Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

The so called flat earth evidence posted by levee, not even the work of the levee themselves but random pics gathered from the net with no comparative views and sketchy details, really doesn't stand up against my findings.

Your photographs prove nothing about a flat or round earth...you state: 15 to 25 km...and a altitude of 12 meters, or even lower than that...the pictures show that your camera did not capture the entire details, that is, the lower portion of the ships, as can be seen quite clearly from the messages you posted.

My photographs show that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario and the English Channel.

What are you talking about??  My camera did not capture the lower portion of the ships...until I ascended 12metres, THEN it does.  That's the whole point of the excercise. 

Your photographs (which aren't yours by the way), do not show a flat ocean.  Infact there are no real landmarks on the water that can be used to ascertain if it's curved or flat.  There is a complete absence of reference points.  Infact if you ask me it looks like the city is sitting on a big hill of water.  Which it is.

Untitled by max_wedge, on Flickr

If there were lines on 'your' image, that we could use to guage if the surface is flat or not, they would look somewhat like this:

312939439_ef682e2d8a_z by max_wedge, on Flickr

You are dreaming. From those 2 meters right there on the beach of Cap Gris Nez, you CANNOT SEE ANYTHING BELOW 65 METERS, THAT IS WHY I POSTED THE PRECISE FORMULAS. The full view of the White Cliffs of Dover are in sight, no curvature whatsoever across the English Channel, no ascending, no descending slope.

2 meters? no. look at the ships, their tallest points are about inline with the horizon, meaning the the photographer was much higher than these tallest points, probably on the top of cap nez gris.

And you cannot explain this one either:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/



The rooftop of the Sky Dome visible from the St. Catharines beach; I already posted the numbers...you cannot see anything below at least 120 meters from St. Catharines...

That picture is not from the beach. the horizon should be about level with the camera lens in FE and RE.
Those are big rocks, about 3 meters at least. Given that these are well below the horizon, the camera is much higher than 2 meters, probably around 12 meters.

heres a picture that from closer to 2 meters, from a nearby marina about the same distance away from toronto:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/12322536

This points to a round earth.

I can't really add to what's already been said.  Trig, Momentia and Nolhekh covered it perfectly well.  The so called flat earth evidence posted by levee, not even the work of the levee themselves but random pics gathered from the net with no comparative views and sketchy details, really doesn't stand up against my findings.  Might I say too, that my findings aren't definitive.  I need to do more work to build up a comprehensive study of photos of ships on and past the horizon in different conditions to present an unarguable position.  Yet my photos are already far more powerful a visual proof than levee's random net gatherings.

I agree that without firm knowledge of where and at what height these pictures are taken, it makes little sense to draw firm conclusions from them.

Thanks for your support, I certainly haven't photoshopped anything, but I'm not worried by claims that I have since this evidence can be repeated by any flat earther anytime they want and posted on this thread to counter my evidence. 

I, for one, can see no reason to think you engaged in subterfuge. For one, you seem completely in earnest, and two, the photos demonstrate restoration, which is counter to your argument (and you still have not addressed). If you were going to manipulate the photos, I can only assume that you would edit out all the damning bits.

Except that our experiment involves things disappearing when viewed from a horizontal angle, which a building does not do.

Which it does do, as demonstrated by the photos posted above.

You can simulate a building better with a lego brick.  the 2 x 2 kind, which has the same width as a penny.  Preferably red, so that you can be sure if it's really diminishing beyond our minimum ocular resolution.

This is actually a decent idea, which spawns a better one. Perhaps several lego bricks of different colour stacked so that we could judge the height/width the bottom brick(s) should be at distance according to globularism's perspective. Hopefully, I will have time this weekend for such an experiment.

Actually, by my RE calculations, at 240 metres, your horizon would be 55.3 kilometers away.  The CN Tower, is only 53 kilometers away from Grimsby, making the beach of Toronto well within the visible range of the Vinemount Ridge.  No curvature should be visible in front of Toronto at this height, and thanks to your posted images, we can confirm that this is the case.

Do you understand where you are, and what is being debated here?

