[Tom Bishop]

Here is another signed Adrian Meredith Concord photo from concordephotos.com. I bet you think the earth curvature is real in this one too. Who knew that the Concorde could achieve satellite altitudes?



Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake/manipulated but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

[stack]

Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:

Here’s the only picture of Concorde flying at supersonic speed
The image was taken by Adrian Meredith who was flying a Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado jet during a rendezvous with the Concorde over the Irish Sea in April 1985.

Although the Tornado could match Concorde’s cruising speed it could only do so for a matter of minutes due to the enormous rate of fuel consumption.

Several attempts were made to take the photo, and eventually the Concorde had to slow down from Mach 2 to Mach 1.5-1.6 so that the Tornado crew could get the shot. The Tornado was stripped of everything to get it up to that speed as long as possible.

After racing to catch the Concorde and struggling to keep up, the Tornado broke off the rendezvous after just four minutes, while Concorde cruised serenely on to JFK!

Like I said, buy the photo, rip it out of the frame, and see what's hidden behind the 2" matte.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Respects to Stack but, gentlemen, you're just going down a wormhole here. 

One minute on the concordephotos site shows that the picture was taken from a Tornado; the air defence version has a maximum ceiling of 50,000 feet.  In practice, military aircraft never get anywhere near their stated ceiling, so I would be very surprised if this was much above a normal airliner cruise altitude of 40k.  And if you magnify the image, I think you'll find that both the cabin window line and the roof line have curvature. 

Yes, the Earth's a globe, but posting this as "evidence" is a non-starter. 

[Tom Bishop]

Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:

So you admit that pictures labeled as Adrian Meredith Photography is not actually pure "Photography" and concordephotos.com picture are not actually "Photos" and that an artistic license is applied to the images.

Considering that you are only showing us one image from someone who manipulates his photos it is hardly compelling evidence that your one image is not also manipulated.

Here is the description of the item you claim to be the fake/manipulated Adrian Meredith Photography image, sold by what appears to be concordephotos.com's official ebay account named concordephotos:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313236786053?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050

Sold by concordephotos, Surrey, United Kingdom

Concorde Flyiing Over The Curvature Of The Earth At 60,000 Feet Signed 16X12

This Air to Air Photograph 1998, of Concorde G-BOAF is flying at 60,000
feet, you can clearly see the curvature of the Earth, you are now in the
stratosphere, flying on the edge of space, and burning 5 gallons of fuel per
mile, Photo size 16x12 inches

Photograph Signed by Chief Concorde Captain Mike Bannister,  Photograph
signed by Adrian Meredith.

[Tom Bishop]

Oh, and look at the bottom of that ebay page listing at the Business Seller Information. It's Adrian Meredith himself calling it an "Air to Air Photograph":

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313236786053?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050

Business seller information

Adrian Meredith Photography
Adrian Meredith
16 Golf Close
Woking
Surrey
GU22 8PE
United Kingdom

[stack]

Respects to Stack but, gentlemen, you're just going down a wormhole here. 

One minute on the concordephotos site shows that the picture was taken from a Tornado; the air defence version has a maximum ceiling of 50,000 feet.  In practice, military aircraft never get anywhere near their stated ceiling, so I would be very surprised if this was much above a normal airliner cruise altitude of 40k.  And if you magnify the image, I think you'll find that both the cabin window line and the roof line have curvature. 

Yes, the Earth's a globe, but posting this as "evidence" is a non-starter.

It's reported that the shot was taken at 55k'.

I'm not seeing what you are seeing. A comparison between the high altitude image and a low altitude image...



Just to be clear, this discussion started with Lackey taking an old AATW quote out of context, the context being the image in question. Whether the image was cropped, distorted, etc., I obviously can't say for sure. And no one else can either except for Mr. Meredith himself. So yeah, the argument is sort of pointless.

Aside from all of this, for me, it's whether the observed dip of the horizon line at altitude is caused by a globe earth or the potential fuzziness of the line between the sky and ground/water. That's what I think really needs to be addressed.

[stack]

Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:

So you admit that pictures labeled as Adrian Meredith Photography is not actually pure "Photography" and concordephotos.com picture are not actually "Photos" and that an artistic license is applied to the images.

All images are altered as soon as they committed to a sensor inside a camera or on to a strip of film. Even more so when developed or imported. Even more when printed or exported.

But I guess you are saying that if a photographer adjusts anything in one image, all images they have ever taken have been similarly adjusted. Ok, sure. If that's the hill you want to die on, go for it.

[Tom Bishop]

It's simply a weak argument. The photographer is clearly faking earth curvature in some of his works, and the image in which the curvature is clearly manipulated the photographer calls an "Air to Air Photograph" without disclaimer that the shape of the horizon in the scene was not as we would see it.

The two photos are also advertised exactly the same way without distinction.

https://www.chaucercollectables.co.uk/ishop/images/1099/p8.pdf



Both are called "photographic prints", both are called "photos" and both are by the same photographer. Elsewhere the photographer also calls them both "photographs".

