Crow's nest declared useless

Please read ENaG.

* Thork takes a bow, waves to the crowd and walks off to rapturous applause. A veteran performance.

Quote from: Thork on July 17, 2011, 09:03:57 AM

Please read ENaG.

* Thork takes a bow, waves to the crowd and walks off to rapturous applause. A veteran performance.

This would be a sufficient explanation of the disappearance of a ship's hull before the rigging and mast-head; but as already stated in every one of the instances given, except that of the ship at sea, a telescope will restore to view whatever has disappeared to the naked eye.

Watching a ship through a telescope, you can see it sink below the horizon.  Observations in book discredited.  Next explanation?

Quote from: Thork on July 17, 2011, 09:03:57 AM

Please read ENaG.

* Thork takes a bow, waves to the crowd and walks off to rapturous applause. A veteran performance.

Rowbotham's explanation of perspective at sea is flawed, something he would have seen if his desire to have the world flat didn't overirde his common sense.

Yes, the swell can certainly make it appear that the lower part of the boat has disappeared.  However the swell is something continually changing.  If the swell on any given day of experiment, was sufficient at times to obscure the hull, it would do so on and off, not continuously.  So if you were to take several measurements over the course of several minutes, you could expect that at some times the hull will be obscured at other times not.  The level of the swell changes minute to minute.

Recently I visited the seaside and took some photos of ships in Moreton Bay.  I took a series of photos, some taken at sea level, some taken from atop a cliff face, coincidentally about the height of a crows nest - 10m.  In all cases the sea level photos showed an obscured hull, and the cliff top photos showed an unobscured hull.  The camera used to take the photos had affixed a 250mm lens on a 3/4 frame sensor (equivalent to 380mm). 

It was quite a hot day, and there was reflection on the surface of the water nearest the ships (by line of sight). This makes it look at first glance like the horizon is lower than it actually is.  I have drawn lines through the middle of the reflection to show where the horizon actually lies.  This reflection disappears once you gain some height.  It can be seen that, if the earth were flat, the waterline of the ships would be at the mid point of the reflection, yet once you climb to 10 metres, the ships waterline is suddenly much lower.

It's quite clear from these photos that the ship appears to be sitting ON the horizon while at sea level, yet at 10m, you can see clearly that the Horizon is beyond the ship. All the images, including versions without the reflection line drawn on, can also be viewed here:

My Location was -27.32519, 153.08607, corner of Swan and Shorncliffe Parades, Shorncliffe.
Ships 1 2 and 3 where located at approximately -27.2314, 153.334, 25km from my position.
The Gantry and Berthed ship where located at approximately -27.3617, 153.180, 10km from my position.

Each ship is displayed in the order the photos were taken.

Quote from: Thork on July 17, 2011, 09:03:57 AM

Please read ENaG.

* Thork takes a bow, waves to the crowd and walks off to rapturous applause. A veteran performance.

Rowbotham's explanation of perspective at sea is flawed, something he would have seen if his desire to have the world flat didn't overirde his common sense.

Yes, the swell can certainly make it appear that the lower part of the boat has disappeared.  However the swell is something continually changing.  If the swell on any given day of experiment, was sufficient at times to obscure the hull, it would do so on and off, not continuously.  So if you were to take several measurements over the course of several minutes, you could expect that at some times the hull will be obscured at other times not.  The level of the swell changes minute to minute.

Recently I visited the seaside and took some photos of ships in Moreton Bay.  I took a series of photos, some taken at sea level, some taken from atop a cliff face, coincidentally about the height of a crows nest - 10m.  In all cases the sea level photos showed an obscured hull, and the cliff top photos showed an unobscured hull.  The camera used to take the photos had affixed a 250mm lens on a 3/4 frame sensor (equivalent to 380mm). 

It was quite a hot day, and there was reflection on the surface of the water nearest the ships (by line of sight). This makes it look at first glance like the horizon is lower than it actually is.  I have drawn lines through the middle of the reflection to show where the horizon actually lies.  This reflection disappears once you gain some height.  It can be seen that, if the earth were flat, the waterline of the ships would be at the mid point of the reflection, yet once you climb to 10 metres, the ships waterline is suddenly much lower.

It's quite clear from these photos that the ship appears to be sitting ON the horizon while at sea level, yet at 10m, you can see clearly that the Horizon is beyond the ship. All the images, including versions without the reflection line drawn on, can also be viewed here:

My Location was -27.32519, 153.08607, corner of Swan and Shorncliffe Parades, Shorncliffe.
Ships 1 2 and 3 where located at approximately -27.2314, 153.334, 25km from my position.
The Gantry and Berthed ship where located at approximately -27.3617, 153.180, 10km from my position.

