*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« on: July 04, 2018, 02:29:05 PM »
I would like to try to apply flat earth theories to analyze a couple of photos I took yesterday. This is from the first photo, taken from Cabrillo Point in San Diego, looking WSW from https://goo.gl/maps/YnzAo9batsT2



Date/Time
July 3rd, 2018; 10:55 PDT

Weather Conditions
air temperature 70°
water temperature 68°
humidity 66%
dew point 58°
visibility 10+ miles
onshore wind ~5kts
mixed wind/south ground swell 1-3'

Location
N32°40'30.2"
W117°14'46.4"
elevation ~100'
Viewing azimuth WSE ~250°

Camera
Canon PowerShot SX5 HS
1/320 sec; f/8; 215mm
ISO 100
4000x2248 resolution
Cropped to 1000x562
Contrast/color adjusted

Comments: I didn't notice this with the naked eye at first. It was only while panning the horizon at my greatest analog zoom that I saw it. Looked a little like a city skyline peeking over the horizon, but it's actually a loaded container ship some distance off the Southern California coast.

Why does it look like this?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2018, 02:58:37 PM »
15 minutes later, it looks different.

I didn't change camera or camera settings.
The ship didn't get closer.
The weather conditions didn't change.

What did change was my vantage point.

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2176
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2018, 03:08:21 PM »







« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 03:33:30 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2018, 03:20:15 PM »
Ocean swells can, and do, alter what you can see on a sea horizon.

I provided wind and ground swell information, and also the viewing elevation, for the first picture. Can that first picture really be explained by obscuring open ocean swells?

San Clemente basin buoy information:
2.4ft @ 13s from 199° (SSW)
2.0ft @ 10s from 288° (WNW)
1.6ft @ 8s from 281° (WNW)

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2176
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2018, 03:21:36 PM »
Can that first picture really be explained by obscuring open ocean swells?
I believe so.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2018, 03:30:32 PM »
Can that first picture really be explained by obscuring open ocean swells?
I believe so.
Only if the viewer height is less than the swell height. Otherwise you're looking over it and the swell can't obscure more than it's own height.



So if the swell was less than 3 feet then unless Bobby took the image from a lower height than that, the swell can't have obscured more than 3 feet of the boat.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2018, 03:45:36 PM »
Can that first picture really be explained by obscuring open ocean swells?
I believe so.
I don't believe so, but I'm asking for a flat earth theory analysis, so okay. This is the "dime can hide an elephant" principle.

A 1-3' ocean swell obscures this amount of vertical height when viewed from 100' of elevation and at X distance:



Can we calculate X? We probably need to find the value for the obscured height.  What does that look like? 50'? 70'?


*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2176
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2018, 03:49:11 PM »
Lrn the difference between waves and swell.

https://www.naturalnavigator.com/news/2017/10/the-difference-between-waves-and-swell

Bobby has given us H0.
Booby has not given us SwH - Swell height.

H0 - "If both swell and wind-waves are present, it should equal the square root of the sum of the squares of the swell and wind-wave heights."
I can't know the swell height unless I have either H0, WwD, SwP and AvP, or am directly given SwH.

https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/waveobs.shtml

What a bunch of amateurs.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 03:57:35 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2018, 03:57:49 PM »
Lrn the difference between waves and swell.
It actually doesn't matter in terms of my diagram, the key thing is viewer height and whether that could have conceivably been lower than the waves or swell or any other obstacle in between him and the ship. If it could have been lower then you have a case, otherwise not so much.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2176
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2018, 04:04:37 PM »
Lrn the difference between waves and swell.
It actually doesn't matter in terms of my diagram,
No, because your diagram consists of waves and no swell and bears no relation to reality.

the key thing is viewer height and whether that could have conceivably been lower than the waves or swell or any other obstacle in between him and the ship. If it could have been lower then you have a case, otherwise not so much.
Again wrong. Please learn the difference between waves and swell. You can't progress with this thread until you do.

I provided wind and ground swell information
You did not.

you provided
mixed wind/south ground swell 1-3'
Mixed ... IE H0, not SwH. There are a lot more wind waves than there are swells, dragging the overall max height way down to a lower average. Great if I want an average for my oceanic power plant. Useless if I want to know what I can see or cannot see at a distance. Being as I have neither the period for your wind waves WwP, nor the period of your swell SvP, nor the combined average of the two AvP allowing me to deduce one of them, I can't determine the ratios of wind waves to swell either. This is a mess of an OP.
 
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 04:15:31 PM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2018, 04:13:11 PM »
Bobby has given us H0.
Booby has not given us SwH - Swell height.
Swell height data (not wave height) provided came from this open ocean buoy.

I'm a naval officer and a surfer. I know the ocean swells. Call me an amateur, will you?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2018, 04:18:59 PM »
I provided wind and ground swell information
You did not.

you provided
mixed wind/south ground swell 1-3'
Mixed ... IE H0, not SwH. There are a lot more wind waves than there are swells, dragging the overall max height way down to a lower average. Great if I want an average for my oceanic power plant. Useless if I want to know what I can see or cannot see at a distance. Being as I have neither the period for your wind waves WwP, nor the period of your swell SvP, nor the combined average of the two AvP allowing me to deduce one of them, I can't determine the ratios of wind waves to swell either. This is a mess of an OP.
Opening post was information at the shoreline: a mixed wind/ground swell of 1-3'.

