[HHHzzz]

I'm deleting my account, please delete my post

[Pongo]

Your first picture shows no curve either.  Wouldn't you expect to find that on a round-earth?

[markjo]

Please prove why on a flat Earth the horizon would be a blurry haze.

Because light light disperses as it travels through the atmoplane, making very far away things (like the horizon) a blurry haze.

[Orbisect-64]

I can stand on a tall mountain, and on a clear day, the outline of distant mountains will be pretty crisp - especially when looking through binoculars.

Most importantly in this case, do you know how close the photographer was to the water when taking the photo?

Judging by the photo itself, I'd say he was pretty darn near water level. That close to the water your view distance would be severely limited by the water itself - as it's well known that you can see farther at greater height; and you can not see far at all when close to ground-level (or water-level).

Therefor if the person is close to water level, it makes sense that he would't be able to see very far at all, and hence the waterline would be crisp.

Now go get a photo of a large sea vessel taken at a great distance, and then explain why on a ball earth the horizon is so incredibly blurry . . . Now your argument is working against you.

After you do that, go the the ocean with a powerful telescope and watch a ship "go over the horizon." Once the ship is totally gone "over the horizon" zoom in with your telescope and try to explain why the ship is still there, and not over the horizon. Our view distance is only limited by a) how far we can see (the vanishing point), b) obstacles or lack thereof, and c) atmospheric weather conditions (haze).


—

[frisbee]

I can stand on a tall mountain, and on a clear day, the outline of distant mountains will be pretty crisp - especially when looking through binoculars.

Most importantly in this case, do you know how close the photographer was to the water when taking the photo?

Judging by the photo itself, I'd say he was pretty darn near water level. That close to the water your view distance would be severely limited by the water itself - as it's well known that you can see farther at greater height; and you can not see far at all when close to ground-level (or water-level).

Therefor if the person is close to water level, it makes sense that he would't be able to see very far at all, and hence the waterline would be crisp.

Now go get a photo of a large sea vessel taken at a great distance, and then explain why on a ball earth the horizon is so incredibly blurry. Now your argument is working against you. . . lol.

After you do that, go the the ocean with a telescope and watch a ship "go over the horizon." Once the ship is totally gone "over the horizon" zoom in with your telescope and try to explain why the ship is still there, and not over the horizon. Our view distance is only limited by a) how far we can see, and b) atmospheric weather conditions (haze).


—

Why should you be able to see further the higher you are in FE?

Pick a point in the distance that you can see standing on the ground in FE. Now scale an imaginary ladder that extends as far as you like into the sky. The distance to that point is greater from the tall ladder than it is from the surface. You are viewing along the hypotenuse of a triangle. The length of your elevated viewing distance is the square root of the surface distance squared plus the height above the surface squared which is greater than the surface distance.

So altitude should cause you to lose sight of things in the distance in FE. The higher you climb the less far you should be able to see if FE were true. The fact you get to see farther the higher you go falsifies FE.

But these kinds of arguments are not what real FEers (if there are any) need. Hypothetical real FEers would need interaction with people from a different profession.

[Orbisect-64]

In addition, your perspective drawing of the flat earth is all wrong. You won't get results with inaccuracy.

PERSPECTIVE dictates that parallel lines appear to converge at the vanishing point.


Example 1
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IYP57bPbcXY/TkL880UHHMI/AAAAAAAAAAk/X6vl821lMBA/s1600/onepointB.jpg


Example 2




Example 3




So your illustration does't follow the rules of perspective. It shows two perfectly parallel lines: a) the water, b) eye-level - then it shows a sudden ending suspended in mid-air—whereas in reality the two lines will converge into one point.


—

[Orbisect-64]

Why should you be able to see further the higher you are in FE?

Pick a point in the distance that you can see standing on the ground in FE. Now scale an imaginary ladder that extends as far as you like into the sky. The distance to that point is greater from the tall ladder than it is from the surface. You are viewing along the hypotenuse of a triangle. The length of your elevated viewing distance is the square root of the surface distance squared plus the height above the surface squared which is greater than the surface distance.

So altitude should cause you to lose sight of things in the distance in FE. The higher you climb the less far you should be able to see if FE were true. The fact you get to see farther the higher you go falsifies FE.

But these kinds of arguments are not what real FEers (if there are any) need. Hypothetical real FEers would need interaction with people from a different profession.

