*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6508
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2018, 11:32:10 PM »
Lets us review what we know about the sinking effect from some recent threads.

1. Watch the video that HorstFue posted in the "Why I'm a Flat Earther—37 Must-See Experiments" thread. He posts a supplement to Experiment 1 of that video in which the author did further filming at that location and sometimes saw the opposite coast in full view, and sometimes saw it hidden.

The story goes on with this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPouevRkB_o

That's at least strong evidence, that there is refraction, grossly varying with weather conditions, especially close above water surfaces.
I'm not claiming FET or RET wins. What's presented can be explained in both models, depending on the value of refraction.
But no one ever measured refraction close to water surfaces.

This is a very good one. Thanks for posting.

I invite anyone reading to watch all the way until the end. The scene changes over time, obscuring or revealing the distant objects. Sometimes bodies are viewable on the opposite shore, and sometimes they are hidden. When things are hidden near the horizon the background and area near the water is much more messy. When the refraction changes and things "below the horizon" are now viewable as if the earth were flat, in contradiction to RET, the images near the water are much clearer. At the end of the video the author leaves with the message asking which one is refraction -- the messy one, or the clearer one. Does refraction make the scene messier, or does refraction make the scene clearer?

That, combined with Experiment #2 in the first video, which is performed in a fridged environment over ice is, to me, very suggestive.

The scene changes over time, sometimes showing the opposite coast in its entirety, and sometimes showing it sunken. Notice that when the sinking effect occurs, that the background objects are squished into the surface.

2. Now lets look at the timelapse from Skunkbayweather. Recall this post:

Regarding refraction, take a look at Experiment 34 in this video for a few minutes at the 1:44:58 mark and listen to the narrator. There is a timelapse of what happens over the water's surface. I've embedded it with the time spot:

https://youtu.be/ipDfJwkmkj8?t=1h44m58s

...

Narration from the segment:

Quote
The atmosphere can cause distant objects to stretch, to compress, to mirror, and to be obscured by a false horizon line. You can see it all. Unfortunately, what you don't see is see objects arcing over curvature due to refraction. Unfortunately, dishonest globe propagandists use distortion as proof of curvature when clearly it is not.

I have repeated this demand on many occasions to the globe faithful: Produce one video of an object geometrically hidden behind a hill, which then arcs over a hill only to refraction. To date, not one globe supporter has produced the arcing over the hill proof and the flat earth proofs keep rolling in.

He is right. "Refraction" is used as a magic wand to explain whatever you want to explain. In the particular case of this thread it is being asserted that an image of the island is projected by a mirage over one hundred feet into the air to peek above the horizon without any noticeable distortion of its features in order to explain a Round Earth.

Let us look at what happens in these timelapse videos:





The general Round Earther Explanation: "The peninsula was below the horizon, and then it was projected up into the air above it!" "Refraction effect!"

This would be the usual remark. However, this does not hold. Look at where the horizon/water line is located the revealed version:



In the revealed version the horizon is behind the island... If the peninsula were below the curve of the earth in the first image, and then refraction projected the peninsula into the air, to peek over the real horizon in the second image (and all without distortion of landmass features, as odd as that sounds), we would just be seeing the peninsula peeking above the horizon line. It is clear, at least to me from the full motion video and the images above, that the phenomenon of refraction is nothing more than distortion in front of the peninsula.

We can watch more time-lapse videos, if you wish, to see whether these concepts hold as bodies are revealed and hidden.

We can clearly see that when this effect occurs, squishing and widening occurrs. Compare this sunken version to the revealed version above:



The Skunkbayweather camera didn't move at all in the timelapse. The peninsula didn't move. This sinking effect caused bodies to become squished and widened when it obscured the coast.

3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images:



The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels of the cubes are lined up, then the towers must be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that the tower squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 06:11:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2018, 12:39:42 AM »
3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images:



The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels cubes are lined up, then the towers should be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that it squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.

Taking for example A & D, the number black lines black lines indicating where the 2m gap is between each section seem to line up quiet cleanly with perhaps only a pixel or two of squashing.

