Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon

  • 186 Replies
  • 85060 Views
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #90 on: September 22, 2011, 02:50:22 AM »
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 White Cliffs of dover are up to 105m high in places.

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...
Look, I'm not familiar with the exact location of this photo, but it looks like they are on top of a cliff. If looks like a cliff because there is no visible shore line.  There is no beach, the waves disappear under the foliage as if the area the photographers are standing is raised compared to the shore. 

If the earth is round, a clifftop would be a better place for ship spotting than the beach, so if the ship spotters believe in a round earth, they may well choose a clifftop to setup their equipment.  BTW, wstreet's images are not available on flickr anymore, so I can't verify the source of these images for myself or any details. 

Look at this, a direct comparison of wstreet's shipspotting photo with another shot of cap gris-nez - this shot is taken from the exact same location, it's quite obvious the location both photos were taken is on top of this cliff. 


Cap Blanc Nez - plage de Wissant by giseledusud, on Flickr

Same size comparison - clear that they are standing on a cliff top.

Cap Gris-Nez Comparison by max_wedge, on Flickr

It appears there is also a good chance that the yellow tinted photo with the silhoutted ships was taken from the same location, so that pretty much shoots down your argument, especially since the white cliffs of dover can infact be as high as 105m.

The quality of your submission is extremely poor.  You provide no relevant details, claim black silhoutted ships as "full details of the hull of the ships", cherry pick your data from the net to make your case look better; you have basically failed to make any case whatsoever, and you have the audacity to claim the discussion is finished?  I suppose you deserve 10/10 for persistance (but 2/10 for effort).   Until you present better quality data I'm afraid your input to this thread is rather meaningless.  But feel free, I'm not going to stop you.

First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #91 on: September 22, 2011, 04:01:30 AM »
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.
You may possibly be correct in this.

The problem is that the disappearing of hulls always is restored by elevation, and always removed by removing elevation, regardless of the temperature inversion in affect.


First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #92 on: September 22, 2011, 04:39:27 AM »
The views of Toronto, no elevation given by Levee.

Here's a picture with actual details:

Elevation, 182m, distance to horizon 48.2km, distance to Toronto beach 57km (using the photographer's supplied map, google maps and http://veloroutes.org/elevation/?location=mountain+rd+ontario&units=m and this http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm),

Toronto and the Lake by Redroom Studios, on Flickr

So I'm not sure how to calculate how much far below the horizon Toronto beach would have to be, but I calculated you'd need another 60 metres elevation to see the beach at Toronto.
Bremner Blvd has an elevation of 77m, the sky dome (Rogers Centre) is 31 stories high, at 3.3m per story that's 102m, making the top of the sky dome a total of 179m above sea level.

Pretty much make the Sky Dome well and truly visible given the details of this photo.

What Levee needs to do is apply the same level of analysis to the photos he provides, otherwise he's just shooting blanks.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 05:33:07 AM by pitdroidtech »
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #93 on: September 22, 2011, 05:07:16 AM »
I judged my sky dome height based on 3.3m per story the official "conversion", however according to www.rogerscentre.com the highest point of the sky dome is 86m.

So my figure above of 179m should be corrected to 163m.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #94 on: September 22, 2011, 06:04:32 AM »
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.

Consider the Grimsby photograph taken from an altitude of  240 m.  The horizon exists in the photograph right where it should based on RET.  I find it very hard to believe an upward refraction by chance, allowed this one photograph to match RET exactly.

another thing about refraction, weather is hardly ever constant, and changes in weather, and temperature are what accounts for refraction.  A more scientific approach would be to take more photos from this position over the course of several days, or better yet, get a theodolite and measure the angular position of the horizon, to see within what range the horizon shifts.

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #95 on: September 22, 2011, 06:28:49 AM »

another thing about refraction, weather is hardly ever constant, and changes in weather, and temperature are what accounts for refraction.  A more scientific approach would be to take more photos from this position over the course of several days, or better yet, get a theodolite and measure the angular position of the horizon, to see within what range the horizon shifts.
This is a good point, however I don't have a theodolite available.  It's not a bad idea though to get a definite fix on the horizon - perhaps by marking a spot for my tripod on the boardwalk (chipping out three small holes for the tripod, then using compass and level to align the camera.  Not sure if this would be accurate enough, but I reckon it would be a good ballpark.  Then I'd need to get weather reports on temperature inversions to cross reference against the photos.  I'll see what I can do.

Either way, I do definitely plan to take more regular photos, but getting time is a problem.  Stangely enough I have a life!

First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #96 on: September 22, 2011, 06:52:20 AM »
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...

Those waves do look awefully small next to those people.  They really only look like ripples.

Quote
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:
Not sure the shape of the white cliffs was ever in dispute.
Quote



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?

  They're not on the beach.  And as for that last photo, it is definitely not on the beach.  Just look where the bottom of the cliffs cut through that further ship. Proof that they're not on the beach. Those ships are definitely more than a few metres tall.  The photographers are pretty high up.