Yet you somehow know what is real earth curvature and what is fake earth curvature. Your source on this is your own self and your personal opinion, which is a poor method of inquiry and creates a poor argument.

[stack]

It's simply a weak argument. The photographer is clearly faking earth curvature in some of his works, and the image in which the curvature is clearly manipulated the photographer calls an "Air to Air Photograph" without disclaimer that the shape of the horizon in the scene was not as we would see it.

Hmmm, how do you know photographer is clearly faking earth curvature? By you saying so it seems that you somehow know what is real earth curvature and what is fake earth curvature. Your source on this is your own self and your personal opinion, which is a poor method of inquiry and creates a poor argument.

[Gonzo]

And on a clear day, with little swell or chop, lo and behold it’s still a clear line.

I really don’t understand how people can say it’s not.

You can keep making this false statement until the end of time (if you choose), but I have already pointed out why it is false.

Can you explain what you mean? Because I don’t think you have.

On a clear day with good visibility, the delineation between sea and sky is very easy to discern.

Have you lived on the coast? How often do you look out to sea on the average day?

Although I don't currently live on a shoreline of a major body of water, I have spent ample time there.

Fact of the matter is this: the traits of both mediums, such as color and reflectivity, are such that no one person can claim with certainty what it is they are looking at from such a distant point away.

Fact of the matter is?

Sorry, no, that’s your opinion.

Every seafarer and navigator would disagree.

Yes, at time, in poor visibility, one cannot distinguish the horizon. But on many other occasions it is very clear.

Are you saying that even when it is clear, you believe that the water continues on, effectively appearing above the horizon, but that it looks to us exactly the same as the sky?

[Gonzo]

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

With all due respect, I’m not claiming anything about curvature in this thread. I’m taking issue with the blanket assertion that the horizon can never be clearly distinguished.

Posters on this thread should also be wary when they talk about curvature, are they talking in the sense of a curve appearing left to right as you look at the horizon, or in the sense of the curvature away from the observer that produces the horizon?

[stack]

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

With all due respect, I’m not claiming anything about curvature in this thread. I’m taking issue with the blanket assertion that the horizon can never be clearly distinguished.

Posters on this thread should also be wary when they talk about curvature, are they talking in the sense of a curve appearing left to right as you look at the horizon, or in the sense of the curvature away from the observer that produces the horizon?

Agreed, I don't care about curvature left to right, nor whether the horizon line is fuzzy or crisp or somewhere in between. As I've stated before, I'm way more interested in the observed dip at altitude, the perceived curvature away from the observer that produces a horizon line. As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level whereas GE contends that it dips below eye-level with altitude as it curves downward and away...



I'm looking for an explanation of this.

[Pete Svarrior]

As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level

Have you considered bringing it up with the people who hold this view? You're unlikely to find them here, and repeatedly trying to bait people into this by saying "well, sOmE FE'ers claim this" only encourages people not to take you seriously.

SoMe Re'ErS can't even figure out the difference between velocity and acceleration. SoMe Re'ErS think that spirit levels can only operate thanks to the nigh-immeasurable differences in gravity affecting 2 ends of the tube. And that's just with things sOmE rE'eRs claim today - if we started digging up centuries-old beliefs, there's more fun to be had. We don't hold all of RE accountable to that, because that would be an utterly psychotic thing to do.

If you want an argument from your anonymous "some FE'ers", go talk to them.

[stack]

As in some FE contend that the horizon line would and always rises to eye-level

Have you considered bringing it up with the people who hold this view? You're unlikely to find them here, and repeatedly trying to bait people into this by saying "well, sOmE FE'ers claim this" only encourages people not to take you seriously.

SoMe Re'ErS can't even figure out the difference between velocity and acceleration. SoMe Re'ErS think that spirit levels can only operate thanks to the nigh-immeasurable differences in gravity affecting 2 ends of the tube. And that's just with things sOmE rE'eRs claim today - if we started digging up centuries-old beliefs, there's more fun to be had. We don't hold all of RE accountable to that, because that would be an utterly psychotic thing to do.

If you want an argument from your anonymous "some FE'ers", go talk to them.

A couple of things…

I was being cautious by using “some”. As in the past if I were to simply say, “FErs claim that blah, blah, blah…” I would get blasted by you for implying all FErs. So now, if I say “some”, that still seems to be an issue.

For two, there’s some stuff in the wiki regarding horizon/eye-level/dip experiments and observations that are stated as inaccurate. It appears to me as a refutation of GE’s claim of dip due to curvature considering that’s exactly what the experiments are designed to show: Water Level Devices

There’s also this in the wiki leading me to believe that some FEr's may dispute the dip:
“...since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.”
And
“...no matter how high we ascend above the level of the sea, the horizon rises on and still on as we rise, so that it is always on a level with the eye…"

Also, there was a request back in 2018 to remove this from the wiki:

”A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see."

Since I can’t seem to find it in the wiki, I guess it was removed. Perhaps it was removed when a new redirect was created in 2019:

• Horizon always at Eye Level
#REDIRECT [[High Altitude Horizon Dip]]
39 bytes (5 words) - 14:33, 6 December 2019

All that said, if some or all FEr’s here are no longer in the horizon always at eye-level camp anymore then, I guess, never mind.