We have a distance of 55 km (as I said, we do ascend to 240 meters), and a curvature of 59 meters; that is, an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters, which does not exist. Of course that curvature should be visible, there would not be a way to avoid seeing it; what you want is a round earth with no curvature...those photographs prove clearly that there is no curvature across Lake Ontario.

Actually, because there is no horizon in the background, there is curvature, with toronto sitting right on the top of it.

However, with Toronto at a distance of roughly 55 km, and with round earth geometry predicting a 55 km distant horizon, these photographs are completely in line with round earth predictions.

No they are not...there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters...the surface of Lake Ontario is perfectly flat...that what can be seen quite clearly...

  Without any straight lines in the photograph there's nothing to judge this by.  You may notice that I don't even try, because I know I can't.  Anyone can draw straight or curved lines on the ocean, and it won't prove anything.

And to demonstrate about the horizon:

Quote from: pitdroidtech on September 19, 2011, 06:01:12 PM

I can't really add to what's already been said.  Trig, Momentia and Nolhekh covered it perfectly well.  The so called flat earth evidence posted by levee, not even the work of the levee themselves but random pics gathered from the net with no comparative views and sketchy details, really doesn't stand up against my findings.  Might I say too, that my findings aren't definitive.  I need to do more work to build up a comprehensive study of photos of ships on and past the horizon in different conditions to present an unarguable position.  Yet my photos are already far more powerful a visual proof than levee's random net gatherings.

I agree that without firm knowledge of where and at what height these pictures are taken, it makes little sense to draw firm conclusions from them.

Agreed

Quote

Thanks for your support, I certainly haven't photoshopped anything, but I'm not worried by claims that I have since this evidence can be repeated by any flat earther anytime they want and posted on this thread to counter my evidence. 

I, for one, can see no reason to think you engaged in subterfuge. For one, you seem completely in earnest, and two, the photos demonstrate restoration, which is counter to your argument (and you still have not addressed). If you were going to manipulate the photos, I can only assume that you would edit out all the damning bits.

Perhaps you missed my correction, which is key to understanding the photos.  There is no restoration because the two images in question are taken at different heights. The 8x at sealevel, and the 28x 1.5m (actually, 1.2m and 2.7m respectively if you allow for the height of the telescope, which I had forgotten to allow for). 

If anyone wants to look at the actual distances and height to see if the extra land exposed by the little extra elevation is in keeping with RE (or not), feel free to do so.  Below are images that will assist.  1st, the lat/long markers between myself and the houses on the opposite shore (which are actually Tangalooma Resort).  2nd, an aerial view of the houses and 3rd, the 28x photo of the houses with the altitudes marked in for various locations.  Altitudes can be confirmed from draftlogic, as can distances between exact points - for example between one of the houses in the photo, and my position on Shorncliffe jetty (as indicated in picture 1.)

The hardest part to assess, is where the line of the horizon as viewed in my photos, actually corresponds to the aerial map in terms of which area is visible and which is not.  On picture 2, I have drawn a black line and a white line, which is my estimation of where the horizon obscures the view, ie: everything west (to the left) of the white line and black line is obsured in the 8x (1.2m elevation) and 28x (2.7m elevation) photos respectively.

NOTES:  I am refining my application of experimental process thorugh these firts attempts.  I regret that I have miscalculate elevation on two occsasions, first forgetting that the 28x images were taken on the jetty and the 8x taken on the shore, and then forgetting to factor in the height of the telescope/camera.   I don't feel these issues are detrimental to the experiment, since the factors of difference are small enough that there is still an obvious obscuring of ships/houses.  But to put the issue of telscopic resotration to bed, I need to make more precise measurements and this I will do.

I will conduct more experiments from the shore itself (a definite sealevel), with both 1x, 8x and 28x comparisons, then I will conduct the same experiment from the cliff top.  I will ascertain my exact lat/long at this location and use draftlogic to confirm my altitude.