When you claimed ground swell was responsible for the hidden portion of the ship, I provided:
Quote
San Clemente basin buoy information:
2.4ft @ 13s from 199° (SSW)
2.0ft @ 10s from 288° (WNW)
1.6ft @ 8s from 281° (WNW)
That's not mixed. That's ground swell. Being the expert you are, I'd expect you to know that.

Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2018, 04:20:51 PM »
Lrn the difference between waves and swell.
It actually doesn't matter in terms of my diagram,
No, because your diagram consists of waves and no swell and bears no relation to reality.
It doesn't matter if it consisted of a hill of beans. This is geometry, it doesn't matter what is in between you and the object you're looking at.
If your viewer height is higher than the highest obstacle in between you and the object then the obstacle will block less of the object than its own height.
My diagram shows why.
It doesn't matter if that obstacle is waves or the swell or a brick wall inexplicably in the middle of the ocean, all that matters it the height of it relative to your viewer height.

If you still maintain I'm wrong then feel free to draw your own diagram showing why I am.
In your diagram you have made the swell artificially high as thought there was a major storm, from the pictures that does not appear to be the case.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2018, 04:33:40 PM »
I think I've understood the argument...so the claim is that the ship is bobbing up and down on the swell and Bobby has captured 2 images one where it's at the top, so you can see it and the other when it's in the trough so you can't see the bottom of it.

That makes more sense as an argument but I'm not sure big ships bob up and down on the swell like a small one does, they're generally big enough to be more stable.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2018, 04:52:58 PM »
I think I've understood the argument...so the claim is that the ship is bobbing up and down on the swell and Bobby has captured 2 images one where it's at the top, so you can see it and the other when it's in the trough so you can't see the bottom of it.

That makes more sense as an argument but I'm not sure big ships bob up and down on the swell like a small one does, they're generally big enough to be more stable.

That might be the theory, but that's not the observation. The presentation of the ship from vantage point #1 never changed. Everything below the weather deck remained obscured. It wasn't until viewing from vantage point #2 that I could see the ship down to the waterline, and from that point it was never obscured.

Any pitch, roll or yaw was undetectable at that distance. And if there was a ground swell great enough to obscure the ship from a vantage point of 100', I wouldn't have been taking pictures of the horizon. I would have either been in the water or taking pictures of the epic surf at Windansea or Black's.

There IS a hurricane currently that's entered into SoCal's swell window, and we might start picking up some of that soon. That wasn't the case yesterday, and the buoy information confirms that.

But whether it's local wind chop or long train ground swell from the South Pacific, the challenge for the theory is can ocean irregularities be the cause of hiding the lower portions of distant ships at or near the horizon? How does that geometry work? If I can determine the distance to the ship, the height of the observer, and the height hidden portion of the ship, we should be able to calculate the height of the wave or swell or whatever ocean irregularity above the flat plane.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2018, 05:00:38 PM »
But whether it's local wind chop or long train ground swell from the South Pacific, the challenge for the theory is can ocean irregularities be the cause of hiding the lower portions of distant ships at or near the horizon? How does that geometry work? If I can determine the distance to the ship, the height of the observer, and the height hidden portion of the ship, we should be able to calculate the height of the wave or swell or whatever ocean irregularity above the flat plane.
Here is the location of the MSC Michela yesterday at the time of the photo. It was in transit, southbound from Long Beach and off the coast of San Diego about 25 statute miles.

I was 100' above the tide pools at Cabrillo Point.

If 50' of ship was being obscured by ocean waves or ground swell, how high would they have had to have been?


*

Offline Baby Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 2176
  • I am Baby Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2018, 05:26:56 PM »
Can you upload the full size original version of the photo at the bottom please?

Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2018, 05:38:32 PM »
Here is the location of the MSC Michela yesterday at the time of the photo. It was in transit, southbound from Long Beach and off the coast of San Diego about 25 statute miles.

I was 100' above the tide pools at Cabrillo Point.

If 50' of ship was being obscured by ocean waves or ground swell, how high would they have had to have been?

From a point 100' high a point 50' high 25 miles away works out to an angle of 0.022°.


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2018, 12:50:59 AM »



...
Why does it look like this?



Surface irregularities near the point of H is one flat earth explanation for hull-first disappearance, but it doesn't work as a stand-alone explanation. You need to what and where H is.

H is Rowbotham's "natural law of perspective" explanation for where the earth's flat plane appears to rise to eye level. Geometrically, the convergence to that vanishing point of H occurs for objects or lines of perspective that are the same height above eye level as below. Beyond that, the plane of earth doesn't appear to rise. Instead, objects or lines of perspective above that height equal to eye level converge beyond H, but anything below that line is lost to sight since the earth is not transparent.

Here, I've taken illustrations used to explain this in Earth Not a Globe and applied the container ship illustration, with eye-level approximately at 50' instead of 100', merely for the ease of illustration. (I couldn't make it work to match the observation if I put the eyeline level at 100')



So, the flat earth theory is Perspective (explanation of H and converging sight lines) and Surface Irregularities at H (waves/swell).

Now, how do we calculate distance to H?

Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2018, 01:33:08 AM »
So, the flat earth theory is Perspective (explanation of H and converging sight lines) and Surface Irregularities at H (waves/swell).

Now, how do we calculate distance to H?
I've got an idea for that... let's find that with an experiment!
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10016.0