Untrue, untrue, untrue.


a) Go to a parking lot, lay right on the tarmac with your stomach on the ground, take a picture of how far you can see. Not very far.

b) Next, stand up and take a picture and see how far you can see. You will be able to see farther.

c) Stand on a ladder or another high object, you will see even farther—you will even be able to see over objects that were in your way while standing.

It's true that your maximum view distance never changes; but your chances of seeing the maximum distance increases with height.

One reason you can see farther is simply because your perspective has changed. Another reason is that while you're on the ground, objects on the ground can obstruct your view. In the case of ocean water you have WAVES rising into your field of view. When looking out into the ocean the water could even be relatively calm where you're standing, but it could be windy with high waves in the distance. Those waves will obstruct your view as the vanishing point converges.

As to your claim that "So altitude should cause you to lose sight of things in the distance in FE. The higher you climb the less far you should be able to see if FE were true. The fact you get to see farther the higher you go falsifies FE."

You're acting as though being on a flat earth changes the laws of perspective and view distance. If what you say is true, then the same would hold true with RE.

In addition, because on a round earth you would have to look DOWN at the curve, your distance would actually be less on a ball than on a plane where you don't have the earth getting in the way of your view. On a round earth you would get to a height where it's impossible to see any farther, because you would be looking at the edge of the curve—whereas on a plane there would be nothing getting in the way of you seeing farther.

You really like to pray on ignorance don't you. Unfortunately for you there aren't many ignorant FErs here—which leaves only you.


—

[geckothegeek]

Why should you be able to see further the higher you are in FE?

Pick a point in the distance that you can see standing on the ground in FE. Now scale an imaginary ladder that extends as far as you like into the sky. The distance to that point is greater from the tall ladder than it is from the surface. You are viewing along the hypotenuse of a triangle. The length of your elevated viewing distance is the square root of the surface distance squared plus the height above the surface squared which is greater than the surface distance.

So altitude should cause you to lose sight of things in the distance in FE. The higher you climb the less far you should be able to see if FE were true. The fact you get to see farther the higher you go falsifies FE.

But these kinds of arguments are not what real FEers (if there are any) need. Hypothetical real FEers would need interaction with people from a different profession.

Untrue, untrue, untrue.


a) Go to a parking lot, lay right on the tarmac with your stomach on the ground, take a picture of how far you can see. Not very far.

b) Next, stand up and take a picture and see how far you can see. You will be able to see farther.

c) Stand on a ladder or another high object, you will see even farther—you will even be able to see over objects that were in your way while standing.

It's true that your maximum view distance never changes; but your chances of seeing the maximum distance increases with height.

One reason you can see farther is simply because your perspective has changed. Another reason is that while you're on the ground, objects on the ground can obstruct your view. In the case of ocean water you have WAVES rising into your field of view. When looking out into the ocean the water could even be relatively calm where you're standing, but it could be windy with high waves in the distance. Those waves will obstruct your view as the vanishing point converges.

As to your claim that "So altitude should cause you to lose sight of things in the distance in FE. The higher you climb the less far you should be able to see if FE were true. The fact you get to see farther the higher you go falsifies FE."

You're acting as though being on a flat earth changes the laws of perspective and view distance. If what you say is true, then the same would hold true with RE.

In addition, because on a round earth you would have to look DOWN at the curve, your distance would actually be less on a ball than on a plane where you don't have the earth getting in the way of your view. On a round earth you would get to a height where it's impossible to see any farther, because you would be looking at the edge of the curve—whereas on a plane there would be nothing getting in the way of you seeing farther.

You really like to pray on ignorance don't you. Unfortunately for you there aren't many ignorant FErs here—which leaves only you.


—

It is a moot point and a foregone conclusion that the earth is a globe and not a flat disc in the first place .

The flat earth idea of the horizon has been de-bunked many times on this website. The horizon is always a distinct line where earth - or sea - meet the sky. It is never blurred except in rare occasions when there might be haze, mist, fog, darkness or some other condition to cause the horizon to not be distinct. The horizon is most distinctly defined on open seas in the middle of the ocean on a clear day.

And the basic fact for the distance to the horizon depends on the height of the observer and may be determined by a simple formula. If increasing the height of the observer did not give the observer a greater distance to the horizon there would be no need for placing crow's nest and radar antennas on the highest maps of ships.

But this is the Flat Earth Society website where every thing is in a sort of Land Of Oz fantasy land based on "What If " the earth was flat ? So you have to consider that when reading flat earther's posts.