Quote
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...
Silly?  Who's the one arguing shift in light direction using units of length?



another thing about refraction, weather is hardly ever constant, and changes in weather, and temperature are what accounts for refraction.  A more scientific approach would be to take more photos from this position over the course of several days, or better yet, get a theodolite and measure the angular position of the horizon, to see within what range the horizon shifts.
This is a good point, however I don't have a theodolite available.  It's not a bad idea though to get a definite fix on the horizon - perhaps by marking a spot for my tripod on the boardwalk (chipping out three small holes for the tripod, then using compass and level to align the camera.  Not sure if this would be accurate enough, but I reckon it would be a good ballpark.  Then I'd need to get weather reports on temperature inversions to cross reference against the photos.  I'll see what I can do.

Either way, I do definitely plan to take more regular photos, but getting time is a problem.  Stangely enough I have a life!

If you can get the internal angles of your telescope's field of view for different magnifications, I can calculate angular position of elements within the view, as long as you can provide the exact direction the telescope is pointing.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 07:42:01 AM by Nolhekh »

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #97 on: September 22, 2011, 07:17:31 AM »
Those waved do look awefully small next to those people.  They really only look like ripples.
In my opinion, the waves look much more defined than the waves in the photo taken from the cliff. But the scene looks similar enough to inspire doubt.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #98 on: September 22, 2011, 07:51:09 AM »
Those waved do look awefully small next to those people.  They really only look like ripples.
In my opinion, the waves look much more defined than the waves in the photo taken from the cliff. But the scene looks similar enough to inspire doubt.
Defined or not, they're still tiny.  Anyway, without actually being able to see precisely where the water is breaking on the shore, it's impossible to know how high they are.  the photo of the ships and white cliffs itself is really our only clue as to elevation.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #99 on: September 22, 2011, 06:46:13 PM »
Those waved do look awefully small next to those people.  They really only look like ripples.
In my opinion, the waves look much more defined than the waves in the photo taken from the cliff. But the scene looks similar enough to inspire doubt.
Defined or not, they're still tiny.  Anyway, without actually being able to see precisely where the water is breaking on the shore, it's impossible to know how high they are.  the photo of the ships and white cliffs itself is really our only clue as to elevation.
Exactly. The point is not that we know the photo was taken from a high altitude, but that we really don't know the first thing about these photos, or the others levee shows. We do not know who took them, from where, with what lens, or how much cropping he did.

We only know of a circular argument where the photos are used to demonstrate a flat Earth but a flat Earth is assumed to guess what the conditions were when the photo was taken.

Waves are notoriously difficult to judge because of the fractal nature of the waves. Cliffs also look a lot alike whether you are seeing them close by or far away. Objectively judging all photos in this thread you have to take those taken by pitdroidtech and discard all others.

Without information about the conditions when the photos were taken it does not matter if we are using them to prove a flat Earth, concave Earth or the existence of seas in Venus.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #100 on: September 23, 2011, 01:25:54 AM »
Shipspotting means that the photographers are right there on that beach, ready to take the picture. They did not go to Cap Gris Nez, or to Cap Blanc Nez (as a matter of fact, Cap Blanc Nez is the part of the photograph marked with that small rectangle). They are right there on the beach.

To what altitude do you want to go to understand that, no matter where we go, the surface of the sea is completely flat?

Let us go to 23 meters, that is those photographers are on top of a seven story building. On a round earth we should see an ascending slope, a midpoint visual obstacle of 22,4 meters, and that ship being part of an ascending/descending slope.

No such thing can be seen in the photograph we are debating here. Where do you want to go from here? To 45 meters? Even from there, the curvature would equal half of the altitude, and we should see an ascending slope, but nothing of the kind exists there, in the photograph.

In this photograph, there is no curvature whatsoever, we can see the full view of the White Cliffs from Dover, no matter to what height we go to:



No ascending slope, no midpoint visual obstacle, no descending slope, NOTHING, just a perfectly flat shape of the surface of the sea.

And the shape of the cliffs indicate clearly where we are: midway between Cap Gris Nez and Cap Blanc Nez, right on the beach.

Even if we go to some 23 or 45 meters in altitude, that photograph show a flat surface of the sea, no curvature whatsoever.


Here are the large size photographs from Toronto:



Niagara escarpment means some 170 - 180 meters, but I will go to 240 meters for you. No curvature whatsoever, no slopes...

The next one was made at Beamer Falls Conservation Area, it is just 45 meters in height, but I will go to 240 meters again:



No curvature whatsoever, measuring 59 meters...





From the same spot, at night, using a reflector telescope:



http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg


FULL DETAILS OF THE SHORELINE OF TORONTO, NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER.


From Grimsby, again:



There isn't a single centimeter of curvature over lake Ontario...


We now go to Etobicoke, some 6 miles from Toronto, no 1,8 meter curvature, no ascending slope:







We go to Port Credit, some 14 km from Toronto, no 4 meter curvature whatsoever:






Let us go over to Tarifa, strait of Gibraltar.

Here is the new web address for the Islamic History of Europe (part I):



Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.


