Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

You can't see 80 miles.

What is the limit of human unaided vision? I can certainly see mountains 70 miles away from where I live. They are rarely seen in the summer months due to humidity and other atmospheric conditions but they can be seen in the winter. One is just under 2000 metres in height so that helps I'm sure!

Quote from: With Honor on July 06, 2009, 12:45:21 AM

You can't see 80 miles.

What is the limit of human unaided vision?

The general concensus is that an object must subtend an angle at the eye of at least one arc-second (one sixtieth of a degree) in order for it to be resolved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution#Ocular_resolution

So the bigger an object is, the further away you have to go for it to disappear from your view.

Certainly visual targets can be seen from 80 miles.

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=122D5519C959F390&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gatehouse&s_site=HSHH&p_product=HSHH (you can also find it on their site, on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article;
Let me take you through the steps, in the event the link cannot be accessed:

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/ (from there press Search our archives, top right corner)

We are here now: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=HSHH&p_theme=gatehouse&p_action=keyword

Click on search by date, then use the above datelines, May 28 2003 to May 29 2003; use the search words Oh can you see

And here we are: 1. Oh say can you see?
May 28, 2003 ?? 727 words ?? ID: 122D5519C91CF260
Can you see Milwaukee from Holland? It sounds preposterous to some, who insist the curvature of the Earth makes it impossible to see that far across Lake Michigan in any circumstances. But some lake-watchers insist that when conditions are just right, city lights from the other side can be seen peeking above the horizon. Park Township resident Herman Kanis said it can and did happen Monday night. Enjoying Memorial Day with some friends at his home on Lakeshore Drive near Riley Street...

Click on the article and you will read on...)

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.



BEAMER FALLS GRIMSBY

45 meters in height

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greatg/3000587588/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037875/


http://jwolkowski.blogspot.com/2007/11/beamers-falls-071114.html

Beamer?s Falls #071114

River Forty Mile Creek

Class Ramp

Size Medium

Height: 45

Crest: 20

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/


One of the best proofs that there is no curvature over lake Ontario; from 45 meters, we need another 10 meters just to reach the top of the curvature, right in front of you, and then miss the bottom 65 meters of the buildings in Toronto (the visual obstacle). But there is no curvature, no midpoint 55 meter obstacle, the Toronto downtown buildings visible top to bottom.

A spherically shaped star/planet would have been impossible to attain from the start.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.0 (the complete demonstration that a supernova could not have produced any kind of rotating gaseous nebula)

Now, a gaseous nebula approaching the form of a disk involves several things. Because of the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action, and we are told that parts of matter more on the periphery broke up into rings. Matter must have been concentrated in just a tiny sector of those rings, given the distance (the diameter) of the rings themselves (in our case, about 150 million kilometers).

Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation (the complete demonstration here: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=536.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=552.0 ), to get from a disk to a sphere, a tangential force of compression which would produce circumferential shortening/radial shrinkage (on the equatorial plane) would have been needed. To get from a disk (transversal cross section in the shape of an ellipse, with the eccentricity very close to unity, about 0.9995) to a sphere (eccentricity of about 0.314), given the centrifugal force of rotation, would have been impossible.

A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.

Being smaller than the Earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinkage and a has a lighter specific weight than the Earth. The moon was produced, it is assumed, from the superificial layers of the earth's body; this assumption means that the origin of the moon was not simultaneous with that of the earth; that is, the earth had to undergo a process of leveling (cooling) before the moon parted from the earth. Therefore, we are told that a stupendous collision took place between a heavenly body and the earth, but this collision MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE EARTH COOLED DOWN, that is 3.9 billion years ago (4.6 billion years - gaseous nebula, 4.5 billion years - incandescent conglomerate of matter and elements). Such a collision would have melted completely the surface of the earth; this in sharp contrast with the facts we are told: 3.85 billion years ago, DNA appeared out of nowhere. Also, in the official storyline, this collision would have been responsible for the 23.5 degree tilt, but such a collision would have disrupted completely any axial rotation, not to mention the orbital motion.