So the bottom line on this website is to not take any "flat earth fantasies" seriously. You will also find many interesting facts about the true shape of the earth - which, of course, is a globe. So enjoy !

Another flat earth fantasy is the "Restoring a ship which has disappeared over the horizon with a telescope". Anyone who has ever been to sea will realize this is a foolish notion . Once a ship has passed over the horizon there is no way you can see it again-even with a telescope. A telescope can only magnify things in view. It has no magical qualities to restore things that pass out of view.  I don't know where on earth (pun intended-LOL)  this fantasy came from.

[jroa]

No RE-er would expect to see curvature on such a small FOV, sorry to bust your bubble.

lol, so that was a joke then?  That was a good one.  You are one of the funnier RE'ers here.  Most of you are militant and not funny at all.  I suppose the shill pay grade lets you say things like this? 

[Orbisect-64]

The horizon is always a distinct line where earth - or sea - meet the sky. It is never blurred except in rare occasions when there might be haze, mist, fog, darkness or some other condition to cause the horizon to not be distinct. The horizon is most distinctly defined on open seas in the middle of the ocean on a clear day.

DECEIVE MUCH?


Stating that the horizon is crisp and clear is not proof of RE, and you know it. You people use half-truths to make your lies appear reasonable. "The Devil is in that lack of details", in the things that aren't said, the things that are purposely withheld. Half truths are half lies.



Photo #1

The water horizon is crisp; but what's that in the background? Why it's land. "LAND AHOY!" Isn't that interesting that the waterline is crisp and seems to end before the land - and the land is hazy. If the earth was a ball, the curve of the water would block our view of the land.

http://www.mlewallpapers.com/image/16x9-Widescreen-1/view/St-Lucia-Horizon-I-321.jpg



Photo #2

Waterline is crips; land is hazy. Again this proves that the waterline can be crisp while being able to see beyond it.

http://images.forwallpaper.com/files/images/b/b984/b984965a/106188/sea-ocean-water-sky-horizon.jpg



Photo #3 & 4

As I STATED above, when you raise the perspective, it allows you to SEE FARTHER, because when you are close to sea-level the waves themselves rise into your view - not permitting you to see past the waves. As a kayaker I know that even on lakes the waves can get several feet high on windy days—it's really fun I must add!

Below we can see that when we take a photo from high up, we can see farther, and the crisp horizon becomes blurry because we can see farther.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/36665053.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1288/1308812562_5a099e6d7d_z.jpg



Mountain of Water

Well I think we've debunked your debunkery, and debunked RE, and proven you're deceiving people, because on a BALL you would not be able to see the land past the mountain of water in the middle.

See the following for the MOUNTAIN of water evidence:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3211.0


—

[Pongo]

This is why the horizon isn't a blurry haze.  I hope this clears this up for you.

[frisbee]

So the bottom line on this website is to not take any "flat earth fantasies" seriously.

I wasn't. I don't take the FE supporters seriously either. I think the dumb is an act.

[geckothegeek]

So the bottom line on this website is to not take any "flat earth fantasies" seriously.

I wasn't. I don't take the FE supporters seriously either. I think the dumb is an act.

I have come to the same conclusion and haven't been here as long as some have. LOL

How can FE's explain why the RE horizon question is false when there is a definite line and the formula of 1.23 times the square root of the height of the observer in feet of the observer gives the distance to the horizon in miles is evidence and a proven fact ?

I have also come to the conclusion that this website serves a useful purpose - but one that flat earthers don't especially like. It is a source of information for finding information or doing some research for your self on subjects such as the distance to the horizon for just one example.

Once more. To the FES. "From viewers like US. Thank You !" and "From all of us to all of  you (FE's and RE's alikie) Have a good week."

[geckothegeek]

No RE-er would expect to see curvature on such a small FOV, sorry to bust your bubble.

lol, so that was a joke then?  That was a good one.  You are one of the funnier RE'ers here.  Most of you are militant and not funny at all.  I suppose the shill pay grade lets you say things like this?

Most people say that this whole website is a ******** .Deleted because it's not allowed on this website. Look it up on the Internet.

 Boy ! All RE's would be rich if they were paid shills. I haven't seen any information such "Shill. GS-1. Starting Salary $1,000,000. Step 1."