The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...

And a photograph shot from the same place:




None of you can explain the fact that the buildings from Milwaukee and Racine can be seen from Holland, 128 km distance:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50707.msg1245136#msg1245136

'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

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 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.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat (you can also use the above formula on atmospheric refraction to see how impossible it is to see shapes of buildings over a 128 km distance).

THE TALLEST BUILDING IN RACINE IS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 40 METERS; IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS COURTHOUSE FROM 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM HOLLAND.





The complete demonstration that there is no such thing as attractive gravity (without attractive gravity, round earth theory amounts to nothing):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1000783#msg1000783
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1002693#msg1002693
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1003411#msg1003411
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1003454#msg1003454
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1003916#msg1003916
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1004780#msg1004780
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1004781#msg1004781
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1004830#msg1004830
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1005453#msg1005453
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1005454#msg1005454


It is very easy to prove the Earth is flat...the problem we have here is the disastrous main FAQ, with two science-fiction plots posted as true science (UA acceleration and infinite earth hypotheses), and ludicrous data for the Sun diameter (32 miles) and the Sun-Earth distance (3000 miles).
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 03:05:35 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #101 on: September 23, 2011, 01:51:47 AM »
Now, we will increase the distances to 600 km, 1000 km, and even 7000 km.

TUNGUSKA, JUNE 30, 7:20 AM, 1908

First, let us carefully find out the exact facts about the trajectory of the ball lightning sent by Nikola Tesla from his laboratory:

The exceptional research done by T.R. LeMaire shows that the ball lightning produced by Nikola Tesla was carefully directioned to the Tunguska River, in order not to endanger lives:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).

Tesla ball lightning experiments:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/starting%20pages.htm


The body could not have been either a comet or an asteroid:

The explosion could not have been caused by a comet:

In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.

During the 1990s, Italian researchers extracted resin from the core of the trees in the area of impact, to examine trapped particles that were present during the 1908 event. They found high levels material commonly found in rocky asteroids and rarely found in comets.

And not by a meteorite:

The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.

Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.


THE EXPLOSION, WHICH TOOK PLACE AT 7 KM, WAS SEEN FROM THE SHORE OF LAKE BAIKAL (600 KM DISTANCE), IRKUTSK (1000 KM), AND FROM LONDON, STOCKHOLM AND ANTWERP.

The distance from London to Tunguska is 7000 km, with a visual obstacle of 7463 km.

The visual obstacle from Lake Baikal (435 meters altitude) is 21,7 km.

The visual obstacle from Irkutsk is 67,5 km.


The visual limit for the explosion that could be seen on a round earth would be some 400 km (8,3 km visual obstacle).

On a round earth there is no way this explosion could have been seen from Lake Baikal, Irkutsk, or London, given the immense, colossal visual obstacle, measuring, for London, some 7463 km.


Here are facts and proofs.

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the meteorite over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/



The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:

...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.

All the inhabitants of the village ran out into the street in panic. The old women wept, everyone thought that the end of the world was approaching.


Instanteniously, the flash of the explosion was seen in London, Stockholm, Antwerp and other european cities:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

In Berlin, the New York Times of July 3rd reported unusual colors in the evening skies thought to be Northern Lights:
"Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens ... bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappears at dawn."


Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night—Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.


HERE ARE THE LETTERS THAT APPEARED IN THE LONDON TIMES, 1 - 4 JULY 1908:

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:

A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.

The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla’s power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.

“To the Editor of the Times.”
“Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o’clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1” (1908 )


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html


WHAT IS MOST AMAZING ABOUT THIS NEXT LETTER, IS THAT THE INHABITANT OF LONDON SAW EVEN THE TRAJECTORY OF THE BALL LIGHTNING, SOME 10 MINUTES BEFORE THE EXPLOSION ITSELF (7:20 AM Tunguska time, 0:20 am London Time, that is, the interval 0:00 - 0:15 am)


“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”
“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


On a round earth, NOTHING COULD BE SEEN BEYOND SOME 400 KM.

The explosion itself was seen from Lake Baikal, Irkutsk, Berlin, Stockholm and even London.

The perfect, most extraordinary proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat, the one I have been using to prove, each and every time, the fact that we live on a flat earth.


This is the way to prove the Earth is flat; serious, heavy-duty research, with scientific, provable facts to go along; the official, main FAQ is a sham, answering none of the issues the round earth supporters present here in these threads...

« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 03:25:53 AM by levee »

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #102 on: September 23, 2011, 05:08:14 AM »
This kind of post really belongs in the True Believers board. I am pretty sure almost everybody will look at the endless show of photos from Internet without a single detail about the photographers, and will look at the claim that shipspotting is done from the beach, not from a vantage point, and will answer:

tl;dr

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #103 on: September 23, 2011, 05:14:19 AM »
PS. I did happen to read the last paragraph:
Quote
This is the way to prove the Earth is flat; serious, heavy-duty research, with scientific, provable facts to go along; the official, main FAQ is a sham, answering none of the issues the round earth supporters present here in these threads...
Can someone get me an emoticon for "Rolling On the Floor, Laughing Until I Peed in My Pants" ?

