[Bobby Shafto]

Posted this in an AR forum topic, but felt it warranted its own discussion topic in the Flat Earth Theory forum where it might reach a wider viewing audience, as long as it's divorced from the issues of the rest of that AR topic.

Yesterday in late afternoon (10/10/2018), about an hour before sunset, I made some visual sightings across a 20-mile over-water stretch from La Jolla, CA's "Children's Pool" seafront area to Carlsbad, CA to the north:



The visual target was Encina Power Station with its still-standing~400' smokestack:



It made spotting observations from 3 points of differing elevations:



From 25 feet:



From 10 feet:



From 0 feet:



The tide was just past its low, at 0.0, which is -2.8' Mean Sea Level (MSL) for La Jolla.
A light on-shore wind chop was was on the water, with a primary South-Southwest swell of 4-5' at 12 second intervals.
Lifeguard station listed air temperature as 70°F and water temperature 66°F.
 
The sightings from each spot elevation was observed to coincide closely with what earth curve calculations predict with standard atmospheric refraction applied:



All images were taken at max focal length (215mm-equivalent) with Canon Powershot SX50 HS. Images above were color/contrast adjusted and cropped with original resolution intact.

I feel this is yet another case where my personally-conducted observational evidence appears to support a convex earth surface and presents a challenge to the flat earth model. As always, I invite critique and criticism on either the method, observation or conclusions.

[iamcpc]

I feel this is yet another case where my personally-conducted observational evidence appears to support a convex earth surface and presents a challenge to the flat earth model. As always, I invite critique and criticism on either the method, observation or conclusions.

You can take these pictures until you are blue in the face it does not change anything.  FE can counter these observations by saying

-optics
-atmosphere
-waves/swells


The one that i'm able to comprehend the most are the real, observed, and measurable atmospheric and optical phenomenon. (the waves/swells I really struggle with understanding)
The closer you get to sea level the higher the PPM concentration of water molecules in the atmosphere and the more optical anomalies you will have. What you say is curve someone else can, just as easily say, are different atmospheric conditions that the light is passing through.

[stack]

I feel this is yet another case where my personally-conducted observational evidence appears to support a convex earth surface and presents a challenge to the flat earth model. As always, I invite critique and criticism on either the method, observation or conclusions.

You can take these pictures until you are blue in the face it does not change anything.  FE can counter these observations by saying

-optics
-atmosphere
-waves/swells


The one that i'm able to comprehend the most are the real, observed, and measurable atmospheric and optical phenomenon. (the waves/swells I really struggle with understanding)
The closer you get to sea level the higher the PPM concentration of water molecules in the atmosphere and the more optical anomalies you will have. What you say is curve someone else can, just as easily say, are different atmospheric conditions that the light is passing through.

Agreed to an extent. However, the tower is 400 ft tall. Given image B, at 10 ft observation height, standing out 20.15 miles, the RE 'hidden' amount is 176'. The FE hidden amount is 0'. Not to mention, RE curve calcs land right in the sweet spot as to what is observed.

If there are experiments that show minimal to no distortion and a compression of 176' or waves high enough to obscure 176' feet, I'm in. In the absence of such, well, you be the judge.

[Bobby Shafto]

You can take these pictures until you are blue in the face it does not change anything.  FE can counter these observations by saying

-optics
-atmosphere
-waves/swells

You think I should stop? Is there no point in continuing to present observational evidence that puts the above-quoted explanations to the test?

I know "zeteticism" for some, as practiced, is more about "globe busting" than discerning between globe or not globe. And for those, sure, this would be a waste of time since you can "what if" anything to death. But I'm not that cynical and even if there is no changing of minds, maybe those who are still searching the question will see both arguments and be convinced by mine.

I'm a globe guy, not because I'm religious about it or because I'm brainwashed. I feel that all of my personal observations and tests have lent themselves to affirming the earth is a globe. So I share them here. I'm open to critique. Some flat earth claims are intriguing and a real challenge. Others are weak but oft-repeated, like memes (very un-zetetic, if you ask me).

I admit, I have gone through stages of feeling less and less interested in all this. And there was a comment made on AR about how the FE-believing community just wait to ride out these challenges. Because we come and go, but the FE "movement" just keeps chugging along. I'm certainly not under any false hope that what I post here will change anything. It's changed me to the extent that I have a better understanding that anyone inclining to FE isn't just a mindless wannabe conspiracy theorist. The exercise of these past several months, for me, has proven what a challenge it can actually be to explain why the earth is a globe without having to resort to information that you can't collect yourself.

I've learned a lot too. I'll never "convert" Tom or anyone. I hope no one has that as their goal here.

