Quick question No.2

Here we have a picture of a guy on the summit of a mountain :


The guy in the picture states :
"On the summit of Weisshorn, August 6, 1974 with Matterhorn as a backdrop. The Matterhorn is lower than the Weisshorn, but because of Earth's curvature, it reaches above the horizon as seen from the Weisshorn."

If the earth was flat, then the mountain in the back ground would not be above the horizon.
Can this be explained by the FE theory?

I don't see how the Earth's curvature would make a distant mountain TALLER...

it does not make it taller, it makes it break the horizon.

If the earth was flat, then the mountain in the back ground would not be above the horizon.

Uh...why?

it does not make it taller, it makes it break the horizon.

Mountains can't break the horizon on the FE?  I'm afraid I don't see where you're going with this one.

Maby this will help get my question accross :

That would be true if it were not for the conveniently forgotten perspective rule of the horizon line always ascending to eye level with the observer.

ok then, allow me to correct (2 mins..)

I use your example as my model (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16339.msg272241#msg272241)

That photo is a fake; the one guy's in a t-shirt, and the other is WILLINGLY grabbing a piece of metal with his bare hands

You being serious 

There are a number of things wrong with this thread:

1.  You take this guy's word for it.
2.  You don't know the true ratios or distances of the mountains.
3.  You make biased images to 'prove' your point.

I use your example as my model (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16339.msg272241#msg272241)

This isn't terribly convincing.  The picture of the sphere can't possibly be accurate because there is no horizon in it.  You're not getting your point across too well.

This isn't terribly convincing.  The picture of the sphere can't possibly be accurate because there is no horizon in it.  You're not getting your point across too well.

This is a section view, if we were to look at it from the little red man perspective there would be a horizon,  see pic:



Edit : I have exagerated the horizon to show curvature, however this does not make my point any less legit (ignore the curvature if you wish)

I don't think the pictures are accurate.  I think you jiggered them so they would show your nonsensical point.

jiggered?

You being serious 

No.  But the two are still idiots.

Fair one

Something tells me that they wouldn't bother scewing their picture around just because they believe in RE.

"This isn't terribly convincing.  The picture of the sphere can't possibly be accurate because there is no horizon in it.  You're not getting your point across too well."

And what would a horizon look like drawn on a sphere?

It would be near eye level, not way below it.

It would be near eye level, not way below it.

Not according to RE

And besides, its an exageration to get a point accross.
In FE theory, if you were on Mont Everest, you would see all the way to the "Ice wall"
In RE theory, the horizon would still exist.

And besides, its an exageration to get a point accross.
In FE theory, if you were on Mont Everest, you would see all the way to the "Ice wall"

No, you wouldn't.

But if you were on the highest point on a flat plain, wouldn't you see the edge of the plain...?

Well in all fairness, there would be some fog and some haze. Might be a bit hard to see right across.

So you would have a foggy hazey horizon, not a clear one that you get with RE theory.

So you would have a foggy hazey horizon, not a clear one that you get with RE theory.

Do you consider what is contained in the first picture you posted, a clear horizon?

I see where you going with this 
OK, so the pic has a bit of mist, but what if it wasn't a misty day and you had a clear and unobstructed view?

In that case we would see the horizon.  (?)

There is a hill that could be considered the horizon in the picture you posted, but we would need to know its elevation and distance from the photo, as well as that of the camera and that of the mountain in order to discern any kind of conclusion. 

You still need to make accurate drawings to attempt to 'prove' anything.  You need the heights of all the mountains from the one the picture was taken on to the 'horizon', the distances between these heights, and the correct curvature of the Earth between these points at least.  If the drawing isn't to scale, all you're doing is wasting your time.

EDIT:  I guess you don't need every height, but you do need the heights and distances of the mountains that could obstruct the smooth horizon.