[geckothegeek]

The horizon is always a distinct line where earth - or sea - meet the sky. It is never blurred except in rare occasions when there might be haze, mist, fog, darkness or some other condition to cause the horizon to not be distinct. The horizon is most distinctly defined on open seas in the middle of the ocean on a clear day.

DECEIVE MUCH?


Stating that the horizon is crisp and clear is not proof of RE, and you know it. You people use half-truths to make your lies appear reasonable. "The Devil is in that lack of details", in the things that aren't said, the things that are purposely withheld. Half truths are half lies.



Photo #1

The water horizon is crisp; but what's that in the background? Why it's land. "LAND AHOY!" Isn't that interesting that the waterline is crisp and seems to end before the land - and the land is hazy. If the earth was a ball, the curve of the water would block our view of the land.

http://www.mlewallpapers.com/image/16x9-Widescreen-1/view/St-Lucia-Horizon-I-321.jpg



Photo #2

Waterline is crips; land is hazy. Again this proves that the waterline can be crisp while being able to see beyond it.

http://images.forwallpaper.com/files/images/b/b984/b984965a/106188/sea-ocean-water-sky-horizon.jpg



Photo #3 & 4

As I STATED above, when you raise the perspective, it allows you to SEE FARTHER, because when you are close to sea-level the waves themselves rise into your view - not permitting you to see past the waves. As a kayaker I know that even on lakes the waves can get several feet high on windy days—it's really fun I must add!

Below we can see that when we take a photo from high up, we can see farther, and the crisp horizon becomes blurry because we can see farther.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/36665053.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1288/1308812562_5a099e6d7d_z.jpg



Mountain of Water

Well I think we've debunked your debunkery, and debunked RE, and proven you're deceiving people, because on a BALL you would not be able to see the land past the mountain of water in the middle.

See the following for the MOUNTAIN of water evidence:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3211.0


—

Just one quickie.:

Photo #1
Of course you can see land or buildings beyond the horizon if they are high enough.
There is another formula to take this into account. You are just seeing the tops of hills or mountains beyond the horizon. You are not seeing all the way to the shore or the bottom of the lands beyond the horizon. Elementary, my dear Watson !

The other photos also have simple explanations, but I will leave them for others it they wish to do so.

Maybe FE's should drink more Dihydrogen Oxide. Also known as Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO). It's said to be good for the brain.

[model 29]

After you do that, go the the ocean with a telescope and watch a ship "go over the horizon." Once the ship is totally gone "over the horizon" zoom in with your telescope and try to explain why the ship is still there, and not over the horizon.

Perhaps you could show us proof of this.  I have yet to see anything showing this.

A video that clearly shows a ship or object in the process of 'sinking' beyond the horizon (disappearing because the camera resolution isn't enough to make it out doesn't count), and then rising back up to full unobstructed height as magnification is further increased, would suffice.

[geckothegeek]

After you do that, go the the ocean with a telescope and watch a ship "go over the horizon." Once the ship is totally gone "over the horizon" zoom in with your telescope and try to explain why the ship is still there, and not over the horizon.

Perhaps you could show us proof of this.  I have yet to see anything showing this.

A video that clearly shows a ship or object in the process of 'sinking' beyond the horizon (disappearing because the camera resolution isn't enough to make it out doesn't count), and then rising back up to full unobstructed height as magnification is further increased, would suffice.

Anyone who has ever been to sea on a ship either as a civilian or in the military will know that this "recovering a ship which has gone over the horizon with a telescope" is one of the greatest flat earth fallacies. Telescopes can only magnify distant objects in view. But they don't have any magical properties to restore something to view that  has completely disappeared. See also the thread on "FE Experiment."

[Orbisect-64]

After you do that, go the the ocean with a telescope and watch a ship "go over the horizon." Once the ship is totally gone "over the horizon" zoom in with your telescope and try to explain why the ship is still there, and not over the horizon.

Perhaps you could show us proof of this.  I have yet to see anything showing this.

A video that clearly shows a ship or object in the process of 'sinking' beyond the horizon (disappearing because the camera resolution isn't enough to make it out doesn't count), and then rising back up to full unobstructed height as magnification is further increased, would suffice.

Nice selection of music. "You just don't get it, just don't get it, just don't get it. . . You're just so pathetic!"



Watch to the end where it zooms all the way out and the ship is COMPLETELY gone from the naked eye POV.

