[Tom Bishop]

I would like to see some cities that are over the horizon get restored through magnification.

Apparently you have not read Earth Not a Globe: http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

Tom, please show me some objects that appear to be over horizon and are brought back over the horizon with greater magnification.   In the video that I just posted the ship didn't rise up over the horizon when the magnification was increased.   It just got bigger.

Better yet, I'd like a video of you wearing a frock.  Id like to see your feet disappear via the law of perspective.

In Earth Not a Globe the ship restoration experiments are done on lakes and flat bodies of water. In Cellular Cosmogony the ship restoration experiments are also done on lakes. Rowbotham dedicates an entire chapter, Perspective on the Sea in which he tells us that the effect at sea is inconsistent due to the uneven nature of the swells of the surface.

This criticism in the video is not staying true to the material, to act as a proof.

[Tom Bishop]

Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?

Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.

[Rounder]

Apparently you have not read Earth Not a Globe: http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

Apparently you can't find anything more modern than that to support your position.

We have read it.  In fact, I imagine that more roundies have read it than flatties, and with more care.  I cannot take seriously as a science text a book that claims:

A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea, and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam above the Biblical lake of fire
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
F) Sunlight puts out fire
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers

All of these preposterous statements MAY have sounded credible to the untraveled Victorians that Rowbotham targeted, but a twenty first century adult should know better.

[Rounder]

Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.

That's a pretty weak cop-out, and you probably know it.

[Silent Service]

Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?

Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.

I'd agree with you if it was a 20 foot fishing vessel or something but when its a tanker over 100 feet tall that's over half obscured you can't use that logic.  The waves would have to be at least 50 feet in height in order to do that and we can clearly see in the foreground that the sea state is at MAXIMUM 5 foot waves (and I'm being very generous with that number.)

[Tom Bishop]

Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?

Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.

I'd agree with you if it was a 20 foot fishing vessel or something but when its a tanker over 100 feet tall that's over half obscured you can't use that logic.  The waves would have to be at least 50 feet in height in order to do that and we can clearly see in the foreground that the sea state is at MAXIMUM 5 foot waves (and I'm being very generous with that number.)

That is not true. The waves do not need to be as tall as something it obscures. If you hold a dime out in front of you, you can obscure an elephant. Is your dime as big as the elephant?

[Nirmala]

Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?

Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.

I'd agree with you if it was a 20 foot fishing vessel or something but when its a tanker over 100 feet tall that's over half obscured you can't use that logic.  The waves would have to be at least 50 feet in height in order to do that and we can clearly see in the foreground that the sea state is at MAXIMUM 5 foot waves (and I'm being very generous with that number.)

That is not true. The waves do not need to be as tall as something it obscures. If you hold a dime out in front of you, you can obscure an elephant. Is your dime as big as the elephant?

Then why aren't the waves obscuring the much smaller boat shown earlier in the video (from about 0:15 to 0:30 in the video)? Either waves are a factor or they are not. You can't say waves are obscuring a bigger boat while leaving a much smaller boat in plain view.

[Tom Bishop]

Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?

Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.

I'd agree with you if it was a 20 foot fishing vessel or something but when its a tanker over 100 feet tall that's over half obscured you can't use that logic.  The waves would have to be at least 50 feet in height in order to do that and we can clearly see in the foreground that the sea state is at MAXIMUM 5 foot waves (and I'm being very generous with that number.)

That is not true. The waves do not need to be as tall as something it obscures. If you hold a dime out in front of you, you can obscure an elephant. Is your dime as big as the elephant?

Then why aren't the waves obscuring the much smaller boat shown earlier in the video (from about 0:15 to 0:30 in the video)? Either waves are a factor or they are not. You can't say waves are obscuring a bigger boat while leaving a much smaller boat in plain view.

The bigger boat is further away. The variables are not the same.

[Nirmala]

And even though the bigger boat is farther away, it still appears larger than the smaller boat, so if there was wave action, it would only have the effect of hiding more of the smaller boat.

Again, it is clear that it is a much bigger boat, and yes the further distance of the bigger boat naturally makes it appear smaller than it would appear if it was closer. And yet the bigger boat is still hidden even though it is much bigger than the smaller boat. So waves could not hide the much bigger boat without also hiding the smaller boat.

So yes the variables are not the same, but they work against the possibility that the bigger boat is being hidden by waves when the smaller boat is still clearly visible.

[Tom Bishop]

The hull of the smaller boat seems to be obscured behind some water too. Look how close the waves get to the deck line:



It's not really that much more depth needed before the desk is submerged and little house structure is sticking out of the water like with the big boat. The big boat doesn't have a bow almost as tall as the bridge, but it it did that would be sticking out of the water as well.

[Nirmala]

The hull of the smaller boat seems to be obscured behind some water too. Look how close the waves get to the deck line:



It's not really that much more depth needed before the little house structure is sticking out of the water like with the big boat.

Correct. The waves do hide some of the small boat, but they would still hide less of the big boat. And the thing about boats is that they float on top of the waves. so if the waves were big enough to hide either boat, it would be intermittent as the boat itself would be rising and falling with the waves. You can see a little of this happening with the small boat, but the waves still never hide the hull of the small boat. Moving the small boat further away on a supposedly flat earth would make the waves and the boat both appear smaller, but it would not change the percentage of the boat appearing above the water (unless of course some other mechanism came into play and hid the hull....such as the curvature of the earth).

Waves that are too small to hide the small boat are way too small to hide the big boat. What is so hard to understand about that?