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #104 on: September 23, 2011, 05:21:54 AM »
Now, we will increase the distances to 600 km, 1000 km, and even 7000 km.

...

This is the way to prove the Earth is flat; serious, heavy-duty research, with scientific, provable facts to go along; the official, main FAQ is a sham, answering none of the issues the round earth supporters present here in these threads...

This is quite a post...

I suppose I see two main problems reading though it.
  • The events all happening in Europe all seem to be referring to a continuous glow, not an explosion. One of them even mentions it lasting to daybreak. It hardly seems these reports refer to the sudden explosion that occurred over Tunguska
  • Why was this only observed around Europe? If the Earth was flat, shouldn't there be reports of this event coming in from thousands of kilometers away in all directions?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #105 on: September 23, 2011, 07:05:18 AM »
Now, we will increase the distances to 600 km, 1000 km, and even 7000 km.

...

This is the way to prove the Earth is flat; serious, heavy-duty research, with scientific, provable facts to go along; the official, main FAQ is a sham, answering none of the issues the round earth supporters present here in these threads...

This is quite a post...

I suppose I see two main problems reading though it.
  • The events all happening in Europe all seem to be referring to a continuous glow, not an explosion. One of them even mentions it lasting to daybreak. It hardly seems these reports refer to the sudden explosion that occurred over Tunguska
  • Why was this only observed around Europe? If the Earth was flat, shouldn't there be reports of this event coming in from thousands of kilometers away in all directions?
I believe Tunguska is mentioned here only because it is a favorite subject for Internet conspiracy theorists and crackpot theorists. I did not even check if this time the explosion was attributed to Nicola Tesla, another favorite of the same people.

One thing is clear: since the Tunguska Event caught everyone by surprise, both good witnesses and crackpots reported wildly differing accounts that were not verified for decades. The explosion site was not even found for almost 20 years, as I recall. So you can find a witness account for just about anything among the Tunguska witnesses. Plus, we have no direct evidence of any events like this one, so it is an enormous challenge to find the physics involved.

We don't know if the event was caused by a meteor or a comet, or a dense, solid meteor or a loosely held, soft meteor. We don't know how big it was, we can only compare it to known meteor craters that we did not see exploding either. We don't have the means to make a comparable explosion, so we can only speculate, and the conspiracy theorists love this.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #106 on: September 23, 2011, 07:28:14 AM »
This kind of post really belongs in the True Believers board. I am pretty sure almost everybody will look at the endless show of photos from Internet without a single detail about the photographers, and will look at the claim that shipspotting is done from the beach, not from a vantage point, and will answer:

tl;dr

This is the kind of post that belongs in the globularist Hall of Shame. You asked for photos, and he provided several obviously taken at sea level. Yet the mighty trig, true to form, cannot look past his own conceit to view them or read about it. Having lost the sacred ability to doubt, you now cannot even stand the hint of iconoclasm challenging your own pathetic world view. You're an evangelist of error of the worst kind; so cocksure in your faith that any challenge must be met with derision and scorn. Small wonder John Davis has decided to be done with you.
If the posts are too long for you to read, then I suggest you find another haunt, or simply remain silent and allow the rest of us to have a conversation without your interference and irrelevant ranting. 
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #107 on: September 23, 2011, 07:58:56 AM »
levee, when I said you aren't putting any effort into your research, your last two posts aren't any better.

A series of replies have cast legitimate doubt over your first attempts, and you haven't answered these, instead you throw even more sub standard examples at us.  Nolhekh pointed out that in the yellow photo the base of the cliffs is visible above the farthest ship.  This uncategorically proves that the photograph was taken from atleast 3 metres higher altitude than the deck of the ship. That's for a round earth.  For a flat eath you would have to be much higher to see that much between the deck of the boat and the cliff base.

This is basic geometry, that you obviously don't understand. 

Your other main claim is that the sea doesn't "look" curved.  Fortunately we don't base science on what something looks like.  Things can look quite different than what we expect sometimes.  In Toronto for example, there is 60 meteres height of curvature between Mountain Road Ontario and Toronto beach.  There is 57km between the two locations. 

Plot a line between the two locations and factor in 60 metres elevation - I did this in google sketchup, here's the result.  You can hardly tell there is a curve at all.  Infact if it weren't for the jagged line (because the computer doesn't have enough pixels to display the curve at this scale) you'd think it was straight.  The angle of the slope is roughly 0.12 degrees from the horizontal.  That my friend is why you can't see the curvature.  It may seem like you ought to be able to observe curvature in this example, until you look closely at the distances involved and realise that the actual curvature is so slight as to be hardly noticeable.


