With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
As a matter of interest, which lighthouse and which ‘adjacent beach’? The thrust of that old thread I linked to is that when pressed, you declined to identify these. Please tell.
I did clarify in that thread. The tests were tried from multiple locations in that area. Others have verified the relative flatness of the portions of the Monterey Bay
with lasers. There should be curvature over the portion tested in the video, but there is not.
That was the original experiment, later on in the thread someone posts the pictures I’m referencing. It is basically the same experiment, just with pictures taken at 3 different heights and the first one taken at 6 feet instead of 2 as with the original experiment.
You appear to be saying "Okay okay you got me... but explain THIS picture." Is that right? To add on top of that you attempt an attack on another experiment performed 10 years ago?
You appear to be dodging the issue, as usual.
Even in the original experiment the initial photo is taken at 2 feet.
Fun fact 20 inches is less than 2 feet.
So please explain how in these photos taken from 2 feet your explanation for the occlusion is waves and swells, but in The Bishop Experiment you claim to be able to see across a 23 mile expanse of sea and see the distant beach “all the way down to the shore line” from a viewer height of 20 inches.
When your experiment was conducted is irrelevant, were waves different 10 years ago?
You need to read Earth Not a Globe. The sinking effect is explained there. The explanation for the sinking ship effect on the sea (and inland seas) is also "waves". This is explained in the Earth Not a Globe chapter
Perspective at Sea.
The perspective lines meet at the vanishing point. The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. It is possible for waves at the vanishing point to obscure bodies behind it, even if the waves are smaller than the mass it is obscuring, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
Under the theory of Euclid the perspective lines will meet at an infinite distance away. However, per Earth Not a Globe, the perspective lines were actually found to meet at a finite distance away, as so:
Where the perspective lines meet at points H is not infinity. This occurs a finite distance away. Bodies beyond that will shrink behind any imperfections at the vanishing point.
Your question of why some bodies are hidden by the ocean, but not others, such as in some long range examples such as the coast of Santa Cruz and various long range experiments on Youtube and the Flat Earth Literature; this is simply because the opposite coast or target body is not yet beyond the point where the perspective lines meet.
Samuel Birley Rowbotham explains that the test of the earth's flatness is more easily observed on standing bodies of water such as a lakes and canals which do not have waves which might interfere or obscure bodies in the distance. This is why many of the water convexity experiments are done on the Old Bedford Canal and various lakes rather than the ocean. Rowbotham explicitly spells out the issue in his work.