Faint young sun paradox:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718434#msg718434

Impossibility of a spherically shaped sun:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg24706#msg24706

Stationary Earth, clouds trajectories/restoring forces paradox:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=535.0

 I quite don't understand the point you try to make, levee. If it is that FE persons in this forum believe that the Earth is flat then I don't question it. But you don't contribute any useful information about real world quoting this forum topics, quoting speculations of FET inclined forum members, scientists who have no credibility, presenting shady photographs where there is not quite known how, where and with what they were taken. I prefer if you can quote some now living physicist or some other physic related scientist with actual science degree. I am sure that you are quite confident on your assumptions, calculations and conclusions but I still prefer some info from scientist who has degree in physic and lives in this era.

dork, I appreciate your input, but it amounts to nothing. Each and every message I write is very well documented, I invite you to find a single error, or a single bibliographical reference which has not been researched thoroughly. At every message you will find the best scientific data available.

Your mediocre beliefs are a bogus pile of wishful thinking, as my previous message clearly shows, and your critical mind is out to lunch.

Have you any specific points to make? Nobody so far has been able to add one centimeter of curvature, not while I'm here...

Nobody so far has been able to add one centimeter of curvature, not while I'm here...

If there is zero curvature ...

Why can't we see the base of the tower in the following picture?

3) Here is one coming from Rochester, NY:



I would hope everyone can see that there is a significant obstruction of view.

Certainly visual targets can be seen from 80 miles.

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

*snip*

And here we are: 1. Oh say can you see?
May 28, 2003 ?? 727 words ?? ID: 122D5519C91CF260
Can you see Milwaukee from Holland? It sounds preposterous to some, who insist the curvature of the Earth makes it impossible to see that far across Lake Michigan in any circumstances. But some lake-watchers insist that when conditions are just right, city lights from the other side can be seen peeking above the horizon. Park Township resident Herman Kanis said it can and did happen Monday night. Enjoying Memorial Day with some friends at his home on Lakeshore Drive near Riley Street...

And what "just right" conditions would those be?  Would those be the same conditions that produce various types of mirages?

BTW Levee, would you mind staying on topic, please?  Sun paradoxes and nebular formation of the solar system theories are irrelevant to discussions concerning the amount of curvature that should or should not be visible across a lake.

Why are we assuming these pictures show the Toronto skyline?

It would be easy to make a plastercast mock-up of Toronto and then parade it up and down on a trawler boat. I imagine this is what the conspiracy does...

This is such a joke, haha. I'm not sure if Levee is serious, or if he's actually convinced himself the Earth is flat.

Come on dude, it's basic neurophysiological science: the human eye can't see 80 miles. You might be able to see a light glare, but you can't see the silhouette of a city skyline; not even close. There is nothing you can post, no flickr picture you can add--that proves otherwise. It's just a complete fact that you can't see for more than about 6-10 miles from the ground.

On the other hand, if you post a picture of a skyline enhanced with a telephoto-lens, of course the Earth will appear flat! Telephotography skews vantage points and depth perception! I took 4 years of photography; I know what I'm talking about.

I also know that you math is straight up wrong. Stop posting it. It's incorrect.


-Done-


-------cut here---------

markjo, please read the thread, I am responding to this message:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30002.msg733307#msg733307

Mirages can contribute with some tens of meters given the 128 km distance. No mirage in the world can account for the fact that buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) were seen from 128 km distance, not with a visual obstacle of 946 meters. The surface of the lake (Michigan) is flat.

3Tesla, but you already know the answer: look up the famous chapter in Earth is not a Globe, the bottom portion of a ship, of a building, will disappear out of sight first, before the top portion, this on a flat earth.

Please review this also: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466

Quote from: With Honor on July 06, 2009, 12:45:21 AM

You can't see 80 miles.

What is the limit of human unaided vision? I can certainly see mountains 70 miles away from where I live. They are rarely seen in the summer months due to humidity and other atmospheric conditions but they can be seen in the winter. One is just under 2000 metres in height so that helps I'm sure!