Scale of curvature Toronto to Mountain Road by max_wedge, on Flickr

The top line represents the curved surface of the earth, the bottom line represent a straight, and very slight, slope downwards from Mountain road to Toronto beach.  The vertical line on the right represents CN Tower (Height about 550m) (ignore the green line on the left)
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #108 on: September 23, 2011, 08:32:48 AM »
Shipspotting means that the photographers are right there on that beach, ready to take the picture. They did not go to Cap Gris Nez, or to Cap Blanc Nez (as a matter of fact, Cap Blanc Nez is the part of the photograph marked with that small rectangle). They are right there on the beach.
Whatever shipspotting means, they are not at the beach.

Quote
To what altitude do you want to go to understand that, no matter where we go, the surface of the sea is completely flat?

Let us go to 23 meters, that is those photographers are on top of a seven story building. On a round earth we should see an ascending slope, a midpoint visual obstacle of 22,4 meters, and that ship being part of an ascending/descending slope.

No such thing can be seen in the photograph we are debating here. Where do you want to go from here? To 45 meters? Even from there, the curvature would equal half of the altitude, and we should see an ascending slope, but nothing of the kind exists there, in the photograph.
  Why would we go to any other altitude than the one that the photo's being taken at?  That would skew calculations and produce false results.  And how are you able to go to 45 meters and assume that the curvature is any different, unless you actually have a photo that does this.

Quote
In this photograph, there is no curvature whatsoever, we can see the full view of the White Cliffs from Dover, no matter to what height we go to:
  What do you mean "no matter what height?"  It's one photograph and you can't use one photograph to represent many elevations.

Quote


No ascending slope, no midpoint visual obstacle, no descending slope, NOTHING, just a perfectly flat shape of the surface of the sea.
Here's where your lack of understanding of this stuff shows: "no midpoint visual obstacle."  You're assuming that some visual obstacle has to exist for there to be curvature.  But the visual obstacle doesn't have to be midpoint, and sometimes it's directly underneath what we're looking at, as is the case with the Grimsby shot of toronto, with toronto sitting on the "obstacle" instead of behind it.

Quote
And the shape of the cliffs indicate clearly where we are: midway between Cap Gris Nez and Cap Blanc Nez, right on the beach.
  and the place where the shore/horizon cuts through the ships indicates that the photo was not taken on the beach,  although without knowing how tall those ships are we have no way of knowing how high we are.  We can guess no less than 10 metres, but we could be anywhere as high as 30m
Quote

Even if we go to some 23 or 45 meters in altitude, that photograph show a flat surface of the sea, no curvature whatsoever.
How do you know if you don't have the exact altitude of the photograph?
Quote

Here are the large size photographs from Toronto:



Niagara escarpment means some 170 - 180 meters, but I will go to 240 meters for you.
no you will not because you can't. Plus, I don't need you to. [/quote] No curvature whatsoever, no slopes... 
Quote
  From 170 metres your horizon is 46.6 km away, and toronto is - what do you know only 2 km further.  So again, a photo where toronto is sitting on top of your "obstacle" and the entire visible area of lake ontario is your ascending slope.  your descending slope will always be hidden by the ascending slope, so there's no real reason to expect to see it.

The next one was made at Beamer Falls Conservation Area, it is just 45 meters in height, but I will go to 240 meters [/quote] no need, although I haven't been able to find Beamer Falls on Google Earth, so I can't find any distance with which to confirm or deny this argument
Quote
again:



No curvature whatsoever, measuring 59 meters...





From the same spot, at night, using a reflector telescope:


  Now this is interesting.  The buildings in front of the Sky Dome appear to be shorter in the reflector telescope than in the wider photograph.  This is contrary to your claim that a reflector telescope can restore detail.  Or it could be a case where the telescope shot is not taken from the same spot as you claimed. 
Quote
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg


FULL DETAILS OF THE SHORELINE OF TORONTO, NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER.


From Grimsby, again:



There isn't a single centimeter of curvature over lake Ontario...
  If this is from the same altitude as the last Grimsby photo, then my last assessment still holds.  The city is sitting on top of the curvature, instead of behind it.
Quote


We now go to Etobicoke, some 6 miles from Toronto, no 1,8 meter curvature, no ascending slope:





Now you've completely failed to provide elevation.  I don't get why you think there should be 1.8 meters of curvature if you don't have an elevation, especially since each photo seems to be taken from a different height.  However it is interesting that you claim to not be able to see 1.8 meters when 1.8 metres seems to be less than one pixel.
Quote

We go to Port Credit, some 14 km from Toronto, no 4 meter curvature whatsoever:




4 metres in the first photo is only 2 pixels.

I shall finish this later.  I must go now.

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #109 on: September 23, 2011, 09:17:50 AM »
This kind of post really belongs in the True Believers board. I am pretty sure almost everybody will look at the endless show of photos from Internet without a single detail about the photographers, and will look at the claim that shipspotting is done from the beach, not from a vantage point, and will answer:

tl;dr

This is the kind of post that belongs in the globularist Hall of Shame. You asked for photos, and he provided several obviously taken at sea level. Yet the mighty trig, true to form, cannot look past his own conceit to view them or read about it. Having lost the sacred ability to doubt, you now cannot even stand the hint of iconoclasm challenging your own pathetic world view. You're an evangelist of error of the worst kind; so cocksure in your faith that any challenge must be met with derision and scorn. Small wonder John Davis has decided to be done with you.
If the posts are too long for you to read, then I suggest you find another haunt, or simply remain silent and allow the rest of us to have a conversation without your interference and irrelevant ranting.
But that's just it; the pictures aren't obviously taken from sea level. 

