*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #100 on: September 10, 2018, 11:03:40 PM »


That light line on the horizon should not actually be there if you look at the revealed version.

Then, from the original Turning Torso video look at the border between water and the building(s):

At 0:50, for example:





Like the skunkbay effect, there is a distinct light line.

You just wrote this a minute ago:

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018, whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description.

Are you now saying the 2 year time difference between shots doesn't matter and some line line should be in both?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #101 on: September 10, 2018, 11:21:43 PM »
By time lapse, I assume you mean the Skunk Bay video?

I asked Tom for this, but can you find me a section of that time lapse demonstrating how the sinking ship effect can be caused by any of those atmospheric phenomena evident in that video? Just give me 1 or more time marks where I can see something like what's happening in the images of the Turning Torso tower?




at 53 seconds entire houses are visible. These houses are a good 15-30 feet tall (depending on the house) by my estimation when looking at google street view. These houses are not at sea level. When I look at the altitude of Hansville it says 20 feet. So for 15-30 foot building to be completely obscured at 20 feet above sea level we are talking about obstructing 35-50 feet.

at 1:24 and again at 2:24 only the tips of the tallest houses are visible. 


Are we supposed to believe that the earth went from round to flat to round to flat?
Are we to say that the curvature of the earth was blocking the bottom 35-50 feet of the houses but only sometimes?


I am of the opinion that what is blocking the view of 35-50 feet of buildings in the distance here is 100% optics 0% curve of earth.
If 35 feet can be obscured by optics traveling through what maybe 5 miles of atmosphere then couldn't 120 feet be obstructed traveling through 20 miles of atmosphere?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 11:27:16 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #102 on: September 10, 2018, 11:33:06 PM »

at 53 seconds entire houses are visible. These houses are a good 15-30 feet tall (depending on the house) by my estimation when looking at google street view. These houses are not at sea level. When I look at the altitude of Hansville it says 20 feet. So for 15-30 foot building to be completely obscured at 20 feet above sea level we are talking about obstructing 35-50 feet.

at 1:24 and again at 2:24 only the tips of the tallest houses are visible. 

I'm not questioning house height and such, but it appears the camera POV is located in Hansville, not looking at Hansville. This from the SkunkBayWaether.com site, orientation of cameras:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #103 on: September 10, 2018, 11:51:49 PM »
Are we supposed to believe that the earth went from round to flat to round to flat?

No.

Are we to say that the curvature of the earth was blocking the bottom 35-50 feet of the houses but only sometimes?

No, at that distance curve height hidden would be about 5 feet.

I am of the opinion that what is blocking the view of 35-50 feet of buildings in the distance here is 100% optics 0% curve of earth.
If 35 feet can be obscured by optics traveling through what maybe 5 miles of atmosphere then couldn't 120 feet be obstructed traveling through 20 miles of atmosphere?

Agreed, in this case, 100% optics.

As to your second point, I suppose. But in the TT timelapse, the water line doesn't budge, there is no miraging, yet there is a persistent hidden amount of the tower of about 90+ feet. Which does fit RE curve calculations at that distance.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #104 on: September 10, 2018, 11:52:51 PM »


That light line on the horizon should not actually be there if you look at the revealed version.

Then, from the original Turning Torso video look at the border between water and the building(s):

At 0:50, for example:





Like the skunkbay effect, there is a distinct light line.

You just wrote this a minute ago:

- That two hour timelapse was taken in April 2018, whereas the original sunken  turning torso observation was taken in 2016 according the the original video description.

Are you now saying the 2 year time difference between shots doesn't matter and some line line should be in both?

The light line is interesting. I notice that it appears in many of the "sunken" Round Earth images.

https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/6nrf5h/ship_well_below_the_horizon_zooming_in_didnt/

« Last Edit: September 11, 2018, 12:01:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #105 on: September 11, 2018, 12:02:33 AM »
The light line is interesting. I notice that it appears in many of the "sunken" Round Earth images.

https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/6nrf5h/ship_well_below_the_horizon_zooming_in_didnt/



Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #106 on: September 11, 2018, 12:08:11 AM »
Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

When comparing the "revealed" and "sunken" versions of the Skunkbay timelapses, the light line should not actually be there when the peninsula sinks. The light line seems to occur on the horizon when the sinking effect occurs, except when it gets late and dark in the day.

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many high resolution Round Earth sinking phenomena photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2018, 12:31:48 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #107 on: September 11, 2018, 12:10:02 AM »
at 53 seconds entire houses are visible. These houses are a good 15-30 feet tall (depending on the house) by my estimation when looking at google street view. These houses are not at sea level. When I look at the altitude of Hansville it says 20 feet. So for 15-30 foot building to be completely obscured at 20 feet above sea level we are talking about obstructing 35-50 feet.

at 1:24 and again at 2:24 only the tips of the tallest houses are visible. 