Picture 1:

p1-moreton bay - shorncliffe to tangalooma by max_wedge, on Flickr

Picture 2:

p2 -aerial tangalooma by max_wedge, on Flickr

Picture 3:

p3 - houses - elevation by max_wedge, on Flickr

The claims made in the first message posted here, on this thread, are as follows:

A distance of 15 - 25 km

Altitude of the photographer, 2 - 12 meters

A ship on the horizon, and an opposing shoreline


As I have explained already, the reason the lower portion of the ship disappears in the photographs, even from 12 meters, is that the quality of the camera could not capture the entire details.

HERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH, TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, A SHIP SEEN AT ABOUT HALF WAY TO DOVER, SOME 15 - 20 KM, EXACTLY AS IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE FIRST MESSAGE: NO ASCENDING SLOPE, THE SHIP BEING SEEN TOP TO BOTTOM, AND THE WHITE CLIFFS BEING SEEN IN FULL VIEW.

FROM THOSE 3 METERS ON THE BEACH, WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING BELOW 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH.

The original webpage, the photograph SHIPSPOTTING, the photographers right there on the Cap Gris Nez beach:



The next photograph, the ship being spotted:



Both photographs in full view:



THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, SOME 2 METERS ABOVE THE WATER, I WILL GIVE YOU 3 METERS, NOTHING COULD BE SEEN UNDER 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH, BUT:



THE FULL DETAILS CAN BE SEEN, FULL HULL OF THE SHIP, FULL VIEW OF THE WHITE CLIFFS OF DOVER, NO ASCENDING OR DESCENDING SLOPES. The White Cliffs of Dover, here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybernomad/4047745111/sizes/l/in/photostream/ full view just as in the above photograph...

A PHOTOGRAPH, TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH, DISPROVES AND REFUTES THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE INITIAL MESSAGE POSTED HERE, SAME DISTANCE, 15 - 20 KM...

The discussion on this thread is over; I did not even have to resort to the photographs taken on the beach of Hamilton (65 km to Toronto, Lakeshore Blvd.):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream





(both photographs taken right on the beach, as can be seen in the captions, and in the rest of the photos)

or to bring in the heavy artillery, the fact the explosion from Tunguska was seen all the way from London:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142


PS The photograph from St. Catharines is taken from some 10-12 meters altitude, that is what I have been saying all along; STILL, you could not see the rooftop of the Sky Dome, there would be some 27 meters missing on a round earth from the visual obstacle...

A curvature of 59 meters means that we could barely see the first sign of land, the beach, from Toronto, and an ascending slope, in this photograph, the surface of Lake Ontario is completely flat, we CAN see the details WITHOUT any sign of curvature of 59 meters, please wake up...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_z.jpg?zz=1

FROM THOSE 3 METERS ON THE BEACH, WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING BELOW 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH.

The next photograph, the ship being spotted:

That is not 3 metres high.

Please address this problem before declaring the thread over.

So much work from levee, so little use.

Again, the same photos and the same assumptions about the circumstances in which they were taken. And two more photos that should mean something to someone, but were also gotten from the Internet. Why should we even bother to read all the same argument, again?

If someone cares to read the whole post and give us the highlights, I might find a reason to try and follow the new (or old) argument of this last post. Otherwise, I will have to believe pitdroidtech's argument and supporting evidence, along with the many similar accounts from the last 600 years or so.

And Rowbotham's argument about perspective will have to be demonstrated with something other than "sinking ships", or his argument is just a roundabout: ships appear sinking because of perspective, and perspective is demonstrated with the "sinking ships" effect.

For those who are interested, these are the formulas I'm using for the earth's curvature. 

distance to horizon = radius of earth * cos^-1(radius of earth / distance from earth's centre)
distance from earth's centre = radius + altitude

size of curvature = (radius / cos((distance - distance to horizon) / radius)) - radius

THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, SOME 2 METERS ABOVE THE WATER, I WILL GIVE YOU 3 METERS, NOTHING COULD BE SEEN UNDER 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH, BUT:

(photograph that isn't taken from 3 metres)

Le Cap Blanc Nez is about 10 km from Cap Gris.
This puts the horizon at 6.2 km from an altitude of 3 metres.  With Cap gris not much more than 3.8 km further than the horizon, only 1.1 metres would be obscured.

At an altitude of 2 metres, the horizon would be 5 km away, and 2 metres would be obscured.
At precisely sea level, 7.8 metres would be obscured, and that is the maximum possible obscurity.

