#### stack

• 1038
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #60 on: November 10, 2018, 01:26:42 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.

Some water is murkier than other water. Some air is murkier than other air. I don't see the relevance.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #61 on: November 10, 2018, 01:33:27 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.

OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
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

• 1383
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #62 on: November 10, 2018, 04:41:18 AM »
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.

But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.

I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.

I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA.  I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video.  If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.

We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months.  I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #63 on: November 10, 2018, 05:53:38 AM »
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.

But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.

I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.

I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA.  I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video.  If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.

We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months.  I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool.

I am new here.  When you first posted the video I thought you were a flat Earther.  That was my fault.

I would like to see your results of the experiment.

During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
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

• 1383
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #64 on: November 10, 2018, 06:08:39 AM »
During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.

Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #65 on: November 10, 2018, 06:15:36 AM »
During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.

Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.

Ok, but to my knowledge I have never brought the particular issue up before.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 06:17:31 AM 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

• 1383
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #66 on: November 10, 2018, 06:17:53 AM »
Are you asking me something different from what you've been asking in this topic?

#### stack

• 1038
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #67 on: November 10, 2018, 06:21:41 AM »
During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.

Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.

Ok, but to my knowledge I have never brought the particular issue up before.

Maybe here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11224.msg171958#msg171958
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #68 on: November 10, 2018, 06:24:15 AM »
Are you asking me something different from what you've been asking in this topic?

Yes, and I apologize for the long sentences because of the necessary points of the question.
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 #69 on: November 10, 2018, 06:27:00 AM »
During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?
No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.

Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.

Ok, but to my knowledge I have never brought the particular issue up before.

Maybe here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11224.msg171958#msg171958

Nope. Different issue.
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.

#### stack

• 1038
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #70 on: November 10, 2018, 06:34:01 AM »
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.

But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.

I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.

I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA.  I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video.  If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.

We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months.  I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool.

I am new here.  When you first posted the video I thought you were a flat Earther.  That was my fault.

I would like to see your results of the experiment.

During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?

I think what you're saying here is relevant to this thread, but I'm still confused as to what you're getting at. Do you have some sort of visual that shows what you mean?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### Earthman

• 150
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #71 on: November 10, 2018, 06:36:21 AM »
OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.
No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.

But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.

I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.

I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA.  I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video.  If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.

We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months.  I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool.

I am new here.  When you first posted the video I thought you were a flat Earther.  That was my fault.

I would like to see your results of the experiment.

During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve?

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?

I think what you're saying here is relevant to this thread, but I'm still confused as to what you're getting at. Do you have some sort of visual that shows what you mean?

I will abide by Bobby's wishes.
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.

#### RonJ

• 786
• ACTA NON VERBA
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #72 on: November 10, 2018, 05:25:14 PM »
The problem with the visualization of the flow of water is the simplification of the facts that have occurred over the years.  Water doesn't really flow downhill.  Water flows in the direction of the resultant force vector of the sum of all the forces acting upon it.  I know that I just went off the 'deep end', so to speak.  I got this lesson from my college engineering courses in fluid mechanics.  You combine that with the courses in statics and dynamics and you can get a feel for just why water really behaves like it does.  Understanding water is essential for a seaman, it's what keeps you alive sometimes.  To me the fact that the rains fall, rivers flow to the seas, and that the seas can be curved around the globe have all proceeded from a comprehensive education in the characteristics of water.  That water covers the majority of the earth, flat or round.  There is no real mystery why Louisiana isn't flooded, although New Orleans needs some significant flood walls to keep the streets dry.  I know, real understanding is a high entry bar for most.  It's also irrelevant and not needed for those who live inland.  However for those who dare to educate themselves in the subject of water,  you can eventually understand why the globe earth model is the only thing that has ever worked.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

#### Tumeni

• 1227
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #73 on: December 06, 2018, 02:01:18 PM »
Would we get away from issues of refraction close to the surface of an expanse of water by simply looking over a valley, a few hundred metres above sea level, and sighting on two objects of known height?
==============================
==============================
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"

#### JCM

• 156
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #74 on: December 06, 2018, 03:42:10 PM »
Would we get away from issues of refraction close to the surface of an expanse of water by simply looking over a valley, a few hundred metres above sea level, and sighting on two objects of known height?

Such as the Grand Canyon ledges?  I don’t think anything over a valley with height data will be accepted by any FE.  That height above sea level is taken from GPS or other RE means so any conclusions would be suspect .  This is why places like salt flats or sea level or lake shores are good places to show curvature.

#### Tumeni

• 1227
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #75 on: December 06, 2018, 04:34:13 PM »
Such as the Grand Canyon ledges?  I don’t think anything over a valley with height data will be accepted by any FE.  That height above sea level is taken from GPS or other RE means so any conclusions would be suspect.

