are tilting forwards away from you.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: stack on November 22, 2022, 06:28:43 PM
And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

Apparently, not that big...

(https://i.imgur.com/22QJ2TD.gif)

Was the curvature put in for good measure or just a wide angle lens proving that these days the camera always lies?  :D

No. It's a fish-eye lens. And the video has nothing to do with curvature. The intent of the video, which you have completely missed, is to show that cruise ship wakes aren't monstrously large as suggested by another poster. You might want to actually read the posts and understand the context before launching into something completely irrelevant.

I think if you reread my post you will see that it was an incidental comment and coincidentally it is relevant as the topic was concerned with curvature of the earth. And fish eye lenses don't help with proving that theory. I completely accept you were videoing the wake and found it humorous that a false curvature was incorporated into the images.

You're still missing the point and strawmanning your way though this. The video was never intended to visually represent the curvature of the earth. It simply was showing the much smaller size of the wake from a cruise ship than previously asserted by another poster. That's all.

Just to satisfy your strange need, here's another one:

(https://i.imgur.com/8eFcY8J.jpg)

Flat horizon, tiny wake. Feel better now?
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SimonC on November 23, 2022, 04:50:22 PM
If you watched three sail boats sailing away and slowly disappearing because of the earths curvature, then wouldn't you need to assume that the tops of those ships wouldn't be parallel to one another? 

(https://i.imgur.com/pEeyTQ6.jpg)

Sorry to hijack this post, but it is similar.



Great question.

Yes…sort of. For a typical situation out at sea, for example, the horizon is usually single digit or low double digit numbers of miles away - it depends on your elevation above the water, and on the atmospheric conditions. For those kind of distances, the difference in angle between the masts wouldn’t be noticeable. If you elevated yourself tens of miles above the surface, then you would notice a difference, not just in the left / right angle of the masts as per your diagram, but also the ‘dip’ as the ships are tilting forwards away from you.

In reality though sailing boats bob up and down and tilt from side to side. Unless the sea was a flat calm (millpond-like) and there was a Force Zero wind then it would be impossible to prove.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SimonC on November 23, 2022, 04:58:32 PM
And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

Apparently, not that big...

(https://i.imgur.com/22QJ2TD.gif)

Was the curvature put in for good measure or just a wide angle lens proving that these days the camera always lies?  :D

No. It's a fish-eye lens. And the video has nothing to do with curvature. The intent of the video, which you have completely missed, is to show that cruise ship wakes aren't monstrously large as suggested by another poster. You might want to actually read the posts and understand the context before launching into something completely irrelevant.

I think if you reread my post you will see that it was an incidental comment and coincidentally it is relevant as the topic was concerned with curvature of the earth. And fish eye lenses don't help with proving that theory. I completely accept you were videoing the wake and found it humorous that a false curvature was incorporated into the images.

You're still missing the point and strawmanning your way though this. The video was never intended to visually represent the curvature of the earth. It simply was showing the much smaller size of the wake from a cruise ship than previously asserted by another poster. That's all.

Just to satisfy your strange need, here's another one:

(https://i.imgur.com/8eFcY8J.jpg)

Flat horizon, tiny wake. Feel better now?

I never said anything like that. It was an incidental almost rhetorical question. And I am still tickled as the use of fish-eye lenses for whatever reason on a FE site have the propensity to cause the person viewing the resultant photos (depicting curvature of the earth) to subconciously have an image of a global earth imprinted on their brain.
That's all. I apologise if it didn't appear that way. And I also apologise to the Moderators if it was wrong to inject a little bit of humour into a topic.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SimonC on November 23, 2022, 05:01:27 PM
Technically, if the earth were round, wouldn't the horizon take a spherical shape?

(https://i.imgur.com/x1aOeHr.jpg)

Only if you were 30 - 50 miles above its surface. At ground level it would be a straight line.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: Tron on November 23, 2022, 05:33:25 PM
So if we can detect curvature only a few miles out to sea, then shouldn't we be able to detect curvature accross the sea?   

I happen to believe that the earth starts to appear spherical from the sky, because of atmospheric refraction (the bending of images and light, etc)... 

Using the method of measuring two or three objects accross a certain distance from another, minimizes the same problems you get with measuring one object at a distance (on sea) - wind, ocean swell, and local refraction phenomena...  Because you can get an average of how high each "ship" is relative to one another, how verticle there masts are and the angles they point away from one another...   Doing this experiment on land with a few buildings or flag poles may also work.
Title: Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
Post by: SteelyBob on November 23, 2022, 07:24:45 PM
So if we can detect curvature only a few miles out to sea, then shouldn't we be able to detect curvature accross the sea?   

I happen to believe that the earth starts to appear spherical from the sky, because of atmospheric refraction (the bending of images and light, etc)... 

Using the method of measuring two or three objects accross a certain distance from another, minimizes the same problems you get with measuring one object at a distance (on sea) - wind, ocean swell, and local refraction phenomena...  Because you can get an average of how high each "ship" is relative to one another, how verticle there masts are and the angles they point away from one another...   Doing this experiment on land with a few buildings or flag poles may also work.

Why not use the stars? Measure the elevation angle of the North Star (convenient because it doesn’t appear to move, unlike the other stars in the northern hemisphere), and measure the elevation angle above the horizon. Then move some distance north or south and repeat the exercise. Keep doing this and you’ll get a plot of lots of angles and distances. You’ll find that, for every 60 miles you move in a northerly direction, the North Star rises by 1 degree in the sky. 

You’ll very quickly see that the only possible solution that works for all the measurements is a spherical earth and a star that is a long, long way away. Try it on a flat earth, and / or with a star that is only a few thousand miles away, and it won’t work.

This is where the absurdity of FET then comes to the fore. Given that the whole theory is allegedly based on simple observations, when confronted with this very simple observation, FET proponents have to invoke ‘bendy light’, aka ‘EA’, for which they have no explanation, nor any model, nor indeed any proof whatsoever.