Quote from: levee on September 21, 2011, 01:47:52 AM

THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, SOME 2 METERS ABOVE THE WATER, I WILL GIVE YOU 3 METERS, NOTHING COULD BE SEEN UNDER 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH, BUT:

(photograph that isn't taken from 3 metres)

Le Cap Blanc Nez is about 10 km from Cap Gris.
This puts the horizon at 6.2 km from an altitude of 3 metres.  With Cap gris not much more than 3.8 km further than the horizon, only 1.1 metres would be obscured.

At an altitude of 2 metres, the horizon would be 5 km away, and 2 metres would be obscured.
At precisely sea level, 7.8 metres would be obscured, and that is the maximum possible obscurity.

And a photograph that shows both the foreground a few meters away and the distant background will never give the detail you need to resolve the matter of the curvature of the Earth. Seeing the beach (or any other clearly recognizable feature) a few meters high and a few meters above the sea would be impossible, so this photo gives no information at all. And it is not even accompanied by another photo from which an aspect of the cliffs could be used to make a measurement.

In short, this photo only proves levee's tendency to waste his own time.

The photographs posted on this thread can be explained very easily; no need to accuse somebody of photoshopping anything...the lower portion of the ships disappear very simply because the camera could not capture all the details at that distance;

So in this photograph then, somehow the largest part of the CN tower can't be captured, but the thin little needle on top can? (I've included a full picture of the CN tower and scaled it so that the distance from the sky pod to the space deck is the same for both, illustrating what part of the CN tower is "unresolvable" to the camera)

That makes no sense.

Post them a few more times, levee. Maybe they will actually prove your point next time.

As I have explained already, the reason the lower portion of the ship disappears in the photographs, even from 12 meters, is that the quality of the camera could not capture the entire details.

I can see more than enough details on the 28x photos.  I can see portholes ffs.  If I can see portholes of 1 foot diameter, then I ought to be able to see 3m or more of missing hull.  Funnily enough, that same missing 3m of hull which I can see when I elevate myself, using the same camera and same equipment.

HERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH, TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, A SHIP SEEN AT ABOUT HALF WAY TO DOVER, SOME 15 - 20 KM, EXACTLY AS IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE FIRST MESSAGE: NO ASCENDING SLOPE, THE SHIP BEING SEEN TOP TO BOTTOM, AND THE WHITE CLIFFS BEING SEEN IN FULL VIEW.

FROM THOSE 3 METERS ON THE BEACH, WE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING BELOW 60,6 METERS ON A ROUND EARTH.

The original webpage, the photograph SHIPSPOTTING, the photographers right there on the Cap Gris Nez beach:

Looks like they are near the edge of a cliff to me.  I tried to find wstreets photos, to see if they have any corroborating evidence or statement as to their actual height or location, but surprise surprise, their photostream is private.

Your data is collected from various net sources upon which you have made broad assumptions that may or may not be true.  Mine is personally collected and I have provided the relevant details.  I think I will continue to trust my own data ovedr yours if you don't mind.

THE FULL DETAILS CAN BE SEEN, FULL HULL OF THE SHIP, FULL VIEW OF THE WHITE CLIFFS OF DOVER, NO ASCENDING OR DESCENDING SLOPES. The White Cliffs of Dover, here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybernomad/4047745111/sizes/l/in/photostream/ full view just as in the above photograph...

That photo is of a completely different location to that in the yellow tinted photo.  Further, the photo was taken from barely 3km away. 

A PHOTOGRAPH, TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH, DISPROVES AND REFUTES THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE INITIAL MESSAGE POSTED HERE, SAME DISTANCE, 15 - 20 KM...

I dispute that it was taken on the beach.  But even if it was, YOU CAN'T SEE THE BASE OF THE CLIFFS (I'm writing in capitals since you seem to prefer that method of communication).
If Nolhekh is right about the distance, then the cliffs 40m cliffs (I assume that's cap gris-nez lighthouse on the cape) should be visible even fromteh beach.