Then when he does show some pictures taken from sea level, they are useless as examples of his argument.  For example
Quote
We now go to Etobicoke, some 6 miles from Toronto, no 1,8 meter curvature, no ascending slope
Um.. it's barely on the horizon, and no curvature is visible because the distance is FAR too short for the slight curvature to be actually visible.

Quote
We go to Port Credit, some 14 km from Toronto, no 4 meter curvature whatsoever:

The shoreline in front of The CN Tower and skydome, going by a straight line drawn from the cn tower and the middle point of the skydome, is Marilyn Bell Park.  The location of the only rocky outcrops such as those displayed in these two photos, in the straight line drawn from the CN Tower, is Hunter Bay Park West.  That's the distance between the old barge and Marilyn Bell Park the first visible shoreline beyond the barge.  The CN Tower is a further 6km.

Also if you look at the section of land just above the deck of the barge, probably the airport or possibly the Police Marina on West Island, another couple of km back from Marilyn Bell Park, you'll notice that the buildings disappear into the water (ie: they are behind the horizon):


20110924-004 by max_wedge, on Flickr

In other words, the pictures of the old barge are entirely consistant with RET. 

I really see no reason why we should continue analysing Levee's contributions.  I have chosen at random examples he has provided and shown in each instance how he has interpeted the evidence with a FET bias, failing to accurately assess the true meaning of the images.


First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #110 on: September 23, 2011, 09:42:57 AM »
An aerial view to demonstrate the positions of the barge and the CN Tower:

20110924-007 by max_wedge, on Flickr

The barge is moored just under the words "Hunter Bay Park West" on the aerial view.  It's not at that location when the google earth photo was taken.  I couldn't find the barge anywhere on the coast between Port Credit and Toronto.


« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 09:45:02 AM by pitdroidtech »
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #111 on: September 23, 2011, 10:33:33 AM »
The barge is at J.C. Saddington Park. Not at Humber Bay. The straight line distance is almost exactly 19 km.

Without knowing the local topography, it would be difficult to say that the building is sinking below the horizon -- especially as the trees on the other side of the barge look precisely the way one expects.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #112 on: September 23, 2011, 12:36:27 PM »
The barge is at J.C. Saddington Park. Not at Humber Bay. The straight line distance is almost exactly 19 km.

Without knowing the local topography, it would be difficult to say that the building is sinking below the horizon -- especially as the trees on the other side of the barge look precisely the way one expects.

The trees look they are growing out of the water, but the angular resolution is rather low on the photo compared to the curvature, so it is hard to see.
Here's a better picture, taken from Niagara on the lake, with two other CN tower pictures (from closer) superimposed next to it.


http://rachelynne.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/cntower.jpg
http://v7.cache3.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/24233985.jpg?redirect_counter=1
http://www.torontoonthecheap.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/cn-tower-istock.jpg

As you can clearly see, lots of the tower is hidden behind the horizon, demonstrating a curved earth.

And no, Rowbothams perspective does not apply here, the angular resolution is well more than enough to see the bottom of the tower.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 12:41:22 PM by momentia »

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #113 on: September 23, 2011, 09:11:14 PM »
The barge is at J.C. Saddington Park. Not at Humber Bay. The straight line distance is almost exactly 19 km.

Without knowing the local topography, it would be difficult to say that the building is sinking below the horizon -- especially as the trees on the other side of the barge look precisely the way one expects.
I stand corrected, the barge is at J.C. Saddington Park.  My retarded internet was so slow last night, zooming in and out along the coastline was so painful, I'm not surprised I missed it!  Thanks for the correction.

Btw, from the northern tip of the barge, to the Marilyn Bell Park, is 15km, not 19km.  The angle of a straight line direct from the CN Tower to the barge at J.C. Saddington Park compared to my estimation of Humber Bay Park is only about 5-8 degrees so I stand by my assessment of the photo in all details except the distance.

And as you can see from the photo I outlined of the "shoreline" of Toronto visible above the deck of the barge, the buildings are either built on the water, or are behind the horizon.  This shows that the photographer had to be considerably higher than the deck of the barge itself to see this detail. Well on a flat earth anyway.  According to Levee there would be a slope upwards on a round earth, which would explain the photographer being at sea level and able to see this detail.  Of course, we don't see a slope upwards.  What we see (but can't detect because it is too slight) is a curved slope downwards.

Also if you look at the greenery on the shoreline to the left of the barge, it is green from the sea upwards, you cannot see the rocky shore that is in front of the Police Marina.  However let's assume that it is not the police marina, in which case it has to be the Marilyn Bell Park area, which is further west.    In this photo (click the link then click the image for a large view) http://www.panoramio.com/photo/24815040 the greenery is too far away from the CN Tower to be the Police Marina.  The Marilyn Bell Park has a rock wall water break protecting it, as well as a road running along the foreshore.  This is completely invisible in the photos.