Additionally, again, taking for example A & D, 58 PX wide versus 68 PX wide respectively. According to your measurements of the Turning Torso rendering, 50 PX = 66.2766 FT. Or 1.325 PX per FT.
With a 10 PX width difference between A & D, that’s approximately a 13.25’ difference.
Measuring the difference between A & D’s waterlines, it’s a 125 PX difference or 165.625’
Subtracting the 13.25’ difference in width from the 165.625’ waterline heights…

Where did the remaining 152 Feet of water come from?
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 #42 on: August 30, 2018, 03:33:46 PM »
Lets us review what we know about the sinking effect from some recent threads...
That's all very interesting, and I don't disagree with it. There are known atmospheric effects that can affect what we observe.

Now, the challenge for you isn't to just recount how such phenomena can happen but to apply it to our set of observations and make an argument to explain what we're seeing in these sets of images.

3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images...The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels of the cubes are lined up, then the towers must be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that the tower squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.
So, what are you saying? What is happening with the Turning Torso? Stooping? Sinking? Mirage? Explain it.

Where are the missing floors? How can whole sections be missing? Are you claiming that all of the missing floors are squished into a line at the boundary between the slightly distorted last visible section and the water?

You can cite and show all the examples of anomalous propagation you like, but to be germane you have to understand and explain how any of it applies to what we observe here.  For instance, the mere fact that stooping can occur doesn't mean that it is here. There are clues in the images as to whether it is or it isn't.

Make the case.

*

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 #43 on: August 30, 2018, 03:49:46 PM »
Since you have initiated the discussion about adjusting the geometric values to account for atmospheric effects, I'll submit the adjusted globe earth deltas and explain how they were derived. You (Tom or any FE advocate) can do likewise for flat earth:



These new GE numbers are the revised differences between what is observed in the images and what a curved calculation that accounts for a standard atmospheric lapse rate in a stable air mass without anomalous propagation. Over a spherical planet, a conforming atmosphere will still have a refractive influence on the propagation of light because it is curved. A general rule of thumb is that standard refraction bending light downward as light tries to follow the curve and tend toward denser air is that it has the effect of slightly flattening the curve of the earth. So, to account for that, the calculator adjusts the radius of the earth by a fraction. A range from 7/6R to 3/4R is considered standard and representative. Since I'm arguing for a globe of radius R, the updated numbers above have that adjustment applied.

Now, is there any indication that deviations from standard or unstable atmospheric conditions were existing at the time of these photos?

Assessing the 7 different images, there appears to me to be very little distortion. There is a small amount of squatting evident in the lowest 50' (notice the shallowing of lowest visible section floors and change in slope of the curved column):



This suggest a slight stooping, meaning an increased index of refraction (increase in the downward bending of light with a greater lapse rate) near the surface. It is more pronounced the greater the distance, which is most likely explained by longer view distances across the cold water:



I see no evidence of an inversion layer or ducting. There is no miraging and no opaque layer at that boundary between the surface and the space above it.

So my final answer for GE is the figures in the table above. What are the FE adjusted figures and how are they explained?

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 658
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2018, 04:34:11 PM »
Lets us review what we know about the sinking effect from some recent threads...
That's all very interesting, and I don't disagree with it. There are known atmospheric effects that can affect what we observe.

Now, the challenge for you isn't to just recount how such phenomena can happen but to apply it to our set of observations and make an argument to explain what we're seeing in these sets of images.

3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images...The tower is getting wider as the images progress.So, what are you saying? What is happening with the Turning Torso? Stooping? Sinking? Mirage? Explain it.

Where are the missing floors? How can whole sections be missing? Are you claiming that all of the missing floors are squished into a line at the boundary between the slightly distorted last visible section and the water?

You can cite and show all the examples of anomalous propagation you like, but to be germane you have to understand and explain how any of it applies to what we observe here.  For instance, the mere fact that stooping can occur doesn't mean that it is here. There are clues in the images as to whether it is or it isn't.

Make the case.
what are you saying?
He is saying that there is evidence that the lower floors are obscured by atmospheric/optical conditions. Just like in the images in which things got flatter and wider when there were 2 similar pictures taken from a similar distance and one had the lower floors obscured and one didn't. This was not caused by the curvature of the earth it was 100% optics.



