Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2019, 05:35:37 PM »
Having a hard time even connecting to this site for a response. I have a feeling the first poster didn't read my whole post. Like I said I have hundreds of gigs with p900, d3200, 4k drone over the great salt lake all through out the year. If you guys want to say that my observations are likely refraction then the refraction we see nearly every day out here comports with the globe. Also rising with a drone shows mountains in the distance become more and more visible congruently, not as if there is some kind of crazy atmospheric band. This is indicative of being on a curved surface, not flat. I also told you about my GPS observations over the bonneville salt flats, which I would think an unbiased researcher would be interested in. I have an incredible amount of data gathered over a year and a half, the great salt lake breaks flat earth in every way. Not to mention the two celestial points, equinox observations, solar eclipse and lunar eclipse. I was hoping someone from the flat earth society would be a little more serious in asking about seeing the observations, or maybe have something relevant to say, but this wasn't the case. You would think flat earthers would be interested in actually physically measuring the bonneville salt flats, or perhaps see some of the observations for what they truly tell us.

Here is what happens when you drive across the bonneville salt flats with extremely precise and expensive equipment and then model it .5% accuracy with the radius - http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Display+Geo+Data&data=Rte_80_WB_190326_radius - does this have anything to do with refraction? Soundly's bridge also had Jesse go out and do gps readings on it, showing the curve shown in the picture matches the physical dimensions. I am guessing satellites have to be denied here as well so really I will leave with this.

What can actually prove to a flat earther that they are wrong? All of the observations of the sun moon and stars work 100% on a globe model, and there is no flat earth model that compares. This includes the 2 celestial points, arc star trails at the equator, equinox and daily observations of the sun and moon. A bunch of us then went out, because of the claims of we can see too far (which has now been excused away with refraction) and did hundreds of observations that seem to match the sphere earth here on ground. All of this is denied for whatever excuse wants to be given. Like I said above if you want to just say refraction then fine, but my observations were done through out the year in different conditions with nearly the same result. GPS most likely will not be accepted because satellites are fake to most flat earthers, even though the globe model predicts where all satellites are, including the ISS that has many transit videos on youtube across the sun and the moon, which you can do yourself. What is left? Why is the standard of proof for most to be shot up in a rocket, and even then they might blame it on the curved eye or curved window effect.

The internet and reality is littered with evidence of the earth being a sphere, you guys need to go back to the drawing boards as bad as the youtube flat earthers obviously. Just saying refraction doesn't provide any predictive power, as the globe has and continues too. Like I said I can't even connect to the site 90% of the time, so I don't expect to be back. Completely can't connect from any salt lake server, had to go to a UK one..

If any one cares to see a litany of observations and actually trying to get to the truth of the matter you can find my youtube. If the earth is flat my observations should match either way.
Tim Osman

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2019, 10:53:09 AM »
Tim, if you're reading this, the thread has diverted into discussion of other (similar) observations. Sorry about that.

Tom; do you have a decent-sized river valley near you?  One at which you could observe from a similar situation to the one I describe above, with a bridge of known height in the middle, you on a hill at one side, at the same height as the bridge, with an outlook beyond said bridge to hills of greater height beyond?
==============================
==============================
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: 6402
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2019, 04:45:58 PM »
Quote
What can actually prove to a flat earther that they are wrong? All of the observations of the sun moon and stars work 100% on a globe model, and there is no flat earth model that compares.

Astronomical prediction isn't based on a globe model: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Quote from: Tim Osman
Here is what happens when you drive across the bonneville salt flats with extremely precise and expensive equipment and then model it .5% accuracy with the radius - http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Display+Geo+Data&data=Rte_80_WB_190326_radius - does this have anything to do with refraction?

Here is a quote from that same website you posted:

Quote
Influence of atmospheric Refraction

The line of sight to the horizon is rarely a straight line as assumed by the simple formulas, but is curved downwards due to the temperature and pressure changes of the atmosphere near the ground (refraction). This means that you can see much further than the calculations with the straight line suggests.

In extreme cases, e.g. if warm air is above cold water the refraction can lead the light hundreds of kilometers along the water surface! The result is that the earth is seemingly flat.

Source Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Effect_of_atmospheric_refraction

This fact has been known for centuries among land surveyors and seafarers.

Note: You can trust your eyes only at short distances. Over large distances, the light path through the atmosphere is disturbed in an unpredictable way. It's nothing like it seems!

Tom; do you have a decent-sized river valley near you?  One at which you could observe from a similar situation to the one I describe above, with a bridge of known height in the middle, you on a hill at one side, at the same height as the bridge, with an outlook beyond said bridge to hills of greater height beyond?