Are we supposed to believe that the earth went from round to flat to round to flat?
Are we to say that the curvature of the earth was blocking the bottom 35-50 feet of the houses but only sometimes?

The curve of the earth is never blocking the bottom of anything in the Skunk Bay video. The entire panorama there is all closer than any earth curve horizon.
I am of the opinion that what is blocking the view of 35-50 feet of buildings in the distance here is 100% optics 0% curve of earth.
Correct. That's the point. It's 100% optics (and a little bit of tidal effect since there's about 6' of swing in water level, but then that's only affecting coastal verticality and not any structures above the high water line mark.)
If 35 feet can be obscured by optics traveling through what maybe 5 miles of atmosphere then couldn't 120 feet be obstructed traveling through 20 miles of atmosphere?
35 feet isn't gone. It's squished into a still-visible line at the boundary. That's 100% optics.

That's my point. If the Turning Torso is NOT, in fact, beyond a curved sphere horizon, then not just 120', but up to 371' would have to be squished into a still-visible distorted line at that boundary. But I don't see it. Do you? All that footage is gone.

Not only that, but if it's purely optics, then why does it change with viewing distance and then reverse with an increase in viewing elevation? If it's changing atmospherics, you could sit and watch the tower sink from any distant spot.

Look at the Skunk Bay video. It's not sinking. It jumps all around. It's up. It's down, in a matter of seconds. Yes, it's all optics. From 4 miles away and a viewing elevation of 70', curvature is out of the equation. But at no time in that video is there any sinking. It's more like an accordion; stretching, squashing...with a lot of mirage.  The features of the Turning Torso lower floors disappearing act is of a completely different character.

I would love to see the Turning Torso or other such structure with such elevation go through an optical effects "sinking ship" sequence where we know we can rule out curvature. I've yet to see it. It's not in that video.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #108 on: September 11, 2018, 12:12:27 AM »
Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

In my estimation the light line should not actually be there in the "sunken" version of the Skunkbay images. The light line seems to be there on the horizon when the sinking effect occurs, except when it gets late and dark in the day.

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many Round Earth sinking ship photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

What if there are many that don't? What does that suggest?

A light line as an indication that the refractive sinking ship effect is occurring seems like a grasp, at best.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #109 on: September 11, 2018, 12:21:34 AM »
Are you implying a "Light Line" conspiracy?

By comparing the "revealed" and "sunken" versions of the Skunkbay timelapses, the light line should not actually be there when the peninsula sinks. The light line seems to occur on the horizon when the sinking effect occurs, except when it gets late and dark in the day.

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many Round Earth sinking ship photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

This "light line" as you call it IS where all of the missing elevation is in the Skunk Bay video. There is no curvature at that distance to account for anything missing. It's all optical effects due to atmosphere (except for tidal changes at the shoreline). But land features above that shoreline? Anything missing is due to warping by the atmosphere. It'll either be obscured by a mirror effect (mirage) or by a band of haze or squished into your "light line" if there is no obscurant. It's not missing.

A sinking ship's missing elevation is missing. Gone. Not squished into a "light line." 

371' of Turning Torso is not squished into a visible line when viewed from 30 miles away and then 165' suddenly restored to view by climbing 50' leaving 205' still squished in a thin white line.

Pure optics and atmospherics never produces the "sinking ship" effect. It'll distort, but that's not the same thing. There is no sequence in that Skunk Bay time lapse that mimics the appearance of something disappearing beyond the horizon of a curved surface.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #110 on: September 11, 2018, 12:22:33 AM »
That's my point. If the Turning Torso is NOT, in fact, beyond a curved sphere horizon, then not just 120', but up to 371' would have to be squished into a still-visible distorted line at that boundary. But I don't see it. Do you? All that footage is gone.

I definitely see that optically the Turning Torso  is different than the weather camera. As to why 371' is obscured instead of a predicted 120'; Maybe it does not increase linearly but rather as exponential or logarithmic function.

Not only that, but if it's purely optics, then why does it change with viewing distance and then reverse with an increase in viewing elevation? If it's changing atmospherics, you could sit and watch the tower sink from any distant spot.

I am of the opinion that it's a combination of optics and curve and very situational.  I could easily understand how someone could think that it was most/all optics. Higher elevation simply means the atmosphere is less dense and a different composition so less is obscured due to refraction. This is compounded dramatically when looking over water in which the air above the water is not only more dense but has a much higher concentration of water molecules.






*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #111 on: September 11, 2018, 12:42:33 AM »
I definitely see that optically the Turning Torso  is different than the weather camera. As to why 371' is obscured instead of a predicted 120'; Maybe it does not increase linearly but rather as exponential or logarithmic function.
You can always "maybe" things. It's pretty much par for the course with flat earth theories.

Let me try a maybe. Maybe if you could zoom in on the Skunk Bay imagery you could see where the missing elevation has gone, warped and distorted into a "thin white line". The image of the Turning Torso is already zoomed in. More footage keeps disappearing but that supposed "think white line" where it is supposedly going doesn't change. 

