#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2018, 06:29:25 PM »
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.

On a globe earth, the horizon (viewed from sea level) is a set distance no matter how good the visual optics are.

From what I understand, on a flat plane the distance to horizon (viewed from sea level) is based on how strong the visual optics are and subject to atmospheric condition. Distance to the horizon can vary.
That doesn't mean just because you can't see something means it has to be 'over the horizon' though. If a fly gets more than a few feet from you would you try and claim it had vanished 'over the horizon' too? The boat and buoy both clearly wink out of sight due to the angular resolution of them decreasing such that they can't be seen. Nothing indicates they are now hidden behind a horizon. We don't know anything about this video. How high up is the camera? How far away is the boat/buoy? Without that claiming it proves FE is just confirmation bias.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2018, 06:51:32 PM »
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.

On a globe earth, the horizon (viewed from sea level) is a set distance no matter how good the visual optics are.

From what I understand, on a flat plane the distance to horizon (viewed from sea level) is based on how strong the visual optics are and subject to atmospheric condition. Distance to the horizon can vary.
That doesn't mean just because you can't see something means it has to be 'over the horizon' though. If a fly gets more than a few feet from you would you try and claim it had vanished 'over the horizon' too? The boat and buoy both clearly wink out of sight due to the angular resolution of them decreasing such that they can't be seen. Nothing indicates they are now hidden behind a horizon. We don't know anything about this video. How high up is the camera? How far away is the boat/buoy? Without that claiming it proves FE is just confirmation bias.

The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #42 on: November 09, 2018, 07:16:20 PM »
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2018, 07:37:03 PM »
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They're getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.

I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.

Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2018, 07:40:56 PM »
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.

Quote
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Quote
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.

#### stack

• 1125
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2018, 07:54:47 PM »
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?

Do you think RE looks at earth curvature/bulge this way:
1)

Or this way:
2)
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2018, 07:56:38 PM »
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder.  The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood.  Take a big telescope to  the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden.  No amount of zooming will bring it back.  This is literally that easy.  If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, \$500 I can afford that.

You are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

Trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really want to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 08:09:09 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2018, 08:05:45 PM »
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.

Quote
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Quote
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.

You also are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

The following video proves, Yes, the Sun simply fades away above the Horizon. You have to have good atmospheric conditions to see this.

If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

#### JCM

• 156
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2018, 08:09:09 PM »
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder.  The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood.  Take a big telescope to  the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden.  No amount of zooming will bring it back.  This is literally that easy.  If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, \$500 I can afford that.

You are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

Trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0

So, you are telling me that atmospheric refraction is hiding just the bottom half, but not the top half?  Isn't the distance from viewer to what is hidden and what is not the same?  Please explain why raising your telescope to a higher elevation brings the bottom half  into view.  This simple demonstration destroys the refraction argument.

If I were to Facebook livestream a tankers bottom half disappearing at the shoreline through a telescope then walk up to higher elevation and the shop is fully visible again, would you believe the curvature is  blocking that ship?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 08:12:16 PM by JCM »

#### JCM

• 156
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2018, 08:11:02 PM »
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.

Quote
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Quote
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.

You also are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

The following video proves, Yes, the Sun simply fades away above the Horizon. You have to have good atmospheric conditions to see this.

Who knows what that video is showing...  The sun sets every day, do you see what that video is showing?  No... you dont...

#### George Jetson

• 103
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2018, 08:29:32 PM »

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2018, 08:30:34 PM »
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder.  The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood.  Take a big telescope to  the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden.  No amount of zooming will bring it back.  This is literally that easy.  If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, \$500 I can afford that.

You are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

Trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0

So, you are telling me that atmospheric refraction is hiding just the bottom half, but not the top half?  Isn't the distance from viewer to what is hidden and what is not the same?  Please explain why raising your telescope to a higher elevation brings the bottom half  into view.  This simple demonstration destroys the refraction argument.

If I were to Facebook livestream a tankers bottom half disappearing at the shoreline through a telescope then walk up to higher elevation and the shop is fully visible again, would you believe the curvature is  blocking that ship?

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them looking down at an angle.

Again, trying to prove Earth has curvature with boats on bodies of water is a weak argument. If you really want to prove Earth has curvature then do it here with math. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11259.0
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 11:52:39 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2018, 08:37:15 PM »

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2018, 08:49:58 PM »
The Video proves what appears to sink into the horizon or go over when viewed by a human eye does not really happen and is a myth, and the proof of this is "better optics."
The video may prove that to you, but it proves the opposite to me. Neither to boat nor the buoy appear to sink in that video. They getting smaller and then disappear. No sinking effect.

Inversely, objects that do appear to "sink" aren't restored by better telescopic resolution. Even when zoomed in, the "sunken" bits are still hidden from view.

It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
This isn't what occurs at sunset however.

Quote
I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Quote
Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
I'll be honest, this statement doesn't appear to make any sense. On a globe the oceans would indeed not be all on the same plane. On a Flat Earth they would be. So I guess yes, I don't believe oceans are horizontal in all directions, certainly they are not all part of the same plane, assuming Euclidean Geometry.

You also are confusing atmospheric conditions above the surface of water with curvature. The atmospheric conditions created above the water is blocking the view of the hull.

The following video proves, Yes, the Sun simply fades away above the Horizon. You have to have good atmospheric conditions to see this.

Oh look, the same video you posted before that's far too fuzzy to tell anything about it. Just the same song and dance as in the other thread. You don't engage, you just switch topics and pretend nobody else can understand what you're saying. Boring. You take care.

#### JCM

• 156
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2018, 08:59:29 PM »

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 09:02:24 PM by JCM »

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #55 on: November 09, 2018, 09:06:17 PM »
Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?

Do you think RE looks at earth curvature/bulge this way:
1)

Or this way:
2)

Number 2
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #56 on: November 09, 2018, 09:21:22 PM »

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.

Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.

BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 09:31:54 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2018, 01:05:55 AM »
It appears too, to many people and I said it was a myth. I agree "They're getting smaller and then disappear" Just like a Sunset.
Not like any sunset I've ever seen. The sunsets in my world don't have the sun disappear into dot. Every sunset I've seen has the sun as a big orb sink as if setting behind a hill.
Like this:

I am a bit confused. You still talk about "sunken bits".  Sunken means lower. Sunken into what? A flat plane does not have a lower point beyond where we can see.
That's the point of the investigation? Is it a flat plane or a convex surface? If it's flat, there's nothing to sink into. If it's convex, there is.

So, does it sink or not?

Are the sunken bits (objects) you speak of on the same horizontal plane?
Again, that's the question, isn't it? If it's flat, they are. If it's convex, they're not.

You know I'm stumping for convexity based on the appearance of bottom-up sinking. So my answer is "no." They are not on the same horizontal plane, and the bottom-up sinking is evidence of that.

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
No.  Obviously, I don't. I conclude from the sinking phenomenon that the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions.

#### stack

• 1125
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #58 on: November 10, 2018, 01:07:09 AM »

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.

Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.

BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.

This would mean that no matter the distance of a ship, 10 miles or 1500 miles away, given a clear day and a strong enough zoom to see that distance, the hull is always visible?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 01:10:01 AM by stack »
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #59 on: November 10, 2018, 01:18:38 AM »

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.

Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.

BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.

This would mean that no matter the distance of a ship, 10 miles or 1500 miles away, given a clear day and a strong enough zoom to see that distance, the hull is always visible?

No, see the following pic.
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.