Why should we bother when authoritative sources tell us that when we look out and do these types of observations that "nothing [is] like it seems!"?

Pretty discrediting to the arguments that are being put forward in this thread, that website, and elsewhere.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2019, 05:15:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2019, 05:30:12 PM »
Why should we bother when authoritative sources tell us that when we look out and do these types of observations that "nothing [is] like it seems!"?

Pretty discrediting to the arguments that are being put forward in this thread, that website, and elsewhere.

Do you mean the Wiki you quoted immediately above?

I'm not suggesting you do a sea-level observation, nor a line of sight to the horizon, nor an observation "near the ground".

I'm actively suggesting you do an observation that is immune from refraction effects due to these factors.

If we go back to my examples above, the observation is at 210m above sea level, looking along 210m sightline between two matching points, with most of the ground and water up to 210m below this.

The observation has been repeated on different days, in both directions.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2019, 05:40:51 PM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
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: 6402
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #24 on: April 15, 2019, 06:14:32 PM »
The first video you posted claims that observations match up with standard refraction. The second video has no analysis, and is completely silent. Neither do you provide an analysis of RET either.

Reality doesn't match up with RE. Bendy light is required for the RET, and we are told that everything we see is an illusion.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2019, 06:56:10 PM »
The first video you posted claims that observations match up with standard refraction. The second video has no analysis, and is completely silent. Neither do you provide an analysis of RET either.

Reality doesn't match up with RE. Bendy light is required for the RET, and we are told that everything we see is an illusion.

Once again, I make no mention of refraction, regardless of what the original video author says.

Reality does not match FE.

If you look along a sightline between two points at 210m high, that sightline, IF the Earth is flat, MUST meet any higher hill, or higher object beyond, at the 210m level, not pass clear above it. It passes clear above the hills, leading to the conclusion that the Earth is not flat. Why should I provide an "analysis of RET" in this context?

The observation has been repeated on different days from the original author's location. A totally-different video author has twice repeated it in the reverse direction, back toward the original author's observation position, with the same result. The observations are not over large expanses of water, close to the ground, nor do they focus on the horizon. 

A host of other observations from the same location also reinforce the point in a different way, such as that looking out toward the Isle of May from Traprain Law. The 73m high lighthouse on Isle of May appears above the horizon. Looking from Traprain at 210m, through the top of the lighthouse, at 73m, IF the Earth is flat, and by implication the surrounding waters are flat, that sightline MUST meet the water at some point. It does not, again leading to the conclusion that the Earth is not flat.   
==============================
==============================
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"

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2019, 07:05:05 PM »
Reality doesn't match up with REFE. Bendy light is required for the RETFET, and we are told that everything we see is an illusion.
Still makes the same amount of sense doesn't it? The problem as I see it, is this 'bendy light' you keep railing against is stated to be due to a well documented effect that you can even see in experiments done in your very own home.

Refraction is well known. The FE perspective hypothesis attempts to take a tool created in/for the art world and apply it to the real world. You have little to no documentation of the science behind the effect, little to no documentation of how it works, and no information on how to calculate it. In fact, it requires throwing out the idea that the space around/upon the Earth is Euclidean in nature, as the perspective hypothesis has the sun, moon, stars, and more breaking geometric relationships on a daily basis! Can you give me an experiment that shows FE perspective that I can do within my home? My backyard? This experiment cannot be upon the sun or other celestial objects, you need to prove the existence of the effect (preferably close to the degree required) without using the very objects you wish to apply the effect to. (It would also be great it if it was Earth shape agnostic like refraction is.) Note it will ALSO need to show that the numbers I calculate using geometry are incorrect, as they must be for the sun.

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2019, 10:33:19 PM »
Sometimes bodies in the distance are sunken and sometimes they are not.
That’s not really true though, is it?
There are no examples where a ship sails out to sea and doesn’t sink beyond the horizon.
I’m sure you can find examples where it doesn’t happen quite at the distance which a simple glove model predicts, even when refraction is taken into account. Because the atmosphere is complex and the exact way light travels through it is hard to model perfectly. You always think this is significant and invalidates the whole model. You conveniently ignore the fact that on a flat earth ships would never sink below the horizon. I know you have some made up stuff like “waves” but I have shown numerous times that doesn’t work as an explanation. If your eye height is above wave height then less than the height of the wave would be blocked. Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility. But you’d never have a ship slowly sinking below the horizon. That phenomenon - a body disappearing from the bottom up - is characteristic of it going over a curve, not going away from you on a flat plane.

You always get excited about the specks in RE’s eye - the fact that complex atmospheric effects make exact predictions difficult. And ignore the plank in FE’s eye - the fact that ships wouldn’t disappear over the horizon bottom first were the earth flat.

