Crow's nest declared useless

Generally speaking, for a person standing on the shore at sea level, who is 6 feet tall, the horizon is about 3 miles.  This is why they put crow's nests on the upper masts on sailing ships - because a 60 foot vantage point increases the distance from about 3 miles to over 9 miles and used hand held telescopes.

Guess these guys climbed up there for nothing, huh.... ?

I mean on a flat earth you could see other ships anyway, there would be no point in climbing - it doesn't help you with the atmosphere.

Some guy wasting time:

Particulates are not evenly spaced throughout the atmosphere. The most haze or rubbish sits where the air is most dense. Low down. It also takes more atmospheric energy to suspend larger particles high up. The higher you can get, the finer and less dense air impurities become, and the better your view.

Particulates are not evenly spaced throughout the atmosphere. The most haze or rubbish sits where the air is most dense. Low down. It also takes more atmospheric energy to suspend larger particles high up. The higher you can get, the finer and less dense air impurities become, and the better your view.

An observer is sitting in a boat, watching another boat sail away.  Once the other boat reaches point A, he is not longer able to see the other boat (except for the top).  At the same time, in the exact same direction he can see an airliner that is much further away and higher up, directly behind the boat.  Explain how he is able to see further.  The airliner is being viewed down the same line of sight as the boat, so it is exposed to the same amount of low thick air, plus it is also exposed to much more air due to its distance being further.  Feel free to substitute a star for the airliner.

How is this possible?

Please prove the airliner is further away.

Also, consider the airliner is high in clearer air. Looking diagonally up will involve peering through less air impurtities than looking horizontally along the surface where most of the dust and dirt is hanging in the air.

Edit: Also I am feeling a little guilty that syntax spent some time on the OP, and I gave a fairly short answer. I did appreciate the effort even if I do think the answer is very straight forward.

Please prove the airliner is further away.

Also, consider the airliner is high in clearer air. Looking diagonally up will involve peering through less air impurtities than looking horizontally along the surface where most of the dust and dirt is hanging in the air.

Edit: Also I am feeling a little guilty that syntax spent some time on the OP, and I gave a fairly short answer. I did appreciate the effort even if I do think the answer is very straight forward.

The person in the 2nd boat can see that the airliner is in the opposite direction of the observers boat.  they have radios.

The point of my comment is that you are looking in the exact same direction (the airliner is not more diagonally up than the boat), seeing both the boat and airliner (the boat also occasionaly blocks your view of the airliner, as it bobs around on the sea, an additional proof that the airliner is further


Like I said, feel free to substitute a star.

Why do star's twinkle? Do boats twinkle?

Why do star's twinkle? Do boats twinkle?

Feel free to conduct this experiment at 4am on a day where the air and sea temperatures are the same.  Put a light on the boat.

Please explain how you can see further to one object than the other, in the exact same plane of view, with 1 being many many times further away

Try to answer in the form of a statement, as opposed to a question

The thing further away ... is brighter.

The thing further away ... is brighter.

You are implying that you can see through the particles if you are looking at something brighter?  So if a ship is over the horizon, and points a laser or super bright light at you, you will be able to see it?

Please read ENaG.

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?

? Did you read the link? Nothing about masts.

? Did you read the link? Nothing about masts.

That was a quote from the link.   p. 216

p 214. You even quoted it. I cannot tamper with your posts. The link is for p 214. Please read. It will answer your query.

p 214. You even quoted it. I cannot tamper with your posts. The link is for p 214. Please read. It will answer your query.

Please dont pretend that you dont understand such simple concepts.

If you are viewing soldiers at midday on a parade ground, and you believe with your naked eye that there is distortion at ground level, this would be caused by heat distortion, or by the ground not being flat.


An effective control for these effects is to move the observations to the sea.  There will no longer be heat distortion from the dark pathway, and you can be sure the surface is flat.

All observations made at sea are scientifically superior to men walking on a parade square.



Also, the fact that he made false claims on p. 216 supports my statement  "Observations in book discredited.  Next explanation?"

As the book contains false information on p.216, there is no way you can be sure that the information on p.214 is not also false


So, Observations in book discredited.  Next explanation?

Are you saying you have no rebuttal for the book's observations on p214? Your only response is to reject the book in entirety because some one else objected to a different section of it?