[stack]

Amen.

[juner]

Amen.

Did this seem like a necessary post to you? Please refrain from low (zero) content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

[AATW]

You think I should stop? Is there no point in continuing to present observational evidence that puts the above-quoted explanations to the test?

I would say that you've done enough.
Your work has been outstanding but your recent post about horizon dip doesn't show anything different from your previous posts about it, you've shown the result very clearly multiple times. I'd say the onus is now on FE to do their own experiments - that is what they're all about, right? - if they dispute your findings. The photo at sunset was the best one because it proves that the line below your eye line level is the true horizon, cuts through Bishop's flim-flam about whether you're really seeing the "true horizon".

Like you, I don't expect the most dyed in the wool FEs to change their position (although I increasingly doubt their sincerity) but for people who come here genuinely questioning I'd hope your work and maybe some of my arguments will show them the right way. It is hard to maintain interest in an idea which is not just demonstrably wrong but static. So the claim about horizon dip hasn't changed despite your work. Thus the same conversation will occur over and over again. This is what makes me question sincerity, anyone sincerely seeking truth would look at your work and want to do their own investigations, but time after time you're met with a brick wall.

So, if I were you I'd not waste any more time, but you absolutely haven't wasted the time you already spent, it's shown some useful results and for those who are genuinely seeking truth it will be a great resource for them and give them ideas about how to proceed with their own inquiries.

[MCToon]

You think I should stop? Is there no point in continuing to present observational evidence that puts the above-quoted explanations to the test?

I would say that you've done enough.
Your work has been outstanding but your recent post about horizon dip doesn't show anything different from your previous posts about it, you've shown the result very clearly multiple times. I'd say the onus is now on FE to do their own experiments - that is what they're all about, right? - if they dispute your findings. The photo at sunset was the best one because it proves that the line below your eye line level is the true horizon, cuts through Bishop's flim-flam about whether you're really seeing the "true horizon".

Like you, I don't expect the most dyed in the wool FEs to change their position (although I increasingly doubt their sincerity) but for people who come here genuinely questioning I'd hope your work and maybe some of my arguments will show them the right way.

This experiment is similar to some in Earth not a Globe.  In particular #12.  Comparing:

* Bobby's experiment:  The heigh of the smoke stack is known and verifiable.
* EnaG#12:  The height of the ship's mast is unverifiable as the ship is not specified.

* Bobby's experiment:  The exact distance to the smoke stack is known and verifiable.
* EnaG#12: The distance to the ship was estimated.  No claims confirming the speed of the ship are even made, just a "ordinary rate" is referenced, then the distance is stated as "at least", this does not follow.  The bearing of the ship is unstated, it is unknown if the ship was traveling directly away from the observer the entire time.

* Bobby's experiment:  Refraction is taken into account.  This is to accurately model the globe earth.
* EnaG#12:  Refraction is ignored.  Accurately modeling the globe earth was not attempted.

* Bobby's experiment:  Includes the predictions for flat earth.  This is to accurately model the flat earth to test observations against that model.
* EnaG#12:  Does not include predictions for flat earth observations.  No attempts to confirm observations to an accurate model of the flat earth were attempted.

* Bobby's experiment: Other similar experiments have been performed and similarity documented on this forum.
* EnaG#12:  Claims of other experiments are claimed but are utterly unsubstantiated.  From EnaG#12: "Many other experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe."


Contrasting Bobby's experiment with #12, a sincere person must elevate Bobby's experiment over EnaG#12.  Observers of this thread and other conversations will be able to ascertain if a participant is  sincere or holding a dogmatic belief.

The goal cannot be to sway any particular dogmatic believer, this is impossible, dogmatic beliefs are not based on facts or a desire to ascertain the truth.  Instead, serves as excellent information for people sincerely seeking the truth.

[zorbakim]

According to my calculation,
0.5m waves cover about 63 meters at eye level 2m from 32km distance.
So Flat earth fits quite well.

[Bobby Shafto]

According to my calculation,
0.5m waves cover about 63 meters at eye level 2m from 32km distance.
So Flat earth fits quite well.

On the other thread, you said:

my math is simple.
Truth is simple, not complicated.

And yet earlier in that topic you said:

It is difficult to explain the calculation process that I did here one by one.
Instead, I explained it briefly in the video.
It comes from experience and experimentation.
It is not just mathematical reasoning like Earth curvature.

I do not understand how you are calculating your horizon or your hidden figure values. By my calculation, a 0.5m wave will not obscure 63m at a distance of 32km when eye  level is 2m. Not on a flat earth. Not on a globe earth.