What is happening with the Turning Torso?
The light from the lower obscured floors is being refracted and is being curved away from the camera. There is a lot of water vapor over the surface of the lake. The more lake you look over the more the light is refracted. 100% optics. 0% curve.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 04:47:04 PM by iamcpc »

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2018, 04:43:36 PM »
Lets us review what we know about the sinking effect from some recent threads...
That's all very interesting, and I don't disagree with it. There are known atmospheric effects that can affect what we observe.

Now, the challenge for you isn't to just recount how such phenomena can happen but to apply it to our set of observations and make an argument to explain what we're seeing in these sets of images.

3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images...The tower is getting wider as the images progress.So, what are you saying? What is happening with the Turning Torso? Stooping? Sinking? Mirage? Explain it.

Where are the missing floors? How can whole sections be missing? Are you claiming that all of the missing floors are squished into a line at the boundary between the slightly distorted last visible section and the water?

You can cite and show all the examples of anomalous propagation you like, but to be germane you have to understand and explain how any of it applies to what we observe here.  For instance, the mere fact that stooping can occur doesn't mean that it is here. There are clues in the images as to whether it is or it isn't.

Make the case.
what are you saying?
He is saying that there is evidence that the lower floors are obscured by atmospheric conditions. Just like in the images in which things got flatter and wider when there were 2 similar pictures taken from a similar distance and one had the lower floors obscured and one didn't. This was not caused by the curvature of the earth it was 100% optics.



What is happening with the Turning Torso?
The light from the lower obscured floors is being refracted and is being curved away from the camera. There is a lot of water vapor over the surface of the lake. The more lake you look over the more the light is refracted. 100% optics. 0% curve.
Yes, that's his claim. But he has yet to back it up with anything beyond hyperbole and anecdotes. It needs to be shown this is what's happening somehow, as well as preferably showing the numbers. Just waving your hand and saying 'optics' doesn't progress the claim. Bobby has put forth pretty small delta's for RE after accounting for standard refraction. Where is the similar for FE? Remember, from previous baseline FE has a LOT more ground to cover, and what we've seen so far only accounts for a small fraction of it. So break out the big boy pants and give us some numbers to work with. Or admit FE can't make predictions of this type at this time I suppose.

*

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 #46 on: August 30, 2018, 05:08:23 PM »
Right. Just saying "Optics" is the sort of magic wand Tom eschews when globe earth defenders say "refraction" to explain why things they think shouldn't be visible are visible.

I found this source video to be a very good subject for this kind of analysis precisely because the structure had very distinct features that would not lend itself toward ambiguity or uncertainty as to what we were seeing or how much of the structure was or was not visible. If this were a featureless tower or mountain, it would be difficult to quantify heights and distortions. But these sets of observations are remarkably clear.  So if there are significant deviations in the lapse rate of the intervening air, the onus is on the one claiming that optics are being affected by it to defend it with a sound explanation based on what we can deduce from the image.

I don't dispute that sub-, standard-, or super-refraction can occur. Ducting can occur. Inversions can occur. Some of these cause stooping. Some looming. Some mirages. Some mock mirages. Some squash at one level and stretch at another.

What I've never seen is hundreds of feet compress into an imperceptible line without significant distortion to the rest of the image. Even the vertical compression of floors I identified in the lower 50' is minor compared to the kind of optics that would cause that kind of footage to go missing without a trace. The horizontal stretching Tom identified is associated, but it's a different phenomenon in that axis. If Tom (or you by proxy, IAM) want to make an argument for what that distortion indicates and how it can account for even a fraction of the missing elevation, please do so.

The point is not to just offer vague "black box" like explanations. Provide an analysis that can quantify for flat earth how much "sinking" is taking place given the conditions. We can do this for GE. If FE wants to criticize that, let's see it do better. Instead, so far, Tom (for FE) has done exactly what he complained about GE doing. The earth is not flat by default. Defending a flat earth is not merely striking down globe earth explanations. You have to do what you say globe earth calculations are not. Give us a calculation. Explain why X feet are missing from each image and provide a rationale to back up how you arrived at that figure.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 05:10:05 PM by Bobby Shafto »

HorstFue

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2018, 07:48:18 PM »
3. Finally, Let us look at the sunken Twisting Torso tower images:



The tower is getting wider as the images progress.

