Evidence was provided on that page you are quoting.
By evidence you mean quotes of people claiming stuff? There are no photos or videos demonstrating the effect.
Being a Zetetic and an empiricist you of course don't take their word for it and have done your own tests, I presume.
Could you post the result here or maybe update the Wiki page with your findings?
You just happened to cut it out of your selective quoting, in what I can only assume is dishonesty.
Well, I wasn't really looking at the evidence. I was just stating what your Wiki claims, not the evidence for it.
But OK, if you want me to have a look at the evidence, I'm game.
There's this quote from Thomas Winship
"When a ship or any other object recedes from the observer on a level surface the highest part is always seen last by reason of perspective"
To which my response is "no it isn't, that isn't how perspective works at all". What is the evidence for that claim?
Literally all perspective means is that as things get further away they appear smaller. This is simply because the light from either end of the object meet at your eye at a smaller angle and thus the object forms a smaller image on your retina. So the distance between the rails at B appears smaller than the distance between the rails at A because the blue lines meet at a smaller angle than the orange ones:
There may be a point at which it is hard to distinguish distinct objects because of the limits of our vision. In that case optical zoom will "restore" them. But if those rails were going over a curve such that you couldn't see the rails at B because of the curve then no amount of optical zoom will restore them to view.
All his examples are basically just a ship far in the distance where a dark hull cannot be clearly distinguished from a dark sea. Yes, in that case optical zoom will help, but that isn't the sinking ship effect. Ships sink below the horizon because of the curve of the earth. Note how the optical zoom has failed to "restore" the hull of the ship on the right:
This is where your silly "waves" explanation is given, I've already explained why that doesn't work.
There are a couple of other examples on the Wiki page which make similar claims and then there's a claim from Chambers' Journal that a vessel could be seen from 200 miles away. Even on a flat earth I'd have to say that's bullshit, I don't believe you could see a ship from 200 miles even on a clear day, bearing in mind this was written in 1895 so the largest ships in the world wouldn't have been as big as they are now.
The lack of resolution cause of the sinking effect is also described in Earth Not a Globe, with examples.
By "examples" you mean him just saying this is what he saw, or relating what someone else saw?
Again, being a Zetetic and Empiricist you will have done your own investigations and experiments and not just taken those at face value?
Lack of resolution doesn't cause a "sinking ship" effect unless the hull of the ship is dark and the top light and so the hull is more difficult to distinguish from the sea. But that isn't what the RE claims is the sinking ship effect, that's just an unclear object being made clear by optical zoom, the hull isn't "restored", it was never hidden in the first place, just hard to see because of the distance and colour.
I would suggest that you and others read ENAG before presuming what we are and are not claiming.
I was assuming your Wiki page and your posts on here are accurate representations of what you claim.
You variously claim that the sinking ship effect is caused by perspective if the hull can be "restored" or waves if it can't.
That is what I mean by "heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning.
You claim that ships don't sink behind the horizon and the hulls can be restored by optical zoom but provide no evidence of this.
When shown evidence where the hull is clearly behind the curve of the earth and can't be restored by optical zoom you then just say it's behind a wave despite waves not being able to occlude more than their own height unless the viewer height is lower than the waves which it rarely will be.