Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

Quote from: levee on July 07, 2009, 10:20:13 AM

All photographs of yours I have examined so far do nothing to support your argument. I have come to the conclusion that you lack the ability to examine any photographs of a horizon objectively.

Ideally you would want to take photos at a number of different heights in close succession to see if anything changes in the view.

Calais from Dover Beach, Calais from the top of The White Cliffs, Calais from half-way up the cliffs, Calais from the top of a beach hut on Dover Beach, Calais from the top of a house on top of The White Cliffs, etc.

That way you are altering at least one variable (elevation) and doing an actual experiment, rather than just "observation" which Tom Bishop quite reasonably decries as non-scientific.

Photos with multiple zooms from the same elevation would also be good as you could check for the (in)famous Rowbotham perspective effect, that is "recovery" of objects apprently over "The Horizon".

So, Levee: how about acquiring some of your own photos and posting them (a la Dyno [1])?

We would be less likely to dismiss them I am sure.


1. Sinking Ship Experiment Results
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0
16/08/2008+

Another important question for Levee:

Do you believe in "The EA", a.k.a. "bendy light"?

I am glad you brought up the Novaya Zemlya effect...it is closely related to the mistakes made by Rowbotham in those chapters describing the Solar orbit above the Earth...in order to understand the real cause (not a 400 km mirage), please read:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33410#msg33410
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33509#msg33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33520#msg33520
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg34143#msg34143
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=eb9d6819f6da030f65ba6e6cbc1ebae8&topic=830.0

This IS the correct Solar orbit; as it should be included in that wikipedia like reference flat earth book being prepared right now...the explanation offered by Rowbotham, there, is wrong...

Here are shots of the effect: http://www.eh2r.com/mp/data3.html

So you claim that the Novaya Zemlya effect isn't actually a mirage, but an inconsistency with the intentionally inaccurate map of the area? That still doesn't show that such a mirage would be impossible. How did you draw your conclusions about the limits of a superior mirage?
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html

Another important question for Levee:

Do you believe in "The EA", a.k.a. "bendy light"?

Bumping this rather important question for Levee.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 07, 2009, 11:49:03 AM

Another important question for Levee:

Do you believe in "The EA", a.k.a. "bendy light"?

Bumping this rather important question for Levee.

Levee mentioned in another thread that he does not support bendy light.

Quote from: levee on July 06, 2009, 07:25:41 AM

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.

Event if the picture was taken at altitude 45 meters then the horizon is so fuzzy that we can't detect the missing part of beach which is behind the curvature. I guess we can definitely say that we don't see average human with height of 170cm at the beach. So he must definitely be behind the curvature of the earth. But to be more concrete the distance to the horizon is about 25km at this height which leaves some 20 km to the shore. If we calculate the curvature of the earth for 20 km(I use http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/training/levelling.doc as for reference to get correcture for earth curvature) and this gets me some 140cm . So, the 1.40 meters for the shoreline must be hidden behind the curvature. I can say surely that I don't see the beach and humans on it in the picture so I can conclude that there is some curvature.