Since the levels of the cubes are lined up, then the towers must be in proportion to one another. There is no way to line up those levels without putting the towers in proportion to one another. The fact that the tower squishes and widens, like the scenes squish in examples 1 and 2 when the sinking effect occurs, suggests that this is the same effect.
Refraction is not the same for all heights above the water. Refraction increases the lower or closer to the horizon level you get. So in images A, B and C the top sections are affected by less refraction as in  D, E and F.
Due to Refraction, especially due to the gradient with which refraction increases, the sections in D, E and F would appear less high as without refraction. To compensate, to let these section appear with the same hight as before, the observer had to increase zoom level, which makes the tower appear wider.

A similar affect can also be observed at sunset. The lower part of the sun is affected by higher refraction as the top part. So often only the lower part of the sun appears deformed.
 

*

Offline MCToon

  • *
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #48 on: August 30, 2018, 08:47:01 PM »
So far all we have seen are Nirvana Fallacies about the RE predictions and observations.  I'm anxious to see the FE predictions and compare to the observations. 

I have provided my FE predictions, I've seen no responses.  I still maintain that on a flat plane, the entire tower should be visible as long as there is clear visibility.   
I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6508
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2018, 09:48:07 PM »
It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse. There are timelapse videos of the sinking ship effect, which shows directly that the sinking ship effect phenomenon changes over time. There are also tell-tale signs that there is refraction on the water when the sinking ship effect does occur.

If you could demonstrate that refraction can cause a body to "jump over" a curve or object, that would strengthen the Round Earth case and such an explanation would be permissible. You guys shout and cry that excuse all the time, even here with the turning torso to make up for the inaccuracy of the earth curve calculator. But we have never seen a body jump over another body.  The only examples we have is where refraction affects the scene in between the observer and the observed body. Constantly asserting that "refraction did it!" to save you, without ever demonstrating that refraction even can do what you purport it to do, is the "magic wand."

It's a matter of evidence vs non-evidence. The fact is that there is evidence of the variable sinking ship effect due to refraction, and none of the Round Earth refraction that lifts bodies from behind curves.

Watch this video from Jeran. He analyzes a ship that sinks into the water as it recedes from the observer.



The same sort of mirroring effects as displayed on the ship that Jeran looks at are seen in the Turning Torso video.

At the 4:02 mark from the Turning Torso video when the author zooms in and pans around, we see a ship with the same sort of effects shown in the Jeran video:



Closeup:



Refraction is affecting that body of water.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 10:51:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6508
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2018, 10:04:12 PM »
Here are high resolution versions of the Skunk Bay scenes. The distant island is at times visible and invisible.

Skunk Bay Timelapses

9/7/12 - On this day there was a mixture of sunken and visible effects

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og

9/6/12 - On this day the peninsula was sunken throughout most of the day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3mzJGTjrI

9/1/12 - On this day the peninsula was visible throughout most of the day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTMIMDyp-OQ

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 01:28:52 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 658
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #51 on: August 30, 2018, 10:16:45 PM »
Here are high resolution versions of the Skunk Bay scenes. The distant island is at times visible and invisible.

Skunk Bay Timelapses

9/7/12 - On this day there was a mixture of sunken and visible effets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og



at 12:56 PM:

65.9 degrees 4 MPH wind nothing obscured.

at 2:12 PM
65.7 degrees 4 MPH wind and entire buildings are obscured.


Same day similar weather conditions similar temperature  0 % curve 100% optics.



One could easily use the same round earth calculator to estimate the obscured portion of a building and call it a flat earth optics calculator.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 10:22:12 PM by iamcpc »

HorstFue

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #52 on: August 30, 2018, 10:27:30 PM »
Closeup:

Refraction is affecting that body of water.
ROTFL... sorry, but this is quite obvious to me:
I've seen this many, many times on Adriatic Sea. That 2 black dots, you see another white dot below them, is a fisherman's buoy.
That's quite typical, two black quadratic vanes on top of a small white buoy.
Ask anyone who sailed Adriatic Sea...