So either way there is definite drop off.

The problem with Levee's data is that it is piecemeal.  It's taken at different locations and times, different elevations, and is cherry picked to show what he thinks it shows, but other data is ignored because it shows the opposite of what he wants it to show.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 09:13:28 PM by pitdroidtech »
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #114 on: September 23, 2011, 09:23:14 PM »
Another thing that Levee does, which is completely unprofessional and inexcusable in my view (as a photographer) is the posting of completely unreferenced photos of other people's work.  There is no credit given or in lieu of credit a link to the original work.  If I discovered someone using my photos and not crediting me with the work or providing a link back to the source, I would be very unhappy.  Photos are not free of copyright just because they are posted on a public website.  And they are not free to be used just because the use is non-profit.  Since we are making an assumption that a photographer will be okay with us using their photos to demonstrate a point on a non-profit forum, the VERY LEAST we can do is provide a link to the image.

It's also unscientific to post random pictures without any details or a source link from which some details may be obtained.

First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #115 on: September 23, 2011, 11:16:01 PM »
Btw, from the northern tip of the barge, to the Marilyn Bell Park, is 15km, not 19km. 
I measured from the park itself where the pictures were taken to the CN Tower, which was my mistake. I have not remeasured it, but will assume you are correct for the moment.

Quote
The Marilyn Bell Park has a rock wall water break protecting it, as well as a road running along the foreshore.  This is completely invisible in the photos.
We will use the picture you linked to as you are comfortable with it's origin, I presume. It is also better suited to our purpose, for we can see a number of recognizable landmarks.
In fact, I can see the jetty below the trees in the higher quality photo you have linked to. It is not very high, so we cannot say that we are seeing only a small part of it.

Niagra is not visible in this photo above, but I don't expect either of us thought it would be.

Nor is there a large embankment hiding below the water (or impersonating the jetty):


The road and bank:




Further, I can see a sailboat whose hull appears sunken in the distance, but not at the horizon -- indicating that perhaps the hull has become indiscernible; it is certainly not behind a hill of water.
In addition, we can see what looks to be the entire facade of part of the Liberty Grand. We can see what appears to be nearly the entire 91 meters of the WindShare project above the trees.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 11:27:45 PM by Ski »
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #116 on: September 24, 2011, 02:40:26 AM »
If this is from the same altitude as the last Grimsby photo, then my last assessment still holds.  The city is sitting on top of the curvature, instead of behind it.

From 170 metres your horizon is 46.6 km away, and toronto is - what do you know only 2 km further.  So again, a photo where toronto is sitting on top of your "obstacle" and the entire visible area of lake ontario is your ascending slope.  your descending slope will always be hidden by the ascending slope, so there's no real reason to expect to see it.

The 59 meter curvature should be visible immediately on a round earth...please reword your last lousy attempts at an explanation, and try again...in those photographs, the surface of the lake is completely flat.

The zoom-in with the reflector telescope shows that the shoreline of Toronto and the small island in front of it are visible without any curvature to obscure them...that was the point...all photographs show no curvature whatsoever over Lake Ontario...


Even if we ascend to some 45 meters on that beach in France, we could not miss out the 22,4 meter curvature, that ship is not part of an ascending or a descending slope...

How would the water of the sea stay curved, without attracting gravity? Please think.


The County Courthouse in Racine could not be seen over a distance of 128 km, from Holland, nor any building from Milwaukee.

We have two videos from Spain, no curvature whatsoever over the strait of Gibraltar.


Please research the subject of ball lightning; the flash of the explosion was directed toward Europe, toward the west. The glow is the activation of the aether around the area of the explosion...do not pretend you do not understand...nobody could see any glow, any flash, outside of an area of 400 km...the curvature of a round earth would forbid any further visibility.

The flash/glow/trajectory was clearly seen all the way from London; given the colossal, immense visual obstacle of 7463 km, this view would have been impossible on a round earth. The curvature of a round earth would forbid any visibility from 600 km distance (lake Baikal), 1000 km distance (Irkutsk), or from a 7000 km distance (London), PERIOD.


For the other comments, please research the photographs taken by the Soviet Academy of Science, right there at Tunguska...







Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #117 on: September 24, 2011, 02:48:27 AM »

In addition, we can see what looks to be the entire facade of part of the Liberty Grand. We can see what appears to be nearly the entire 91 meters of the WindShare project above the trees.
Thanks, this is actually something useful and reasonable. 

re: the picture I linked to (by shanhitex) and the jetty under the trees, I don't believe there is enough visual information in the photo to be clear of this, in other words I think it is inconclusive.  It is however a good photo for getting our bearings.  Even more so that you have pointed out the Windshare project and the Liberty Grand so I will look at these two constructions.