You're going to have to show your work. Amount hidden in my photos in this discussion topic match with globe earth calculations with standard refraction accounted for. I don't understand your waves+perspective calculations at all.  Show me how you are coming up with your figures for horizon distance and amount hidden for a given distance that's greater than distance to horizon.

[AATW]

According to my calculation,
0.5m waves cover about 63 meters at eye level 2m from 32km distance.
So Flat earth fits quite well.

This is one of those annoying "heads I win, tails you lose" FE arguments.
I see lots of FE arguments showing long distance photography and claiming that "if the earth was a globe you wouldn't be able to see that..."
Now Bobby shows some photos clearly showing stuff occluded by the curve of the earth and you just claim it matches your "calculations".

So, firstly, please show your calculations.
Secondly, can you please present a diagram showing how the light rays from a 100m building are occluded by a 1m wave.

[iamcpc]

According to my calculation,
0.5m waves cover about 63 meters at eye level 2m from 32km distance.
So Flat earth fits quite well.

I strongly disagree that waves or swells could be used to explain what is going on here.

Wave at eye level
(this only happens if you are floating in the ocean)



What is happening in Bobby's image where viewer and object are ABOVE sea level:






Also you should note that Bobby has made dozens of observations which strongly suggest that the horizon does not ALWAYS rise to eye level.
Even if you believe the horizon is rising to eye level it still does not work:

Please note that in this situation the horizon is rising to meet eye level. How is this wave, of someone standing on a beach, blocking the view of more than a few feet of the building?

[HorstFue]

The tide was just past its low, at 0.0, which is -2.8' Mean Sea Level (MSL) for La Jolla.
A light on-shore wind chop was was on the water, with a primary South-Southwest swell of 4-5' at 12 second intervals.

Hi Bobby!
Did you include the tide in your calculation?
I think, it's quite easy: The point, where the viewing line "touches" the sea surface, gets lowered or heightened by the tide. According this you have to add (or subtract)  the difference to mean sea level (the reference for observer/target) to both observer's and target's height. In this case sea surface is lower, so observers and target heights have to be increased: +2.8'

Btw. A similar approach could be used for waves. Regarding what may be obscured, in worst case waves "heighten" the sea surface by half the wave height (wave height is measured from top to bottom). In this case half the wave height has to be subtracted from observer's and target's height: -2' to -2.5' 
So in total <1'

[Bobby Shafto]

Carlsbad's Encina Power Plant smokestack seen from 30.3 miles away.




I wasn't looking for or expecting to capture this. I was just scanning the horizon to the west trying to see if I could find San Clemente Island. Failing that, I trained the camera north and tried peeking through the trees toward Pacific Beach and La Jolla. But from this vantage point of ~400-410', the air was clear enough to see the smokestack, which also rises to 400'.

Mapping this out, the line of sight passes right over where I was photographing from La Jolla.

If visibility is this good tomorrow, I'll bring my water level toy and see if the top of the smokestack is level (as it should be on a flat earth-without EA) or "dips" below level (as it should if the earth is convex, even with a little standard atmospheric refraction.) 

[Bobby Shafto]

The tide was just past its low, at 0.0, which is -2.8' Mean Sea Level (MSL) for La Jolla.
A light on-shore wind chop was was on the water, with a primary South-Southwest swell of 4-5' at 12 second intervals.

Hi Bobby!
Did you include the tide in your calculation?
I think, it's quite easy: The point, where the viewing line "touches" the sea surface, gets lowered or heightened by the tide. According this you have to add (or subtract)  the difference to mean sea level (the reference for observer/target) to both observer's and target's height. In this case sea surface is lower, so observers and target heights have to be increased: +2.8'

Btw. A similar approach could be used for waves. Regarding what may be obscured, in worst case waves "heighten" the sea surface by half the wave height (wave height is measured from top to bottom). In this case half the wave height has to be subtracted from observer's and target's height: -2' to -2.5' 
So in total <1'

I did, but I don't claim to being so precise as to get elevations down to +/- 1 foot. I can't swear that my camera height on the reef was really 0' at the then-current level of the ocean. I was using a tripod at its lowest, but the fact that I wasn't getting wet probably means I was a good 1-2' above sea level. There weren't any breakers near me, but the surge of the water from the swells was reaching my location.

I don't know. I think the margin of error, especially in estimating heights of the target in the image is greater than whatever difference estimation of viewing height above the water would make.

I've actually done this from spots just above the Point Loma tidepools looking at the Coronado Islands to the south (talked about in different topics) where I see how much changes in the view of the islands when just raising the camera up a foot on the tripod. I should publish those photos to show the effect. The images don't show enough to be able to realistically determine a change in how much is visible, but you can visually detect a difference.

