[Max_Almond]

This is a photo of the Toronto skyline taken from Olcott, New York (elevation around 30 feet above the lake) about 39 miles away.



Question is: where is eye level?

If you can, please draw a line in paint or photoshop and repost the picture.

PS You may want to bear in mind the following:

1. When pictures are posted showing that the horizon appears to be below eye level, flat earthers tend to state that the horizon is obscured by haze, and that the horizon would actually be at eye level - ie, level with the horizontal red line in the picture below - but we just can't see it.



2. When pictures are posted of distant skylines obscured by water, such as this one:



flat earthers tend to state that it's actually waves or haze that's obscuring the bottoms of the buildings.

The interesting thing about this, though, is that #1 puts the actual flat earth horizon above the horizon in the photo, and #2 puts the actual flat earth horizon below the horizon in the photo.

(To explain #2: the photographer was 30 feet above the lake. The lower 600 feet of the CN Tower is hidden. Therefore 30 feet above the lake on the Toronto side - which must also be at the same level as the photographer - ie, "eye level" - is quite some distance below the horizon in the picture.)

"Eye level" - and therefore "the actual horizon" - can't be both below and above the horizon we see in the photo at the same time.

This is especially obvious if we imagine a photo which both includes a way to measure eye level and a view across water to a distant skyline.

Something like this:



So, given that "eye level" is not that difficult to calculate, discover, and draw, where is eye level in this pic?

[Max_Almond]

Or if you can't draw a line where you think eye level is, just select one of the following options.

Is it:

a) above the line formed by the water and the sky?
b) below the line formed by the water and the sky?
c) level with the line formed by the water and the sky?

[sandokhan]

None of the above: there is no curvature across lake Ontario.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616955#msg1616955

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1969076#msg1969076 (new photographs)

Rochester, NY - Toronto, 152 km

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1773614#msg1773614

No curvature across lake Michigan:

https://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1591587#msg1591587

[edby]

None of the above

The ‘above’ were

a) above the line formed by the water and the sky?
b) below the line formed by the water and the sky?
c) level with the line formed by the water and the sky?

which by my logic incorporate every possible possibility. Quartum non datur

[Max_Almond]

This thread really highlights the difficulty in seriously debating the flat earth claim, and flat earth 'evidence'.

It's a super simple question, with only a few possible answers. It doesn't take too much thinking about. There's nothing complicated in it.

And yet, it's hard to find anyone who wants to engage with it.

Why is that?

[Tom Bishop]

This thread really highlights the difficulty in seriously debating the flat earth claim, and flat earth 'evidence'.

It's a super simple question, with only a few possible answers. It doesn't take too much thinking about. There's nothing complicated in it.

And yet, it's hard to find anyone who wants to engage with it.

Why is that?

Sandokan responded to you, and you ran away.

[Max_Almond]

Lol. Sandokhan said "none of the above" to a, b, or c, when a, b, or c were the only possible answers, as Edby pointed out.

Sandokhan didn't respond to that - which I suppose in your book equates to "running away".

I did look at a few of Sandokhan's links, by the way, even though I was pretty sure they'd be a waste of time. One of them he puts forward as a shot of Toronto "from Rochester, NY" - but when you click on the link, it's actually a shot someone took as they were driving from Rochester, NY.

And you've yet to answer the question either. So who's running away?

Projection much?

[totallackey]

Lol. Sandokhan said "none of the above" to a, b, or c, when a, b, or c were the only possible answers, as Edby pointed out.

Sandokhan didn't respond to that - which I suppose in your book equates to "running away".

I did look at a few of Sandokhan's links, by the way, even though I was pretty sure they'd be a waste of time. One of them he puts forward as a shot of Toronto "from Rochester, NY" - but when you click on the link, it's actually a shot someone took as they were driving from Rochester, NY.

And you've yet to answer the question either. So who's running away?

Projection much?

"Projection much"...seems to be a catch phrase initiated (and now promulgated by you) by one of your alts, the notorious JackBlack...

No, Tom does not "projection much..." there Freud...

Spare us all the interweb psychiatry analysis, as you are a total loser at it anyway...

Aside from that, your own words demonstrate the bias you possessed going into your perusal provided by Sandokhan...No one can seriously take any report on them offered by you.

[Tumeni]

No, Tom does not "projection much..." there Freud...

.. but he does run away. People in glass houses...

[Max_Almond]

Maybe I can add a little to help people answer the question:

The camera was about 30 feet above the water, therefore we can say that, on a flat earth, eye level must be a plane about thirty feet above the water.

Thirty feet above the water on the Toronto side is about where this line is here:



We can know this because we know the height of the CN Tower; we know the distance from the top to the observation deck; and we know how to convert pixels into feet and work out where street level would be.

This seems to show that "eye level" would be below the horizon, were the Earth a flat plane.