However, we don't really know how high the photographer was when they took this photo.  The camera could be easily 4.5m from sea level, going by the fact we can see water above the deck line of the barge. That puts the horizon at 7.5km so something 7.5km further away again will have it's lower 4.5m obscured.  Also looking at user submitted photos of the JC Saddington Park, and the line tracking back from the CN Tower, it actually seems quite plausible that the photographer was between 4m-5m (including his eyesight height above ground).

The windshare tower is actually 65m, only the blade at it's full extension eaches 91m.  Looking at streetview shots of the area surounding the base of the tower, and user submitted photos, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect 3-4m or even more of altitude at the base of the tower.  So only a metre or two may actually be obscured.  From the photo it's impossible to say this isn't case.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #118 on: September 24, 2011, 04:01:31 AM »
The 59 meter curvature should be visible immediately on a round earth...please reword your last lousy attempts at an explanation, and try again...in those photographs, the surface of the lake is completely flat.

Quote
The zoom-in with the reflector telescope shows that the shoreline of Toronto and the small island in front of it are visible without any curvature to obscure them...that was the point...all photographs show no curvature whatsoever over Lake Ontario...

Quote
Even if we ascend to some 45 meters on that beach in France, we could not miss out the 22,4 meter curvature, that ship is not part of an ascending or a descending slope...

Quote
We have two videos from Spain, no curvature whatsoever over the strait of Gibraltar.

what is it about the fact that the vertical component of the curve is so small (1000 times smaller in fact) compared to the distance that it appears flat, is not understandable to you?

Even other FE'ers accept that if the earth was round, you wouldn't be able to tell by looking at it; that's why Rowbotham conducted his experiments. 

Quote
How would the water of the sea stay curved, without attracting gravity? Please think.
Read and understand the theory of gravity before you argue against it.    Gravity pulls equally towards the centre of the sphere  on all points at the surface of the sphere.  Hence water is always pulled to the centre of the Earth, ie, downwards.  I can't believe I'm explaining this to you...?!?!?

Please think.

Quote
The County Courthouse in Racine could not be seen over a distance of 128 km, from Holland, nor any building from Milwaukee.
That's right, it could not be seen.  Only on 12 days out of every 30 years could it be seen.  This has been explained by unusual air inversion events which lead to a large degree of refraction.  If it was actually possible to see that far in normal conditions, then every single day it would be visible.

Quote
Please research the subject of ball lightning; the flash of the explosion was directed toward Europe, toward the west. The glow is the activation of the aether around the area of the explosion...do not pretend you do not understand...nobody could see any glow, any flash, outside of an area of 400 km...the curvature of a round earth would forbid any further visibility.


If you read the eyewitness reports with an open mind, rather thana bias that leads you to see everything only the way you want to see it, you would have noticed this:
Quote
It also produced fluctuations in atmospheric pressure strong enough to be detected in Great Britain. Over the next few days, night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow
If the skies were aglow for days afterwards, how could it be the flash of the explosion? 
Quote
it has been theorized that this was due to light passing through high-altitude ice particles formed at extremely cold temperatures, a phenomenon that occurred when the Space Shuttle re-entered the Earth's atmosphere
So sorry but magical Aether is not the only possible explanation.

Quote
The flash/glow/trajectory was clearly seen all the way from London; given the colossal, immense visual obstacle of 7463 km, this view would have been impossible on a round earth. The curvature of a round earth would forbid any visibility from 600 km distance (lake Baikal), 1000 km distance (Irkutsk), or from a 7000 km distance (London), PERIOD.
The glow was carried through the atmosphere due to refraction by ice crystals.  The glow from volcanoes, forest fires and many other phenomenon are known to be seen from great distances.  Have you never seen a glow of a light from around the corner? The point is that the event itself, was not visible.  Only the after effects of the event, that spread through the atmosphere, were visible.

Quote
For the other comments, please research the photographs taken by the Soviet Academy of Science, right there at Tunguska...
I'm not arguing that the event happened.  Of course it did.  But there is no evidence to suggest it was ball lightning beyond spooky Tesla conspiracies.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 04:04:16 AM by pitdroidtech »
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Photographic Evidence of Curvature Beyond the Visible Horizon
« Reply #119 on: September 24, 2011, 07:29:48 AM »
If this is from the same altitude as the last Grimsby photo, then my last assessment still holds.  The city is sitting on top of the curvature, instead of behind it.

From 170 metres your horizon is 46.6 km away, and toronto is - what do you know only 2 km further.  So again, a photo where toronto is sitting on top of your "obstacle" and the entire visible area of lake ontario is your ascending slope.  your descending slope will always be hidden by the ascending slope, so there's no real reason to expect to see it.

The 59 meter curvature should be visible immediately on a round earth...please reword your last lousy attempts at an explanation, and try again...in those photographs, the surface of the lake is completely flat.
Why should I reword anything.  My math does not produce a 59 metre curvature for this scenario.   Show where my attempts are lousy.  If you don't, I have no reason to think you understand anything I'm trying to tell you.  the fact is that round earth theory does not predict any significant obstacle in this case.  And the fact that there isn't makes this photograph completely in support of RET.