Amusingly you simultaneously argue that ships don’t sink below the horizon but can be restored by magnification. Then when examples are shown where ships clearly do sink below the horizon even when magnified you invoke silly explanations like waves which really don’t work.

All the examples I’ve seen of photos purporting to be evidence of a flat earth because “if the earth were a globe then you shouldn’t be able to see...” are easily debunked if you analyse them properly.

You lament with some justification that people attack FE without taking time to understand FE ideas, but you and other FErs repeatedly show that you don really understand the heliocentric globe earth model.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2019, 10:47:55 AM »
"...Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility..."
I saw no need to include the entirety of your post, as just this single point you wrote invalidates the whole thing anyway...

I figured sparing you and the rest of the members the ignominy of reading the entire post was most honorable thing I could do.

No need to thank me.

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2019, 11:17:23 AM »
"...Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility..."
I saw no need to include the entirety of your post, as just this single point you wrote invalidates the whole thing anyway...

I figured sparing you and the rest of the members the ignominy of reading the entire post was most honorable thing I could do.

No need to thank me.
Please elaborate. How does it invalidate it? Are you struggling with the idea that an object not visible to the naked eye can be seen by using devices which magnify?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2019, 12:26:44 PM »
"...Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility..."
I saw no need to include the entirety of your post, as just this single point you wrote invalidates the whole thing anyway...

I figured sparing you and the rest of the members the ignominy of reading the entire post was most honorable thing I could do.

No need to thank me.
Please elaborate. How does it invalidate it? Are you struggling with the idea that an object not visible to the naked eye can be seen by using devices which magnify?
Quite not...indeed, you are the one struggling with the idea there are issues with air, commencing at ground level, serving to obscure (even to the point of invisibility) objects.

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2019, 12:33:39 PM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2019, 12:34:59 PM »
"...Yes the ship would get smaller and smaller till you can’t see it, at that point optical zoom would restore it to visibility..."
I saw no need to include the entirety of your post, as just this single point you wrote invalidates the whole thing anyway...

I figured sparing you and the rest of the members the ignominy of reading the entire post was most honorable thing I could do.

No need to thank me.
Please elaborate. How does it invalidate it? Are you struggling with the idea that an object not visible to the naked eye can be seen by using devices which magnify?
Quite not...indeed, you are the one struggling with the idea there are issues with air, commencing at ground level, serving to obscure (even to the point of invisibility) objects.

It isn't obscuring them if you can whip out a telescope and see them. If you cannot see them with the naked eye, but you can with the telescope, they are not obscured.
==============================
==============================
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2019, 09:09:06 PM »
I examined Tom's isolated quote from the YouTube transcript at Reply #9;

In context, the video author is responding to critics, and pointing out that their analysis did not account for refraction. He then proceeds to take account of it for them;


"  "On a globe earth things are very different; on a curved surface because of the curvature our line of sight is not parallel to the surface, and therefore objects in the distance may appear - a 500 meter object can appear below the height of a 200 meter object as it's closer than the camera. So - this is the observation, and we can draw a line across the screen level with the top of the tower - you'll see that the north and south towers are slightly shorter, confirming what we know about their heights, and we see that Cairnoch Hill at 430 meters above sea level is significantly below the line, and these hills at 500 or thereabouts meters above sea level, are level with, or maybe in places just above the line; that's impossible if the earth is flat. The people claiming perspective is the answer, or that I don't understand perspective, are wrong. I understand perspective quite well enough to see that this image is impossible to take on a flat earth.

One other YouTuber, called Phuket Word, made an attempt to explain this in terms of the tilt of my camera. He claimed that if I tilted the camera down or up, this hill and this bridge tower, the relative positions to each other in the image would change - the hill would come up above the tower and drop down below the tower as the camera is tilted up and down.  I posted a video showing that this is not true.  I have the still image from a video (I have several videos) that showed that it doesn't matter whether the camera  is tilted slightly up and down whether the bridge Tower appears near the top of the photograph or the video near the bottom to the left to the right in the top corner bottom corner it doesn't matter where it is how much the camera is tilted makes no difference at all the observation remains exactly the same.  Cairnoch Hill is always well below the height of the bridge tower. So that objection has been thoroughly dismissed with the actual evidence from reality As far as I'm aware PW has accepted that he was wrong about this and is, I think, hiding from the problem that this photograph presents for his Flat Earth belief.