The problem there is that, in all photos were we actually measure where eye level is, it always appears above the horizon (such as those above).

And then, of course, flat earthers claim that "eye level" and the horizon are always level.

So which one is it?

a) above the line formed by the water and the sky?
b) below the line formed by the water and the sky?
c) level with the line formed by the water and the sky?

[Bobby Shafto]

I'm going with FE Eye Level at the apparent horizon where waterline meets the sky and GE Eye Level being about a quarter of the way up what's visible of the CN Tower.

[HorstFue]

I'm going with FE Eye Level at the apparent horizon where waterline meets the sky and GE Eye Level being about a quarter of the way up what's visible of the CN Tower.

That's just guessing. Do you know the exact parameters for looming/refraction in this image?
I guess - assuming a round Earth -, looming has moved the skyline of Toronto higher.
Looming or refraction could also have affected the 'water horizon line'.

On a flat earth and without any looming/refraction this image would be impossible.

[Bobby Shafto]

That's just guessing.

Of course. And my best guess based on what was provided.

[timterroo]

2. When pictures are posted of distant skylines obscured by water, such as this one:

I really appreciate the perspective of this picture; it really looks like the earth is curved.

But there's a problem with this picture. Based on RE theory, the super-imposed tower that you see there would have to have been taken at a much closer distance than the overall picture since you would have to get closer to get over the curve (unless of course the earth is flat). The relative size of the tower taken at a close distance should be a different size than the very distant tower in the overall picture. How is it that they are aligned so perfectly in this picture? I'm not buying it. The super-imposed picture appears to have been modified to fit the size of the overall picture.

You would need to use a camera with a higher zoom and aspect ratio to see closer to the base of the tower in order to determine if you can, or cannot actually see its base.

[Why Not]

Or you could simply take a photo from a higher elevation.

[timterroo]

Or if you can't draw a line where you think eye level is, just select one of the following options.

Is it:

a) above the line formed by the water and the sky?
b) below the line formed by the water and the sky?
c) level with the line formed by the water and the sky?

It seems impossible to tell where eye level is based on this information. Was the camera angled down? In that case, perhaps b? Was the camera up? a? Not likely C since the camera would have to be angled at a specific degree to get C.

[stack]

2. When pictures are posted of distant skylines obscured by water, such as this one:

I really appreciate the perspective of this picture; it really looks like the earth is curved.

But there's a problem with this picture. Based on RE theory, the super-imposed tower that you see there would have to have been taken at a much closer distance than the overall picture since you would have to get closer to get over the curve (unless of course the earth is flat). The relative size of the tower taken at a close distance should be a different size than the very distant tower in the overall picture. How is it that they are aligned so perfectly in this picture? I'm not buying it. The super-imposed picture appears to have been modified to fit the size of the overall picture.

You would need to use a camera with a higher zoom and aspect ratio to see closer to the base of the tower in order to determine if you can, or cannot actually see its base.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, and could be way off, but here's my interpretation:
The super-imposed image of the CN Tower was taken at a much closer distance, yes. It was then scaled down to the exact dimensions of the master shot of the Toronto skyline from the perspective of the photographer 39 miles away. Ostensibly creating a 1-1 image, in this case, an overlay. In 'scaling' an image you are shrinking or enlarging it, but preserving the contents original proportions.

[timterroo]

Or you could simply take a photo from a higher elevation.

The photographer would have to be 1000 feet higher in order to see the base at 39 miles.... not likely.

[Bad Puppy]

2. When pictures are posted of distant skylines obscured by water, such as this one:

I really appreciate the perspective of this picture; it really looks like the earth is curved.

But there's a problem with this picture. Based on RE theory, the super-imposed tower that you see there would have to have been taken at a much closer distance than the overall picture since you would have to get closer to get over the curve (unless of course the earth is flat). The relative size of the tower taken at a close distance should be a different size than the very distant tower in the overall picture. How is it that they are aligned so perfectly in this picture? I'm not buying it. The super-imposed picture appears to have been modified to fit the size of the overall picture.

You would need to use a camera with a higher zoom and aspect ratio to see closer to the base of the tower in order to determine if you can, or cannot actually see its base.

What is it about the picture that you don't buy?  If it's been resized without modifying the proportions it shouldn't change the results by any significant margin (at least not enough to bring the base up to the horizon.

[Max_Almond]

Or if you can't draw a line where you think eye level is, just select one of the following options.

Is it:

a) above the line formed by the water and the sky?
b) below the line formed by the water and the sky?
c) level with the line formed by the water and the sky?

It seems impossible to tell where eye level is based on this information. Was the camera angled down? In that case, perhaps b? Was the camera up? a? Not likely C since the camera would have to be angled at a specific degree to get C.

Camera angle doesn't make a difference: all that changes is where things appear in the frame.