This illustrates that it does't and won't matter to you if someone here were to post a video, you'll just deny it and. . . Despite the fact that you KNOW proof exists, you will say the same old thing again. You people never change. You're like a damned broken record.

You just don't get it, and aren't intelligent enough to see the plainly obvious.

P.S. Don't bother showing that video that claims to debunk this. It was already shown in another video that the person faked the video (because you people can never make points without lying) by lowering his perspective to cause the waves to cover the ship. . . Which, by the way, that is the reason why ships appear to disappear over the horizon. The ship goes farther and farther away until it's a small dot, then it's out of our view—but the waves in our foreground do not get smaller because they aren't moving away from us. Therefor the high waves obscure our vision of the tiny ship.



See Scene 2:52

Notice the entire city skyline is gone when looking with the naked eye; but it miraculously comes back into view when you zoom in. Well it's not really magic, it's REALITY!




And don't give us any of that "superior mirage" crap. That's just shit you guys made up to cover over what we're witnessing. If you try to apply relativity and gravity to explain away what we see, I'll just blow Einstein and relativity out of the water (no pun intended) with Lene Hau's discoveries, Aether experiments, and the truth about Einstein and how he never accomplished anything - he wasn't even on the Manhattan Project team - he's just a name they used to push shit pseudo-science off to make their bumpkis theories work.

I don't know why you Shills seem to think that by following every logical point with a post saying the same old counter-arguments is going to somehow lead readers away from drawing to the proper conclusion. Are you all THAT DAFT? ...Oh yeah I forget, you guys actually get paid to keep this shit up.

What do we learn from all this? a) That ships don't go "over" the horizon; b) that you can still see distant objects as long as weather conditions permit; c) and depending on the power of your telescope; d) and that Shills are liars who are full of shit. . . ; e) but they get paid well for betraying humanity; f) oh yeah, that because their consciences are completely dead, they have no problems sleeping at night; g) BONUS: "Do not be misled, God is not one to be mocked, For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap."




—

[model 29]

After you do that, go the the ocean with a telescope and watch a ship "go over the horizon." Once the ship is totally gone "over the horizon" zoom in with your telescope and try to explain why the ship is still there, and not over the horizon.

Perhaps you could show us proof of this.  I have yet to see anything showing this.

A video that clearly shows a ship or object in the process of 'sinking' beyond the horizon (disappearing because the camera resolution isn't enough to make it out doesn't count), and then rising back up to full unobstructed height as magnification is further increased, would suffice.

Nice selection of music. "You just don't get it, just don't get it, just don't get it. . . You're just so pathetic!"



Watch to the end where it zooms all the way out and the ship is COMPLETELY gone from the naked eye POV.

Nice demonstration of the camera's resolution limitations and the video creator's spelling ability limitations, but I don't see a distinctly sunken ship returning to full height with increased magnification.

See Scene 2:52

Notice the entire city skyline is gone when looking with the naked eye; but it miraculously comes back into view when you zoom in. Well it's not really magic, it's REALITY!

No, I didn't notice the entire city skyline.  It's the same video again.   

[geckothegeek]

I fail to see where this video makes any sense about "ships going over the horizon." ? LOL
The video just shows a ship going along and parallel to the horizon and not going beyond the horizon. There have been many other videos showing a ship going over the horizon, disappearing hull first and finally disappearing after only the tops of the mast were seen.

And part of the problem is the poor video quality due to limitations of the camera as noted by model 29.

Ships and land disappearing over the horizon is just a common phenomenon due to the curvature of the earth.

Since the ship in the video doesn't actually go beyond the horizon it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

It seem a few flat earthers have never been to sea and observed this for themself.

Now prove to me that  you know more about radar than I do. In particular the formula for finding the maximum range depending on the distance to the horizon depending on the height of the antenna for the  U.S. Navy SG-1b Surface Search Radar. I had completed all the requirements  for promotion to First  Class Petty Officer in the Electronics Technician  Specialty Rating (ET1) at the time of my completion of my required length of service in the Navy, so this is one area of which I feel that I can speak in some manner of authority...If on nothing else. LOL. I was also awarded The Good Conduct Award Medal if that has anything to do with your casting aspersions on my veracity.

Unlike a well known frequent flyer to to the FES I am not a genius and I don't know everything. There are a lot of things of which I  will freely admit without any reservations that I don't have the slightest idea of how they work .LOL  I am neither a brain surgeon nor a rocket scientist. Just a specialist in a rather narrow field of endeavour.