[Pete Svarrior]

So now, if I say “some”, that still seems to be an issue.

Yes, it's still an issue, because you still don't have the first idea about FE, but you have the audacity to push beliefs onto others. Being "cautious" about how you phrase your complete lack of respect is not going to improve the situation. You need to fix the issue, not express it more cAuTiOuSlY.

Again, if I came here and started insisting that you defend something that "some RE'ers" believe (but which doesn't seem to have much to do with RE), you'd rightly think I'm out of my mind. Connect the dots.

For two, there’s some stuff in the wiki regarding horizon/eye-level/dip experiments

C'thulhu, give me patience. Yes, the Wiki documents a broad variety of FE and RE arguments, current and historical. You have to exercise a modicum of critical thinking, rather than just point at webpages you haven't read and say "duuuuuh here is some stuff?"

There’s also this in the wiki leading me to believe that some FEr's may dispute the dip:
“...since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.”

Perhaps if you bothered reading the page, or at least its very first couple of sentences, you would know what you're quoting. It's very poor form of you to just go "huh, this is some stuff" and not include a link to what you're referencing. Let's help you out. What you're referring to is https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe. The first line of this page is:

For a list of Flat Earth experiments see Experimental Evidence. The following is a verbatim copy of the book A Hundred Proofs the Earth Is Not a Globe by William Carpenter (1885).

Your second quote, unsurprisingly, comes from the same historical reference.

Stack, there's no nice way of saying this - you've spent half a decade here, and you still don't know how to use this site. You need to take a huge step back and start lurking - you should have done so in 2018. Learn to fucking read.

[SimonC]

There are multiple accounts of most RE adherents that curvature can be detected even at ground level

Do you have any relevant quotes from people to back this up?

An oldie but a goodie claim by AATW that no RE-er has ever claimed that curvature can be detected at ground level by the human eye...

yet...

Unsurprisingly, here he is (along with his choir) in this very thread, doing just that.

It seems that you are taking this out of context. You folks were talking about the curvature observed of the horizon behind the Concorde at a cruising altitude some 70k' feet above the earth.



AATW's comment was in regard to whether one can see the horizon line curve at ground level as you claimed REr's say they can see curvature at ground level. Even the OP opened up this thread with, "Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth."

Curvature is curvature.

Just stop with the equivocation.

There is no curvature.

Compelling argument. I guess if you simply say so, then it must be true. I can't think of anyone who would know better considering the level of thought and intellect you've poured into the discussion. Clearly the curve shown in the Concorde image is not a curve as you have just commanded that it isn't. My fault for not running the image by you first so that you could determine what is seen by the rest of us and what isn't. Thanks for applying your acute observation skills to an otherwise indeterminate and murky situation.

Even the fusilage of Concorde has a slight curve to it in this pic.

[stack]

Again, if I came here and started insisting that you defend something that "some RE'ers" believe (but which doesn't seem to have much to do with RE), you'd rightly think I'm out of my mind. Connect the dots.

Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE. I thought that was the point of the wiki, but apparently I was wrong. Lesson learned.

Stack, there's no nice way of saying this - you've spent half a decade here, and you still don't know how to use this site. You need to take a huge step back and start lurking - you should have done so in 2018. Learn to fucking read.

Cool. Thanks for the pro tips. It means a lot when you take the time to offer advice and guidance.

Edit: Oh yeah, I was remiss in not including the link regarding where it used to state in the wiki that the horizon always rises to eye level:

Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki

It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

[Pete Svarrior]

Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE.

They do have "much to do" with FE. The book is an important historical record, and provides useful context on how we developed over time. It used not to be available elsewhere, and has since once again become a well-known piece of our history. It absolutely "has much to do" with FE.

Unfortunately, this is on you for mindlessly quote-mining a resource you haven't bothered to familiarise yourself over the course of five years.

[stack]

Definitely my mistake in assuming that the items I mentioned in the wiki have much to do with FE.

They do have "much to do" with FE. The book is an important historical record, and provides useful context on how we developed over time. It used not to be available elsewhere, and has since once again become a well-known piece of our history. It absolutely "has much to do" with FE.

Unfortunately, this is on you for mindlesuquote-mining a resource you haven't bothered to familiarise yourself over the course of five years.

I personally wouldn’t consider presenting a passage explicitly stating that the horizon always rises to eye level taken from a former wiki page titled “Horizon always at Eye Level” as mindless quote-mining. But that’s just me.
 
Like I mentioned before, as this now seems to be something that the society no longer adheres to then that’s fine. I incorrectly had assumed otherwise.

[Pete Svarrior]

I personally wouldn’t consider presenting a passage explicitly stating that the horizon always rises to eye level taken from a former wiki page titled “Horizon always at Eye Level” as mindless quote-mining.

Emphasis on former.

Any comments on the other quotes you provided? How mindful were they? Why are you only focusing on one?