Skunk Bay is not analogous to the Turning Torso. It's a monumental stretch (without an optics rationale) to claim that what is occurring with the Turning Torso can be found in the Skunk Bay video.

I am of the opinion that it's a combination of optics and curve and very situational.
Turning Torso is a combination of optics and curve, and yes, very situational on the atmospheric conditions. Optics and atmospherics alone cannot -- CANNOT -- account for it.

Skunk Bay is purely optics/atmosphere.

  I could easily understand how someone could think that it was most/all optics. Higher elevation simply means the atmosphere is less dense and a different composition so less is obscured due to refraction. This is compounded dramatically when looking over water in which the air above the water is not only more dense but has a much higher concentration of water molecules.
You can understand it? I can't. I see it as conflating of phenomena and grasping, like using out of focus headlights to explain how the sun can appear to remain the same size as it's supposed to be receding into the distance.

If rising up in viewing elevation by 50' reduced the view angle sufficiently to reduce the effect of refraction and peer through atmosphere of less density, then you'd have to have some explanation for why it restores X amount of footage leaving the remainder no less "squished" into that "thin white line" as before.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #112 on: September 11, 2018, 03:42:51 AM »
The Thin Light Line Strikes Again!

Earlier this year Bobby posted a thread, asking us why a ship sank.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10077.0

It appears that there is a light line in his image as well:



Another incident

Ships, in front, on, and beyond the horizon

Man compares the appearance of ships that are in front of, on, and "beyond" the horizon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0e7BbAag1w




*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #113 on: September 11, 2018, 04:12:52 AM »
If you want to die on the "White Line" hill, fine by me.

No white line:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #114 on: September 11, 2018, 04:17:57 AM »
It appears that your ship is already white.

No white line:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #115 on: September 11, 2018, 04:33:53 AM »
That one looks pretty close to the water. Maybe it's an actual wave. I notice that you didn't provide the link to the video. We can see that a lot of refraction is occurring by looking at the straightness of the masts on the ship.

In the one above it you are looking for a thin light line on a white ship, and the scene is unnaturally darkened for some reason.

Here is the famous Sunken Toronto image:



The Thin Light Line is caught in the act once again:


« Last Edit: September 11, 2018, 04:40:53 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #116 on: September 11, 2018, 04:43:00 AM »
Link to video:

But now I'm confused, I thought your "white line" theory was this:

Since it is widely agreed that the Skunkbay scenes show refraction, it may be that the the light line is an indication that the sinking ship refraction effect is occurring. If we look at many high resolution Round Earth sinking phenomena photos, and most have the light line, would that not suggest that the same effect is occurring?

So in the image I presented, you stated:

We can see that a lot of refraction is occurring by looking at the straightness of the masts on the ship.

By your theory, with refraction present as you stated, there should be a white line. There isn't.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #117 on: September 11, 2018, 07:09:12 AM »
We can see that a lot of refraction is occurring by looking at the straightness of the masts on the ship.

Please explain why straight masts equates to a lot of refraction.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #118 on: September 11, 2018, 03:43:22 PM »
The new ad hoc "Thin White Line" theory.

Whatever the elevation is that appears to be missing is compressed into a thin optical line at the horizon boundary.

Given this theory, that would mean that on that particular day when MathiasKP made his Turning Torso observations, atmospheric conditions across the channel were such that:

1. when viewed from 29 miles away from an elevation of near sealevel, 371' of the Turning Torso (0.135° of arc) was compressed to a line, leaving the remainder mostly un-distorted and visible.



2. when viewed from 29 miles away from an elevation of 50', 205' of the Turning Torso (0.075° of arc) was compressed to a line, leaving the remainder mostly un-distorted and visible.



At present, the explanation for how the atmosphere does this, optically (other than the ambiguously-used, umbrella term "refraction") is left unexplained. Perhaps a good place to start would be producing a theoretical temperature/height gradient graph showing what kind of density lapse rate would be required to produce, not just extreme light bending of the lower portions of the tower, but also the dramatic demarcation boundary between that compression-producing super-refraction and the staighter, more standard refraction of the upper portions.

Realize, too, this has to be a rather typical and not anomalous, since the "thin white line" theory tries to account for whenever object elevation is apparently missing and atmospheric refraction is given as the reason. Such a temperature gradient has never been recorded. This could be groundbreaking, Tom.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #119 on: September 11, 2018, 03:56:29 PM »
That one looks pretty close to the water. Maybe it's an actual wave. I notice that you didn't provide the link to the video. We can see that a lot of refraction is occurring by looking at the straightness of the masts on the ship.

I see why you call refraction a "magic wand." When you wield it, it is without distinction as to effect or cause.

Here's the source video.



No wave.
No optical compression at the horizon.
Just curvature.