Another group of people have had a go on, sort of on a video, they made a present presentation on Nathan Oakley's so-called debate  channel. Now, Nathan's debate channel is, of course, nothing of the sort - it's a place where flat-earthers congregate and tell each other lies about the shape of the earth, and then attack any globe earther who comes on and tries to hit them with some real proper facts and information. But they did have a go at explaining my observation, and how it could be possible on a flat earth so let's have a look at what they did. They use the wider angle, or more zoomed out version of the image - this one - and this includes some identifiable Peaks although Earl’s Seat and Dunbrach are really just part of this Ridge here and so’s (hill) part of this… kind of just looks like a line of hills all the same height - but they're all different distances from the camera. (hill name) is a particular peak here, and Meikle Bin and Dunbrach all peaks in this area and these are identified from peak finder. What they've done is - they've calculated what the angular size of those hills and the bridge tower should be, according to a flat earth, and according to a globe earth, and then they've asked the question  - do the sizes of those hills in the picture match the angular sizes that are predicted by globe earth and a Flat Earth model? I'll just bring that line down, so you can see we're looking at exactly the same kind of observation here, the previous picture just showed it more zoomed in.  So here is their spreadsheet, and not surprisingly, it contains some mistakes, and it contains a methodological error. if you like.

By and large I like the idea; I think that the way that they've approached this is it's quite good and I almost wish I'd done it in my original, myself in my original video, but they made a mistake in allocating a distance for the bridge - the bridge is not 45 kilometers from the camera, it's 46 and a half kilometers - and that will affect the angular size that they get for that bridge, so this figure that they've used for the bridge angular size is not correct.

Since that's a reference point for all the other angular sizes that they measure in their analysis, then everything is incorrect. Furthermore they've taken the target hidden height away from the total height of the hills, so on a globe earth part of the hills - each of these hills  - will be hidden beyond the curvature of the earth, and so it's perfectly reasonable to subtract the target hidden amount from the total amount and then to calculate the angular size - the problem is they've made no allowance for atmospheric refraction.

Tom's isolated quote   (atmospheric refraction is a known and well studied phenomenon and will always occur to a greater or lesser extent on a spherical earth, because light traveling initially in a straight line towards the camera from an object will get closer to the surface of the earth as it moves to the camera and then again get further away from the surface of the earth as it approaches the camera. Certainly in the case of this observation that's what will be happening. Therefore light is traveling through different densities of air, and as we know, different densities of a medium have different refractive indices, and therefore will cause the light to bend slightly to refract. So atmospheric refraction should be taken into account here and that will affect this “relative ball heights” as they call it, the relative height of these hills on a globe earth, and that will affect the angular sizes. So they've not used the correct angular sizes for any of their observations or any of their analysis)

However, let’s look at the analysis and what it shows.”  "



            He then discusses their analysis, then says, at 20.35


“Let's see what happens if we use figures that include atmospheric refraction and include the correct height for the bridge. Here is my version of their method....“


==============================
==============================
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"

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2019, 03:42:25 PM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1164
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2019, 05:07:48 PM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2019, 10:45:18 AM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1164
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2019, 07:21:54 AM »
OK. Yes, there will be a point at which visibility becomes a factor, but at an observation height of 10 feet - which should be safely above most waves - the horizon is at a distance of just under 4 miles.
Visibility is usually better than that. If the issue were visibility then I'd expect objects to fade out like on a foggy day:



But that isn't what we observe, we see them sinking - as in getting lower - and disappearing from the bottom up. What is the FE explanation for that? It makes perfect sense on a globe, on a supposedly flat surface, not so much.
Again, what part of any object is closest to the ground?

Depends. Let's say it's a sailing vessel coming toward you up over the horizon. The top of the mast will appear first. The hull is still quite sunken seemingly submerged in the ground/water.  Which is closest to the ground, hull or top of the mast?
Wow...

For your information and for others who might be curious...

The bottom of any object is that which is closest to ground level...

It stands to reason, ipso facto, that portion would appear to sink into the ground as it receded from view due to more dense air at ground level.

Wow is right. Ipso facto I think not.
It all depends on the atmospheric environment that is present. There is looming, sinking, inferior/superior mirages, etc. All of which can cause different optical effects some of which cause the exact opposite of sinking into the ground as it recedes. And in some cases still, there are no optical effects present all. Like a nice crisp sunset that simply slides under the horizon, no sinking due to denser air, just setting completely and rising again at my back some 12 hours later.



So your ipso facto is neither here nor there.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6402
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2019, 07:26:11 AM »
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1164
    • View Profile
Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help
« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2019, 08:21:49 AM »
Looks like it's disappearing into a tree or a hill, not the horizon.

Not to be seen again until behind me 12 hours later. Where'd it go?

Here's one at the horizon. Hey, where did it go?

« Last Edit: May 10, 2019, 09:14:58 AM by stack »
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.