You're right; mountains are a different beast. You can see enormous mountains from distances up to 100 miles away, if I'm not mistaken (particularly if you're in a tall building; otherwise, I'd cut this distance to around 70 miles or so as you said).

However, claiming you can distinguish an entire city skyline is just.. well.. preposterous (refer to Levee's case). It doesn't even need to be debated; doing so is a waste of time. Certain physical science facts can be discussed and debated; however, most bio/pathophysiological functions and mechanisms are currently completely understood--including the function of human eyes. Retinoblastomic research, initiated through cancer incentives, has uncovered a large portion of the microvascular/neurological functions and performance metrics of the eye.

If you want proof that lights are easier to see than buildings from enormous distances, refer to yourself outside at night time: Look up. What do you see? Stars?

QED

3Tesla, but you already know the answer: look up the famous chapter in Earth is not a Globe, the bottom portion of a ship, of a building, will disappear out of sight first, before the top portion, this on a flat earth.

The Rowbotham perspective argument.

(Which I think is flawed.)

Thanks for being very clear on that.

Quote from: levee on July 06, 2009, 08:29:13 AM

3Tesla, but you already know the answer: look up the famous chapter in Earth is not a Globe, the bottom portion of a ship, of a building, will disappear out of sight first, before the top portion, this on a flat earth.

The Rowbotham perspective argument.

(Which I think is flawed.)

Thanks for being very clear on that.

You missed this portion, which makes it very clear:

Please review this also: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466

dork, I appreciate your input, but it amounts to nothing. Each and every message I write is very well documented, I invite you to find a single error, or a single bibliographical reference which has not been researched thoroughly. At every message you will find the best scientific data available.

So you took these pictures yourself?  Or can reasonably account for their authenticity and specify exactly where they were taken from?

Cdenly posted something about a caption on one of the photos which would seem to indicate otherwise, which you have ignored.

Quote from: levee on July 06, 2009, 08:13:28 AM

dork, I appreciate your input, but it amounts to nothing. Each and every message I write is very well documented, I invite you to find a single error, or a single bibliographical reference which has not been researched thoroughly. At every message you will find the best scientific data available.

So you took these pictures yourself?  Or can reasonably account for their authenticity and specify exactly where they were taken from?

Cdenly posted something about a caption on one of the photos which would seem to indicate otherwise, which you have ignored.

I did NOT bring up the Rochester picture; had I done that, I would have looked very carefully at the caption. Your friends here brought it up to me with this comment: ...from Rochester NY...WHY would I try to say otherwise? Even so, given the 152.2 km distance, that boat (5-10 meters height for the deck) could have well been located at about 100 km from Toronto...not my picture, do not tell me anything about it...I have proved that the earth is flat, without using the picture from Rochester...we have Gibraltar, English Channel, Lake Ontario, and the Tunguska explosion of 1908, which I can bring up again...

Fair enough.  Now address the rest of my post, which you have ignored.  Did you take all those pictures yourself, which you constantly offer as proof, or can you reasonably account for their authenticity?

the Tunguska explosion of 1908, which I can bring up again...

Please don't ...

Just post a link to one of your previous messages on the subject.

Each and every message I write is very well documented, I invite you to find a single error, or a single bibliographical reference which has not been researched thoroughly. At every message you will find the best scientific data available.

Problem is, there is no documentation. You post pictures taken from others, copy paste bunch of text taken from somewhere else but not any actual scientific data. Because of that I asked you to quote some physicist who lives in this era and has researched these phenomenons. But as I see you don't have any real data or person to quote and you just started with insults. But I guess as you have title moderator then you have this right.

The Earth is clearly flat.

Please access the flickr.com pages and the photo albums posted there. I have include dozens of photographs, not just one or two, to prove there is no curvature between Port Credit/Etobicoke and Toronto, Cap Gris Nez and White Cliffs Dover, Tarifa and Morocco, and some others.