The discussion on this thread is over

Are you a moderator??  If not please refrain from such threats. I have plans for this thread, none of which involve me giving up and going home any time soon.

Hope you enjoy your stay.

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5

My calculations confirm these numbers.
May I add:
12 - 111.4

So between the elevations of 2m - 12m, the amount of water "above" the sky dome should range between 60m to 20m.

Now, I believe you suggested that this is too far for atmospheric refraction to account for?  I say, consider the distance that this 20 - 60m away is.  It's 50 km.  At 50 km, a 20 m difference represents a change of angle of only 0.02 degrees.  A 60 m difference represents only a 0.07 degree change in angle.  These are actually really tiny changes of direction for light to make.  There's no reason for atmospheric refraction to be unable to account for this.

If we are going to run to the bugaboo of refraction, couldn't we easily say the same thing of the sunken hulls of ships at the horizon? Or any object at the horizon?

"The reason you cannot see the bottom of the ship is refraction. The ship is only 20m tall.  At 50 km, a 20 m difference represents a change of angle of only 0.02 degrees.  A 60 m difference represents only a 0.07 degree change in angle.  These are actually really tiny changes of direction for light to make.  There's no reason for atmospheric refraction to be unable to account for this."

If we are going to run to the bugaboo of refraction, couldn't we easily say the same thing of the sunken hulls of ships at the horizon? Or any object at the horizon?

"The reason you cannot see the bottom of the ship is refraction. The ship is only 20m tall.  At 50 km, a 20 m difference represents a change of angle of only 0.02 degrees.  A 60 m difference represents only a 0.07 degree change in angle.  These are actually really tiny changes of direction for light to make.  There's no reason for atmospheric refraction to be unable to account for this."

There certainly is no reason for refraction not to work on a flat earth.  Refraction occurs independantly of the earth's shape.  According to RET, refraction causes the sun to be entirely visible, even though it's actually completely set.  No reason why it shouldn't work on a flat earth.  Flat earth has air too, which has variations in temperature, therefore variations in air density, and therefore supports atmospheric refraction.

I'm not denying the presence of refraction. I'm simply asking if you're going to explain away every observation that doesn't fit with rotundity with refraction. And if you are, are you prepared to to give the zetetic movement the same leeway?

I'm not denying the presence of refraction. I'm simply asking if you're going to explain away every observation that doesn't fit with rotundity with refraction. And if you are, are you prepared to to give the zetetic movement the same leeway?

There is a huge difference between using refraction to account for the whole result in a 6 mile length and using it to account for the whole result in a 25 km length. The most difference you can get in refractive index of the air is from about 1.0002 to 1.0003, so at most it can explain a small angle of refraction, of about 0.03 of a degree maximum, under the most favourable conditions.

That is why only experiments over more than 12 or so miles are really relevant.

It is you who want to create a straw man argument by saying that every result real science has is due to refraction and then killing your own argument.

I'm not denying the presence of refraction. I'm simply asking if you're going to explain away every observation that doesn't fit with rotundity with refraction. And if you are, are you prepared to to give the zetetic movement the same leeway?

You can speculate freely on explanations for error.  I use refraction as an explanation because it is a phenomenon that is observed independently of the earth's shape, is easily demonstrable and well understood in the scientific fields, and so far has not had to account for very large error in sinking ship photographs.

Do know, that I do speculate for FET as well.  The photos showing a "lowered" horizon can only be explained by bendy light.  Bendy light however is not demonstrated independently of FET, as opposed to refraction and perspective, and it also completely invalidates the bedford levels experiments.  So I lean towards RET because I don't have to use any RET-dependant theories for it, and it doesn't violate my understanding of perspective.

On a flat earth, the angle of incidence is smaller so refraction will be less pronounced.  However the affect of refraction would be, rather than to reveal something that is not hidden, to lift up the line of the horizon (and the distant city/ship), just the same as it does on a round earth.  Refraction can explain the revealing of cities below the distant horizon, but cannot explain the hidding of objects behind the horizon.


This is the crux of the matter.  The appearance of cities appearing from behind the horizon is not proof of a flat earth, because there are also instances of cities, and boats, being obscured by horizons.  Refraction explains the former, but not the latter.