*

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 #53 on: August 30, 2018, 11:56:06 PM »
It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse. There are timelapse videos of the sinking ship effect, which shows directly that the sinking ship effect phenomenon changes over time. There are also tell-tale signs that there is refraction on the water when the sinking ship effect does occur.

If you could demonstrate that refraction can cause a body to "jump over" a curve or object...
I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this.

We probably should have a separate discussion on atmospheric (atmoplanar?) phenomena and refraction because I see you conflating principles.

I'll get to it later.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6508
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #54 on: August 31, 2018, 01:22:19 AM »
The sinking ship effect is what tricked the ancients into believing that the earth was round when it is, in fact, a plane.

The ancients did not have access to time-lapse photography, but we do.

Closeup:

Refraction is affecting that body of water.
ROTFL... sorry, but this is quite obvious to me:
I've seen this many, many times on Adriatic Sea. That 2 black dots, you see another white dot below them, is a fisherman's buoy.
That's quite typical, two black quadratic vanes on top of a small white buoy.
Ask anyone who sailed Adriatic Sea...

The back-bottom of the boat has sky under it and the front-bottom of the boat does not line up with the rest of the boat. What ever are you talking about?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 01:25:22 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 #55 on: August 31, 2018, 02:45:33 AM »

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.

I don't know where to start, so I'll start here.

You've chosen to address this challenge by refuting the claim that atmospheric refraction is the reason for the difference between the earth curve calculator output and the observation. By doing so, you are not defending the flat earth.

The task for your is to explain the missing floors/elevation of the Turning Torso. You're showing me (us) examples of how atmospheric distortions (which are also based on the same refraction principles used by spherical earth), but unlike the spherical earth argument (which you refute) you aren't able to perform any calculations or predictions whatsoever. Where's the flat earth calculator?

All I see is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning; meaning whatever it is we observe, you claim refraction but without describing what, how or even trying to quantify it to relate to the amount of tower that's disappeared from view.  At the same time, you reject the refraction explanation for why more is visible even though it is accompanied with a reasoned explanation and quantified values.

You apparently don't understand the challenge. I get why you want to refute the spherical earth defense, but you don't "win" the challenge by thinking that flat earth is so by default.

I don't want to condescend, but I don't think you are grasping the whole refraction picture. Yes, refraction causes mirages (inferior, superior, mock, complex). Yes, refraction causes things to squat (stoop) and loom, or --and the effect you seem to want to use to compete with the earth curvature claim -- sink or rise up. You aren't getting any opposition to any of that. You aren't telling anyone anything they don't know. You can post Skunk Bay time lapse video all day until Kingdom Come. But you need to relate it to the missing lower sections of the tower to make it germane. What refractive phenomenon is at play with the Turning Torso? How can we tell? Can it account for the amount of tower height that appears missing? Can you work out a relationship between the amount of elevation that is missing with the passage of time? With viewing distance and elevation? With the clues in the images about what sort of refractive effects are in play?

You're not doing any of that. You're being non-specific, throwing refractive pasta at the wall and expecting something to stick to explain the phenomenon we see in the imagery, without any attempt at quantifying it;  not even an estimate.

Here's a question to ponder. You say that things rise up and sink out of sight due to refraction. Great. I agree. Why? How does that work? What are the atmospheric conditions that cause that to happen? And if it can happen on a flat earth, why can't it happen on a spherical earth and explain why something that is geometrically over a spherical horizon appear above it? If rising is a phenomenon that you accept can occur due to refraction on a flat earth, then why do you contest it when applied to a spherical model?

Here's something else to ponder. Do you believe that the videographer of the Turning Tower would have captured the Tower appearing to sink had he just waited and recorded all of the images from the same location but just at different times of the day? Was the increase in distance merely coincidental?  After all, if the argument for the apparent sinking is changing conditions and not a curved earth horizon, then that would be the case. If not -- if distance has something to do with it, then you should be able to calculate a prediction for that somehow, with changing conditions adding some added marginal amount of unpredictability on top of it.


*

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 #56 on: August 31, 2018, 02:49:03 AM »
I intend to start a separate topic on atmospheric refraction. I'll reserve addressing your other video examples there. I'd like to try to keep this topic on the rails.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #57 on: August 31, 2018, 06:44:35 AM »
It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse.
Quite frankly, it is, just that, an excuse.
________

Numbers.