You can certainly call up ANY of the people listed there, and will find that they are real persons, who used a camera to capture on film the fact there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

zork, you started the name calling game, remember? Your accusations are false and misleading; please try to argue specific points, you will find that you have no chance with me, here on this thread, no matter what subject you choose (astrophysics, paleontology, mathematics), you are always welcome.

zork, you started the name calling game, remember?

 Quote me please, what names I called you. You called me - dork. And said - Your mediocre beliefs are a bogus pile of wishful thinking, as my previous message clearly shows, and your critical mind is out to lunch.
 Quite straightforward insulting as everyone can see.

Your accusations are false and misleading; please try to argue specific points, you will find that you have no chance with me, here on this thread, no matter what subject you choose (astrophysics, paleontology, mathematics), you are always welcome.

First of all I don't accuse you with anything. I described the situation. And asked you to refer me to any real person with real physic degree who has researched this topic which you have raised and have published some paper in this topic. For example there is paper about detecting the curvature of earth - http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf. But you bring up bunch of amateur or maybe professional photographers and tl;dr texts with speculations. But can you provide me with some research paper? Or at least something which at least looks like a research?

Look up your original message: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30002.msg739557#msg739557
Plenty of insults, accusations, and statements made with no proof whatsoever.

That is what I am trying to bring up: please find any speculations in my messages, and discuss them with me here.

PS Your pdf does not include pictures with definite visual targets, as I have done here. The formula for curvature is: C = R (1 - cos(@/2)), R = 6378.164 km, @ = measured in radians, @ = s/R, s = arclength in km. I always include photos without any atmospheric refraction, any such formula can add, given very special weather conditions, at most, a few meters, on a 60 km distance.

Please access the flickr.com pages and the photo albums posted there. I have include dozens of photographs, not just one or two, to prove there is no curvature between Port Credit/Etobicoke and Toronto, Cap Gris Nez and White Cliffs Dover, Tarifa and Morocco, and some others.

You can certainly call up ANY of the people listed there, and will find that they are real persons, who used a camera to capture on film the fact there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

So in other words, these are not your photos, they are photos you found on the internet, correct?

And the fact that your idea of verification is that they were taken by "real persons" (what other kind are there?) says a lot about you and your idea of scientific method.

And the fact that your idea of verification is that they were taken by "real persons" (what other kind are there?)

NASA Conspiracy "goons" and "spooks", of course!

Quote from: levee on July 06, 2009, 09:00:36 AM

Please access the flickr.com pages and the photo albums posted there. I have include dozens of photographs, not just one or two, to prove there is no curvature between Port Credit/Etobicoke and Toronto, Cap Gris Nez and White Cliffs Dover, Tarifa and Morocco, and some others.

You can certainly call up ANY of the people listed there, and will find that they are real persons, who used a camera to capture on film the fact there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

So in other words, these are not your photos, they are photos you found on the internet, correct?

And the fact that your idea of verification is that they were taken by "real persons" (what other kind are there?) says a lot about you and your idea of scientific method.

I have already proved that the Nasa missions/Soviet space missions were faked:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=606.0 (the very best documentation put together)

You are welcome to call the people who took those photographs; a multitude of photos which show the same thing: no curvature whatsoever. We also have the two videos, and the proof that the Tunguska explosion was seen from 1000 km distance, from a 7000 km distance (London), you know the details already. Look carefully at the photographs from lake Ontario, Port Credit, Etobicoke, nobody doctored them, as Nasa has done with their photos...

Quote from: equinox on July 06, 2009, 09:28:53 AM

Quote from: levee on July 06, 2009, 09:00:36 AM

Please access the flickr.com pages and the photo albums posted there. I have include dozens of photographs, not just one or two, to prove there is no curvature between Port Credit/Etobicoke and Toronto, Cap Gris Nez and White Cliffs Dover, Tarifa and Morocco, and some others.

You can certainly call up ANY of the people listed there, and will find that they are real persons, who used a camera to capture on film the fact there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

So in other words, these are not your photos, they are photos you found on the internet, correct?