That doesn't seen to be in the spirit of self-enlightenment to me.

Are you saying you have no rebuttal for the book's observations on p214? Your only response is to reject the book in entirety because some one else objected to a different section of it?

That doesn't seen to be in the spirit of self-enlightenment to me.

If you are viewing soldiers at midday on a parade ground, and you believe with your naked eye that there is distortion at ground level, this would be caused by heat distortion, or by the ground not being flat.


An effective control for these effects is to move the observations to the sea.  There will no longer be heat distortion from the dark pathway, and you can be sure the surface is flat.

All observations made at sea are scientifically superior to men walking on a parade square.




REBUTTAL REPOSTED

Thank you for your rebuttal to page 215. However the answer to your question about the sea and ships, is as I have said and linked for several posts now, on page 214. So bring a close to the game I shall quote directly.

PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA.

We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be. This fact is considered of such great importance, and so much is made of it as an argument for rotundity by the Newtonian philosophers, that it demands in this place special consideration. It has been already shown that the law of perspective, as commonly taught in our schools of art, is fallacious and contrary to every thing seen in nature. If an object be held up in the air, and gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point--the centre, in relation to which the whole contracts and diminishes. But if the same object is placed on the ground, or on a board, as shown in diagram 74, and the lower part made distinctive in shape or colour, and similarly moved away from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case the centre of the object is the datum to which every point of the exterior converges; but in the second case the ground or board practically becomes the datum in and towards which every part of the object converges in succession--beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it.

Pirates are usually drunk. Their accounts of events should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Thork is correct. Theodolite is abusing logical fallacies and making very little sense.

Particulates are not evenly spaced throughout the atmosphere. The most haze or rubbish sits where the air is most dense. Low down. It also takes more atmospheric energy to suspend larger particles high up. The higher you can get, the finer and less dense air impurities become, and the better your view.

Yes, but not in this case. Air won't make that big of change in 100m and definitely not when you climb to the crow nest, too small difference.
As said, horizon moves another 6 miles further away per 60foot rise, this does not happen because there is cleaner air few meters above.

Pirates are usually drunk. Their accounts of events should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Who said anything about pirates?

It also doesnt explain why you can see much higher and further objects at the same plane of vision as a ship on the horizon.

Also, you can easily observe that crowsnests work by observing the ocean from a space craft, as sustained spaceflight is now an undebated fact.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49604.0

Some guy wasting time:

Looks like a pirate to me.

It's illustrative image. And probably not a pirate. It isn't important anyway. Stop flooding the thread with thrash.

Why do star's twinkle? Do boats twinkle?

Why aren't blue pigs flying?

Berny
My new answer to all

You have completed flat earth.

Thork
My new answer to anyone who should know better by now.

PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA.

It has been already shown that the law of perspective, as commonly taught in our schools of art, is fallacious and contrary to every thing seen in nature. If an object be held up in the air, and gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point--the centre, in relation to which the whole contracts and diminishes. But if the same object is placed on the ground, or on a board, as shown in diagram 74, and the lower part made distinctive in shape or colour, and similarly moved away from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case the centre of the object is the datum to which every point of the exterior converges; but in the second case the ground or board practically becomes the datum in and towards which every part of the object converges in succession--beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it.

Please provide the page number on which Rowbotham describes the experiment he used to prove this concept, or the math he used to support it.  On what grounds can he claim that perspective affects things below your eye level differently than things above it.

Please read ENaG.

Please read ENaG.

* Thork takes a bow, waves to the crowd and walks off to a thunderous applause. Its a real priveldege to see him working the crowd like this.

Please note - in addition to ENaG we need the locations of all the experiments - secondary experiments to ensure the locations of the first experiments were not temporary flukes, names of observers, and all data must be sourced by a modern up to date (no less than 24 hours) by at least 5 independent sources.
Otherwise everything in ENaG cannot be considered a source.

Berny
Is adopting TB's Flatulist style

It's illustrative image. And probably not a pirate. It isn't important anyway. Stop flooding the thread with thrash.

It doesn't matter if they were a pirate, although the chances were quite high that they were. People were often sent to the crows nest for long periods of time during which they would be subject to high levels of sea sickness. They would often suffer from dehydration and be forgotten about by the rest of the crew. They were also the criminals on board the ship and could not be trusted. Can we really trust their opinion?