[HorstFue]

Another thing I see in the images: The horizon is a sharp, clear, crisp line. There's no sign of significant blur or similar at or below the horizon line. Apropos line: I even see the swell - 12s wave period should give on a coarse estimate 150-200m wave length - which "bulges" the horizon. And a second wave system - generated by local wind - superposing the swell, with much lower and shorter (wave length), choppy waves.

So no sign of any resolution limit, whereas FE theories like "law of perspective" and similar define the horizon by the resolution limit.

[Bobby Shafto]

The smokestack ought to be level.




Compare this picture with yesterday's. There is more clearance between the bottom of the Carlsbad power plant and the top of the interim obstructing promontory at La Jolla today than there was yesterday. Edit: This suggests to me that atmospheric refraction is a little greater than standard K, resulting in a bit of "looming," making the earth appear a little flatter. But still, not flat. Significant "dip" below level sight.  - No. I thought I had the camera set up on the same spot and at the same height, but I realize now, looking back, that I didn't. So that, rather than different atmospheric conditions, is why the smokestack's "rise" above that interim ridge of La Jolla appeared different.

[Bobby Shafto]

Another clear day on Friday; clear enough anyway, and before the smoky haze from the brush fires up north started affecting visibility.

Same result as before. These from 25', 12' and 5' heights above the water.



I've yet to see the distant beach even from a 25' vantage point. The line of sight crosses the distant beach at 19.75 miles. The power station smokestack is about another half a mile north over land.

From 25 feet:


From 12 feet:


From 5 feet:


No (or almost no) inferior mirage.
No distance perspective change.
No change in atmospheric conditions/visibility.
No change in resolution/magnification.

Only change is viewing height.

Stack tip is 399' MSL
Top roof ledge of power station is 145' MSL
Lower roof ledge is 90' MSL (barely visible from 25' height)

Tide was at -0.3' MLLW, which is -3' MSL.
Minimal swell/waves: ~1-2' max

[Dr David Thork]

This has been discussed ad nauseum on this site.

And it has been answered again and again and again.

We agree that when you have a body of water, it bulges in the middle. It does this for the following reason. Pressure. But that does not mean the world is round. A curve on a localised surface does not mean you can extrapolate a circle.



This is well known to everyone.


Where the evaporation occurs ... over the water ... you get lower pressure.







This is precisely why Rowbotham (who was a better scientist than you), isolated this error by using canals instead of huge bodies of open water that would be susceptible to localised pressure issues. And the Bedford Level Experiment has been repeatedly conducted and always shown the earth flat. Stop with all the lakes and sea examples. It is telling us nothing.

I'm not interested in your pictures of blurry buildings and ships with arrows and lines all over them. You aren't addressing the issue scientifically. You must remove errors like localised sea swell before you can say "oh look a curve, ergo an entire ball". How can you possibly extrapolate a circle from a small localised curve?

[Bobby Shafto]

Here is each view with the prediction range for a globe earth with standard atmospheric refraction:




Here is a good view of the coastal area where the sight line from that area in La Jolla makes landfall:



Even with a telescope and good visibility with no atmospheric distortion, I've yet to see the houses on the 40' bluffs overlooking the beach, even from a 25' vantage point. The globe earth predicts that I shouldn't be able to, and my observations are (so far) matching with what the globe predicts. 

I certainly can't imagine how I could set up 2' at the water line and be able to see people walking on the beach. But we'll see. My goal is to have an assistant use a mirror to reflect the afternoon sun from that beach, like this other video did across a 13-mile span over Monterey Bay, and see if that works.

I also hope to try the mirror technique from Swami's beach in Encinitas, closer to the 13-mile distance that the Research Flat Earth crew did.



Swami's point is just out of the field of view of this video clip but it offers an idea of what I was able to see see (telescopically) from 5' above the low tide water level. This is what the shoreline there looks like:



If we're dealing with earth surface convexity on the order of a globe, I'd expect to be able to see the mirrored sun flash when it's positioned at the parking lot on the 70' bluff, but lose sight of it at least by the point of the landing where the stairs make a 90 degree turn. That's about 25-30' above the high tide level and below what a globe earth (with std. refraction) predicts should be hidden. And certainly I should not be able to see the mirror flash when it originates from the beach level if the earth is truly a globe. It would take extreme refractive conditions and ducting for that to be possible; and that if such conditions exist, it should distort the appearance of the far coast.

The smoke from the fires in Ventura county are making local visibility difficult so this project may be delayed for a bit. Santa Ana winds and low humidity helped blow away the marine surface haze Friday, but that's brought with it conditions primed for wildfires.