And the fact that your idea of verification is that they were taken by "real persons" (what other kind are there?) says a lot about you and your idea of scientific method.

I have already proved that the Nasa missions/Soviet space missions were faked:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=606.0 (the very best documentation put together)

You are welcome to call the people who took those photographs; a multitude of photos which show the same thing: no curvature whatsoever. We also have the two videos, and the proof that the Tunguska explosion was seen from 1000 km distance, from a 7000 km distance (London), you know the details already. Look carefully at the photographs from lake Ontario, Port Credit, Etobicoke, nobody doctored them, as Nasa has done with their photos...

Hey I was right - NASA Conspiracy "goons" and "spooks"!

Look carefully at the photographs from lake Ontario, Port Credit, Etobicoke, nobody doctored them, as Nasa has done with their photos...

It has less to do with whether they are doctored, and more to do with the vantage point from which they were taken.  And you seem to know neither.

BEAMER FALLS GRIMSBY

45 meters in height

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/greatg/3000587588/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037875/


http://jwolkowski.blogspot.com/2007/11/beamers-falls-071114.html

Beamer?s Falls #071114

River Forty Mile Creek

Class Ramp

Size Medium

Height: 45

Crest: 20

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/


One of the best proofs that there is no curvature over lake Ontario; from 45 meters, we need another 10 meters just to reach the top of the curvature, right in front of you, and then miss the bottom 65 meters of the buildings in Toronto (the visual obstacle). But there is no curvature, no midpoint 55 meter obstacle, the Toronto downtown buildings visible top to bottom.

The altitude of Forty-Mile Creek (45 meters) is NOT the altitude from which the photo was taken. That river is in a gorge that runs through the Beamer Memorial Conservation Area, not the peak.

Look up your original message: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30002.msg739557#msg739557
Plenty of insults, accusations, and statements made with no proof whatsoever.

Sorry, I know what I posted but I can't see any direct insults there as you did. I ask you again to quote directly as I did, what were the insults and name callings what I did in my post. I don't see any.

That is what I am trying to bring up: please find any speculations in my messages, and discuss them with me here.

All your messages are speculations. You just say that there must be some curvature somewhere but you don't see any. Why there must be some curvature? As for other things, you post some pictures which you itself haven't took, you don't have documentation how they were taken, with what. It's all totally useless information. We can also refer you to some NASA or whatever space agencies photo archives and these are also taken by real people. I can also refer you to pictures of Noctilucent cloud on flickr and wikipedia. They show clouds which are illuminated from below which is impossible in FE model. But they are called fakes and are discarded as possible evidence for RE. So, why your pictures must count for something?

PS Your pdf does not include pictures with definite visual targets, as I have done here. The formula for curvature is: C = R (1 - cos(@/2)), R = 6378.164 km, @ = measured in radians, @ = s/R, s = arclength in km. I always include photos without any atmospheric refraction, any such formula can add, given very special weather conditions, at most, a few meters, on a 60 km distance.

  What do you mean by "definitive visual targets"? Did you read what this was about? It's about "Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth" and only visual target which there is needed is horizon and this was definitely in pictures. And conclusion was - In view of the agreement between the visual observations, measurements of the photographs, and the theoretical curvatures, it seems well established that the curvature of the Earth is reasonably well understood and can be measured from photographs. The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35; 000 ft but not as low as 14; 000 ft. Photographically, curvature may be measurable as low as 20; 000 ft.
 The only thing I ask from you is that you produce some kind of paper in the topic you rant here about. David K. Lynch is scientist and has degrees and has made quite many publications(http://thulescientific.com/DKL_PAGE.htm). I only ask you to refer me to some person who also has degrees and also has publications as David and who's work backs up your opinion.

Levee: since there is no curve across 80 miles of the lake, please explain this photo of ~ 11 miles from my earlier post.


at elevation we can see the interface of the hull and ocean surface and the water behind the ship.


at 2m above sea level reference, we can't see the hull/water interface.

please explain