#### Bobby Shafto

• 1382
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2018, 10:26:31 PM »
Smaller makes sense.
Lower makes sense.
But taller yet lower than eye level doesn't, given flat earth explanations.

Distant things that are taller than the height of the viewer can never appear below eye level, can they?

#### Max_Almond

• 681
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2018, 11:41:36 PM »
Distant things that are taller than the height of the viewer can never appear below eye level, can they?

That's an incredibly good question.
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, George Jetson, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

#### Max_Almond

• 681
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2018, 12:19:48 AM »
The thing about a proof like this is that it's complex and made up of many components.

Here's my prediction of what Tom will do: he will go through as many components as it takes until he finds one that has an aspect of uncertainty or imprecision about it, and then he will seize on that and feel secure in his belief that it's enough to provide a debunk.

If one is knocked back, he'll simply try again.

Though no doubt he can always find something, given the imprecise and uncertain nature of our world.

I wonder what he'll come up with for this one?
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, George Jetson, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 5974
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2018, 12:26:29 AM »
Max, here is my post again. There is a wide range of elevation estimates depending on the source you consult.

A possible difference of 90 feet or 245 feet depending on the source?

As the listed altitude can change so wildly between the source when assessing mountains that are slightly above or below each other, your criticism of the matter is insufficient.

Nor do we know if the person taking the picture got to the absolute summit for the photograph. Nor do we know if it is aligned and leveled.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 12:47:53 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1382
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2018, 12:35:30 AM »
Nor do we know if the person taking the picture was got to the absolute summit for the photograph.
"Ding!" There it is.

Nor do we know if it is even aligned and leveled.

Been through this. Camera "aligned and leveled" doesn't matter. This isn't a laser beam.

#### Max_Almond

• 681
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2018, 01:02:04 AM »
Ding indeed. ;-)

At least he'll sleep tonight: I can't begrudge him that.
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, George Jetson, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1382
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #26 on: May 23, 2018, 01:05:22 AM »
Nor do we know if it is even aligned and leveled.
Been through this. Camera "aligned and leveled" doesn't matter. This isn't a laser beam.

Height alignment is what matters. Camera leveling doesn't matter. (Well, except the objects being sighted need to be within the field of view, of course.)

#### douglips

• 459
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2018, 01:14:11 AM »
Now hang on a sec, though, the picture labels Pyramid Peak at an altitude of 13.9k, but it is widely regarded as a 14k peak, so that is a little weird.

That Colorado picture is not the best example, the Sisters'/Cascades is pretty telling.

#### Max_Almond

• 681
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2018, 11:52:31 AM »
The Sisters one is definitely the best, by far, though the others work too.

I also have a nice shot of the front range of the Rockies, with about thirty peaks in it, which also illustrates the point:

(right-click and open in new tab to see it full-size)

My mistake on the Pyramid Peak elevation: I'd taken it from peakfinder, but used NAVD88 for the others, as Tom helpfully highlighted:

There are a wide range of elevation estimates depending on the source you consult.

A possible difference of 245 feet depending on the source.

Peakfinder currently has Pyramid Peak at 13,930 feet - but Tom was taking the elevation of an observer point near Pyramid Peak, not the peak itself:

I have found that the summit elevations on peakfinder don't seem as reliable as expected, and are often quite different to the NAVD88 elevations, and other more well-used sources. Reason being: information on peakfinder is from openstreetmap.org, which is user-created and editable, and more prone to error.

I have now corrected the error at openstreetmap, so hopefully that will be reflected in peakfinder too.

In any case, either one of those elevations proves the point.

I've also fixed it in the posts and images above. Thanks again for pointing that out.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 11:58:26 AM by Max_Almond »
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, George Jetson, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

#### Max_Almond

• 681
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #29 on: December 08, 2018, 09:36:07 AM »
That Colorado picture is not the best example, the Sisters'/Cascades is pretty telling.

This one?

Yeah, I think that's the best one for illustrating the issue.
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, George Jetson, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

#### toomuchfuntoresist

• 2
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2019, 12:08:50 AM »
Simple proof the earth is round by observing the mountains? Easy. I am not going to post any pictures, as this is not evidence, and can be easily nitpicked. I simply ask any believer to observe and ask themselves how. I live right beside the rocky mountain range. And its a pretty flat region. But on a beautiful clear day, looking west to the mountains, the ones in my direct line of sight are always larger than any to the south or the north. Follow along either direction and you notice that it doesn't get smaller proportionally (let's say an illusion of a 10% decrease with every 50 miles) as would be expected in a flat earth, but on a gradual slope (first 50 miles, shows a 10% decrease, next 50 miles is a 25% decrease, next 50 a 50% decrease, etc.). The same "illusion" occurs when atop a high mountain in the range looking in any direction. Basically, your view of the immediate surroundings is actually quite minimal (only about 200 mile radius). Whip out a telescope to few the horizon, and matters are worse, you can't see any further mountain ranges.

Not good enough? Another fun observation would be a top the mountain Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Another mountain in the Hawaiian islands (Kawaikini) should be totally visible as it is only 300 miles away with only a flat surface (the ocean) between it. But its not, even with a telescope. Why? Because the mountain peak is obstructed by the horizon as a result of a curved earth.

#### Max_Almond

• 681
##### Re: Using mountain ranges to determine the shape of the Earth
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2019, 06:25:40 AM »
That reminds me: I found a new picture that's even better than the one above:

On a basic level, we can see how this proves impossible on the flat earth in two ways: one, there's no place to put the horizontal line that represents eye level that doesn't contradict the data; and two, there's no way Mount Rainier, Olallie Butte and Mount Saint Helens can appear at the same level.

The above image has been contrast enhanced, to make out the peaks more easily, but if you want to see the original, it's here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rhane/372202821/in/photostream/

And also a whole bunch of similar images here:

https://www.oregonhikers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16080
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, George Jetson, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).