Each ship is displayed in the order the photos were taken.

Ship 1  (distance approx 25km):
10 metres:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr


Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

sea level

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr


Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr


Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr


Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

10 metres:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Sea Level

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

10 metres:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2  (distance approx 25km):
sea level:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

10  metres:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

sea level:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

20 metres:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 3  (distance approx 25km):
sea level:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

10 metres:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

sea level:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Berthed Ship (distance approx 25km):
sea level:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

20 metre:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Gantry (distance 25km):
sea level:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

20 metres:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

My location:

Ships below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr


20110828-002 by max_wedge, on Flickr

All obviously shopped. Boats don't float in mid air.

Quote from: Theodolite on July 17, 2011, 09:17:57 AM

Quote from: Thork on July 17, 2011, 09:03:57 AM

Please read ENaG.

* Thork takes a bow, waves to the crowd and walks off to rapturous applause. A veteran performance.

This would be a sufficient explanation of the disappearance of a ship's hull before the rigging and mast-head; but as already stated in every one of the instances given, except that of the ship at sea, a telescope will restore to view whatever has disappeared to the naked eye.

Watching a ship through a telescope, you can see it sink below the horizon.  Observations in book discredited.  Next explanation?

You can. However, and I have observed this personally, if you look at a ship out to sea with the naked eye and then with a telescope, the telescope will to a degree restore the ship's hull.

All obviously shopped. Boats don't float in mid air.

Those images are highly inconsistent. For example, why has the ship with the least freeboard been obscured the least at roughly the same distance?

What we see here is not the spherical curvature of the earth, but the waves simply hiding the boat.

Indeed, the ground of the oceans is made of hills and mountains. It obliges the surfaces of the oceans to have curved shapes here and there, but that does not mean that the earth is round.

Such a conclusion is highly dangerous.

Also, in that perspective, the crowd's nest was not useless.

What we see here is not the spherical curvature of the earth, but the waves simply hiding the boat.

Indeed, the ground of the oceans is made of hills and mountains. It obliges the surfaces of the oceans to have curved shapes here and there

This is not incorrect, the ground of the oceans is made of hills and mountains.

It obliges the surfaces of the oceans to have curved shapes here and there

Quote from: Agnostic on August 28, 2011, 09:07:30 AM

This is not incorrect, the ground of the oceans is made of hills and mountains.

He was talking about this part:

Quote from: Agnostic on August 28, 2011, 07:56:16 AM

It obliges the surfaces of the oceans to have curved shapes here and there

Quote from: Harutsedo on August 28, 2011, 09:09:11 AM

Quote from: Agnostic on August 28, 2011, 09:07:30 AM

This is not incorrect, the ground of the oceans is made of hills and mountains.

He was talking about this part:

Quote from: Agnostic on August 28, 2011, 07:56:16 AM

It obliges the surfaces of the oceans to have curved shapes here and there

waves and swells are "curved shapes"

All that 1 guy does in enag is make claims and arguments, there have been no modern independent studies that support or back up his claims.

Quote from: AndersonG22 on August 28, 2011, 04:48:24 PM

All that 1 guy does in enag is make claims and arguments, there have been no modern independent studies that support or back up his claims.

And not one to refute them.

Incorrect. There have been at least two experiments done at the Bedford canal that supported RET.

Quote from: Harutsedo on August 28, 2011, 04:50:10 PM

Incorrect. There have been at least two experiments done at the Bedford canal that supported RET.

I am sure that I can (tomorrow) review the so-called 'experiments' to debunk their flaws.

Give the links.

It's a perspective effect. If the author had used a telescope the ship would have been restored from beyond the vanishing point. The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth, not a round one.

Please read Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe

Perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea after it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read:
How does your model of the earth explain away these explicitly detailed accounts?

Quote from: Agnostic on August 28, 2011, 09:07:30 AM

This is not incorrect, the ground of the oceans is made of hills and mountains.

He was talking about this part:

Quote from: Agnostic on August 28, 2011, 07:56:16 AM

It obliges the surfaces of the oceans to have curved shapes here and there

It's a perspective effect. If the author had used a telescope the ship would have been restored from beyond the vanishing point. The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth, not a round one.

All that 1 guy does in enag is make claims and arguments, there have been no modern independent studies that support or back up his claims.

Atmosphere can do weird things on occasions.

At any rate, these are all anecdotal, go take some pics on a normal day, like pitdroidtech.