This entire exercise was centered around numbers. Bobby went to painstaking, excruciating lengths in fact, to be measured and fair about how every single bit of data was to be presented for review, rebuttal and revision…with numbers. And with the intent that the numbers would be raw, unencumbered with “magic wands”. A baseline of RE/FE.

As we progressed along, numbers were introduced, remeasuring occurred, data amassed, still raw as intended, bereft of both RE’s and FE’s refraction ‘excuses’ et al. All with input from both RE and FE.

The end RAW result was:



When the raw data came out far more unfavorable for FE, all of a sudden, numbers are dispensed with and new ‘evidence’ is introduced, unrelated directly to the examination at hand. Evidence such as:

There are timelapse videos of the sinking ship effect, which shows directly that the sinking ship effect phenomenon changes over time. There are also tell-tale signs that there is refraction on the water when the sinking ship effect does occur.

In all circumstances, it shows this ‘directly'? Really? So now the FE position on the sinking ship effect is an atmospheric phenomena that changes over time and is always present and not ‘perspective’? How convenient.

From Earth Not a Globe:
"Hence the phenomenon of the hull of an outward bound vessel being the first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied upon as proving the rotundity of the earth, is fairly, both logically and mathematically, a proof of the very contrary, that the earth is a plane.
It has been misunderstood and misapplied in consequence of an erroneous view of the laws of perspective, and the unconquered desire to support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose is now completely demonstrated.”

That aside, fine, pick your magic wand poison, but show the numbers as to how you pull in your 83, 80, 85, 87, 89, 89, & 100 percent error rate. RE’s have been provided, let’s see FE’s.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #58 on: August 31, 2018, 07:03:39 AM »


The back-bottom of the boat has sky under it and the front-bottom of the boat does not line up with the rest of the boat. What ever are you talking about?

The text and arrow suggest that the person who added them to the picture thinks the upper black dot is being mirrored below. The other poster points out that this isn't anything on the ship being mirrored, simply something in the foreground.

The 'back-bottom' is the Aft or Stern of the ship, the front-bottom the Bow ... what's your point about them? It simply looks to me as though the ship is listing to starboard (that's the Right Side of the ship), i.e. toward the photographer....
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6508
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #59 on: August 31, 2018, 08:11:14 AM »
It is neither a "magic wand," or a frivolous excuse.
Quite frankly, it is, just that, an excuse.
________

Numbers.

This entire exercise was centered around numbers. Bobby went to painstaking, excruciating lengths in fact, to be measured and fair about how every single bit of data was to be presented for review, rebuttal and revision…with numbers. And with the intent that the numbers would be raw, unencumbered with “magic wands”. A baseline of RE/FE.

- The sinking ship effect changes over time. Samuel Birley Rowbotham gives numerous accounts of the sinking ship effect changing Look into his account of the eddystone lighthouse.

- Taboo Conspiracy shows video of the sinking ship effect changing.

- We see the sinking ship effect changing in the skunk bay timelapses from earlier.

There is evidence that the sinking ship effect changes. Yet you only want to look at the obscured images?

There are numerous images with zero curvature. See this JTolan image:



What's that, maybe two feet of curvature, if any?

Surely, by this logic of "which is the closer delta," this is a clear demonstration against the Round Earth Theory, correct?

Quote
As we progressed along, numbers were introduced, remeasuring occurred, data amassed, still raw as intended, bereft of both RE’s and FE’s refraction ‘excuses’ et al. All with input from both RE and FE.

When the raw data came out far more unfavorable for FE, all of a sudden, numbers are dispensed with and new ‘evidence’ is introduced, unrelated directly to the examination at hand.

Look at the evidence.

The sinking ship effect changes.

We have many scenes which contradicts the Round Earth curvature entirely.

Your argument is quite weak. Desperate, in my opinion. We have documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect over 150 years ago. It is one of the basis for this very movement.

You and others are expressing the sentiment of "I expect to see zero hidden at all times!"

Respectfully, no. That's not how it works. You need to research and look at what we are asserting in our literature.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 08:23:12 AM by Tom Bishop »