If all heights are from the same datum, doesn't that render the point moot?
==============================
==============================
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"

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1383
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #76 on: December 08, 2018, 12:46:54 AM »
This was posted in Flat Earth Media but that is hardly to forum for further discussion so I have started this new topic.

Even with very strong atmospheric refraction, I don't think this should be possible on a globe:

I look forward to seeing this done again across greater expanses. I need to see if this is repeatedly under standard conditions. In fact, I want to do it myself. I have no answer for this and concede this strongly supports a flat earth...for the time being.

I can see globies are ignoring such a great visual scientific experiment. If the experiment does not prove a curve they want nothing to do with it.

I wonder what their argument will be?
Now I'm no meteorologist but an explanation might be atmospheric ducting due to a temperature inversion. This is not uncommon in that region.
The following references might be useful:
Quote
Atmospheric duct

Fata Morgana of Farallon Islands with clearly seen duct

In telecommunications, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) are guided or ducted, tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.

Atmospheric ducting is a mode of propagation of electromagnetic radiation, usually in the lower layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the waves are bent by atmospheric refraction. In over-the-horizon radar, ducting causes part of the radiated and target-reflection energy of a radar system to be guided over distances far greater than the normal radar range. It also causes long distance propagation of radio signals in bands that would normally be limited to line of sight.

Normally radio "ground waves" propagate along the surface as creeping waves. That is, they are only diffracted around the curvature of the earth. This is one reason that early long distance radio communication used long wavelengths. The best known exception is that HF (3–30 MHz.) waves are reflected by the ionosphere.

The reduced refractive index due to lower densities at the higher altitudes in the Earth's atmosphere bends the signals back toward the Earth. Signals in a higher refractive index layer, i.e., duct, tend to remain in that layer because of the reflection and refraction encountered at the boundary with a lower refractive index material. In some weather conditions, such as inversion layers, density changes so rapidly that waves are guided around the curvature of the earth at constant altitude.
These are also relevant:
Calculating Ray Bending This gives a simplistic calculation of the lapse rate  needed to cause ducting.
Ducts More specific discussion of ducts,  with diagrams.
Marine layer Discusses the "marine layer", common in the Monterey Bay area.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Regional pressure and temperature effects.
Maybe someone can make something of that material.

I was talking with someone about this video today, and his explanation for how it could defy the obstacle of globe earth curvature was a lot like this explanation in TFES's wiki

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

It requires heavy moisture content in the air close to the surface. I have to ponder this and maybe perform an experiment to see if a point source of light can "bloom" enough in high humidity to appear from behind an obstacle.

#### George Jetson

• 102
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #77 on: December 16, 2018, 10:55:38 PM »
So the anti-FE Youtuber "GreaterSapien" has a video claiming that this observation (Monterey Bay Mirror experiment) can be explained by "scattering of light."

I'd like to know what Bobby Shafto or any other RE thinks this explanation makes any sense.  It doesn't seem like a good explanation to me but it's the only semi-plausible RE explanation I've seen.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1383
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #78 on: December 16, 2018, 11:34:19 PM »
I watched that and FlatEarthCantScience critiques. I have critiques of those critiques. When I'm at my computer later I'll comment.

Edit: So, quick comment. I'm impressed both FECantScience and G.Sapien give that team some credit and acknowledge the curious nature of the result. I'm not so keen on the dispersion explanation.

Certainly, the light from the mirror has bloomed due to the air (surface level moisture and haze), but that wouldn't defeat surface curvature.

I tend to suspect surface ducting. Although that feels like just the counter example of Tom always explaining apparent hidden features with "compression." Either explanation needs more than just assertion.

I think the next step is just to show it's reproducible, and at greater distances. I don't think it will be. I already see how the beach level waters' edge isn't visible across 12.9 miles between La Jolla and Encinitas. My visibility has been better too than what's in that Pacific Grove to Moss Landing video. I just don't see how a mirror flash can be visible under normal refractive conditions. Dispersion shouldn't make it visible if obstructed.

I'm going to be doing a set of "experiments" like this, first above any obstructions just to validate what it looks like at 13-20 miles. And then take it over water across 13, then 15 then 20 miles. If it can be done consistently...
« Last Edit: December 17, 2018, 07:11:53 AM by Bobby Shafto »

#### edby

• 1066
##### Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #79 on: December 17, 2018, 11:44:31 AM »
Just to note the other thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11579.msg176434#msg176434 on the drone footage. This clearly proves that some distant objects aren't visible from the shoreline, but become visible as the drone rises. Now there's a Flat Earth explanation for that (perspective, light curvature whatever) but clearly that explanation is inconsistent with the one offered here, which is that all distant objects are visible from the shoreline, and that light is not curved. (i.e. if all distant objects are equally visible from the shoreline, and if the earth is flat, then light cannot be curved).