There is nothing about refraction that would preclude light being bent downward or even sideways.

There is nothing about refraction that would preclude light being bent downward or even sideways.

Correct.  And bending downwards is what is happening in Levee's photo showing only 90 m of curvature when perspective would have at least 110.

The real problem in this thread, and any in the future where someone takes telephoto pictures of ships at varying altitudes is that, no matter how much magnification, 3x, 8x, 28x, 100x, Nx, FE'ers will always claim that the zoom is not good enough at the lower altitudes to restore the entire view.

They do not understand the notion of angular resolution, which is exactly what rowbotham's perspective is. They will just say that lower lines converge before higher lines do, but never give an explanation why this is so. They completely ignore the principle that supposedly gives rise to this perspective.

So, I ask you FE, about how magnification is needed to restore 5 meters of hull (an estimate of how much is hidden in the 28x photo) 25 km away from a height of 1.5 m?

Please show your calculations. I showed mine earlier in the thread, and found that 28x was well more than enough to restore the entire hull. (which it did not.) So don't tell me to do it myself, because I did, and found RE to be the only satisfactory answer. For FE to exist, my calculations must be wrong.

If you cannot do this very simple problem, FE has some (more) serious issues that should be resolved before further debating.

You are quite right Momentia.  I haven't spent a lot of time trying to dispel the perspective theory in this thread, because quite frankly I see it akin to someone arguing that large cannonballs only appear to fall at the same rate as little ones because our eyes can't keep up.  It's quite absurd.

My focus in this thread is to build up a weight of visual evidence showing objects hidden by the horizon.  Discussion of refraction is valid and I'd like to see this line of reasoning pursued, since the laws of refraction are well studied and understood.  We ought to be able to show eliminate refraction as an explanation of the boats hulls being hidden, then suddenly revealed at height.

Perhaps the fact that there are inferior mirages present in my photos, which indicates a warm layer of air near the surface and a cooler layer of air above, has some relevance.  This is the opposite of that which causes the superior mirage which explains Toronto being more visible than it should be - in Ontario the air is cooler close to the surface and warmer above - the opposite of what is common in Australia.

Quote from: Ski on September 21, 2011, 08:15:17 PM

There is nothing about refraction that would preclude light being bent downward or even sideways.

Correct.  And bending downwards is what is happening in Levee's photo showing only 90 m of curvature when perspective would have at least 110.

My point is the raising of the horizon by refraction is just as possible as the lowering of it. It's extremely disheartening to see evidence discarded everytime it fails to agree with globularist preconceptions.

The photographers are right on the beach...next to it, in front of it...I will you some 3 meters (actually as we can see clearly they are some 2 meters above sea level, we can see the waves next to the shoreline, and everybody knows how the beach which can be found between Cap Gris Nez and Cap Blanc Nez looks like)...from those 3 meters you could not see anything under 60,6 meters from the other side of the English Channel...why would they go somewhere else, if they are right there, with the cameras ready to take the pictures?



The caption reads clearly: SHIPSPOTTING, that is, they are right there on the beach, ready and willing to capture that ship which sails across the English Channel...

Here is a photograph from 45 meters altitude (on top of Cap Gris Nez):



The contour of the White Cliffs of Dover across from Cap Gris Nez have a sine wave form...the contour across from Cap Blanc Nez are more straight, exactly as in the following photograph:



Everything looks pretty clear, that is why I said the discussion is over; we have a photograph which clearly shows the full details of the hull of that ship, and the full view of the cliffs from Dover, no curvature whatsoever.

The photographers could not go somewhere else to take the picture, since they are right there on the beach; does it make any sense to any of you? And if not, why bring here such nonsense? The caption is pretty clear, and reads shipspotting, and next picture does exactly that, the photographers are on the beach...what will it take for you to understand that there is no curvature across the English Channel?


PS At ten meters in altitude, we would be already on top of a 2 story building, with a visual obstacle of 117,5 meters, and we add the 5 meter portion of the Sky Dome that can be seen...refraction won't save you...even if we go to 12 meters, the 16 meters in difference could not be accounted for by refraction...please give up such silly arguments...