It is one of the most ridiculous claims of flat earthers that perspective can hide the bottom half of an object before it hides the upper half. Photons of light do not behave in such a ridiculous manner. If there is a line of sight between our eyes and an object, then moving further away does not change that fact. Any object that is above the plane of a flat earth would remain within our line of sight indefinitely up to the point where our eyes can no longer distinguish it from its surroundings, which is not even close to being the case with the larger ship.  And even then it would be within our line of sight, so a telescope could bring it back into view. This does not happen as clearly shown in the video I posted earlier in this thread:



Distance does make an object appear smaller, but it does so equally in all directions, so if the bottom half of a ship is in our line of sight, it will still be in our line of site as it moves further away on a flat surface. And as the ship gradually appeared to be smaller, the waves would also gradually appear to be smaller also. Again they would both shrink by the same amount, so if waves cannot hide the smaller, closer ship, then those same waves which would appear smaller at the distance of the larger ship, would not be able to hide such a large portion of the larger ship.

The only explanation that makes sense for why the bottom half of the more distant ship is hidden is that the surface of the water is curved as predicted in a round earth model.

[Nirmala]

Here is an excellent explanation of what perspective really is and why the flat earth notion that perspective makes something disappear behind the horizon is completely bogus:



Short version: Perspective is a phenomenon inside the eye or camera, but does not represent the actual size or spatial relationships of what is perceived. Ships do not get smaller as they move away from us. The actual ships stay the same size, but the image that forms on the retina or camera's recording surface gets smaller. Furthermore, the surface of the earth does not rise up on either a flat earth or a round earth. The only place the horizon rises is inside the eye or camera of the perceiver. In the actual earth, the surface either stays flat or curves as predicted by the two models. Since the actual surface never rises up, it can never hide an object that is above it.

[simba]

I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.

[Flatout]

I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.

Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances?  There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years.  It's call a theodolite.  A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.

[geckothegeek]

I think somebody in the FES should talk to somebody in the Navy about this subject.
But that is probably against their rules....or against their nature.
After all the Navy is just one more member of The Conspiracy anyway. Most sailors have some degree of security clearance and they would get court martialed if they said they were hiding the fact that the earth is flat. That is probably part of Classified Information.

I have a theory for this part of the flat earth wiki.
Rowbotham was eiither short sighted ..... or had cataracts......or both.

I'm in the Navy.  In fact, I'm a submarine officer with 9 years in the Navy who has traveled over 50,000 miles at sea.  Believe me, if the earth was flat I'd know lol.  I've literally observed thousands of ships through a periscope either come over the horizon or go over the horizon.  Because our periscope is only a few feet out of the water our distance to the horizon is only about 5,000 yards so ships coming over or going over the horizon is very commonplace.  The phenomena is so well documented that we can actually calculate the distance to ships based on the known distance to the horizon and how much of the ship we can see over the horizon.  Its also an easy trick to approximate the range of ships near the horizon.  Furthermore, if we see the mast of a ship we can't identify we often stick our periscope more out of the water (by changing our depth) which changes our height of eye and therefore changes our distance to the horizon.  Sure enough, when we do this more of the ship comes into view.  We also have far more powerful magnification on our periscopes (along with night vision and infrared vision) then people have access to in the civilian sector and I can assure you that zooming does not bring the ship back into view if it goes over the horizon.  Likewise, if a ship goes over the horizon you can't pick it up with night vision on infrared.  If the earth was flat then we would be able to pick them up on infrared from pretty much any distance.  Helicopters with infrared can easily pick up contacts from a hundred miles away if they are high enough.

And the final nail in the coffin is radar.  The effective range of your radar is dependent on how high the radar is above the water line.  This is because the curvature of the earth limits your radar.  This is why ships always place their radar as high as possible.  You can even test this out if you have your own boat and you buy a portable radar.

However, no flat earther will ever believe my testimony.  I guess I'm a liar in their eyes lol.

Well there you have it!

First hand observations are evidence.

The crow's nest on the old ships as well as some of the more modern surface search radars were placed on the highest masts of the ship for the same reason. So they could "see" farther to the horizon.

The periscope on "SilentServices'" submarine could only "see" about 5000 yards to the horizon.

I was only just a petty officer (ET2) in the Navy, somewhat low on the ladder.
I just served 4 years and only 3 cruises to Japan and back on surface type ships but my experiences as far as ships coming and going, the distance to the horizon, etc. were about the same as "SilentServices."

The radars on the ships on which I served were mounted on masts about 100 feet above the waterline and had a range of about 12 miles to the horizon.

I suppose we - both of -  us are liars, "SilentServices" ?

BTW. Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?

[simba]

I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.

Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances?  There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years.  It's call a theodolite.  A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.

im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.

[Flatout]

I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.

Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances?  There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years.  It's call a theodolite.  A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.

im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.

Yes, but to to take accurate measurements  one needs a screen that is larger than the beam so the center can be detected.  Many flat earth experiments have failed for this reason.  They assume that if they can see the laser that the center of the beam is at eye level. 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.

Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances?  There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years.  It's call a theodolite.  A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.

im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.

Yes, but to to take accurate measurements  one needs a screen that is larger than the beam so the center can be detected.  Many flat earth experiments have failed for this reason.  They assume that if they can see the laser that the center of the beam is at eye level.

Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?

[Flatout]

Yes.  I've measured the drop over water with my theodolite.

[Nirmala]

Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?