Direct viewing of Earth's curvature: an easily repeated observation

I had the pleasure of being at the seaside two days ago, in the evening as the light faded. A fishing boat was going out from the harbour into the distance. When watching it from the beach, I could see the light on its mast perfectly clearly. However, when I crouched down, the light disappeared.
As the boat went further from me, so the amount I needed to crouch for it to vanish became less and less. The sea was calm, I estimate the highest waves to have been no more than half a metre at maximum. This is insufficient to obscure the light by getting in the way.
This first-hand observed phenomenon directly demonstrates the curvature of the earth, as one would expect if a sgement of a sphere was between myself and the boat. This nullifies the "it looks flat" claim from the brainless FE mantra squad, because if it looked flat one would always be able to see the light, no matter how low you crouched. It also disgrees with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.
FE'ers, please contribute to this thread by agreeing that this is what would be expected to be seen on a large sphere. You may not cite Rowbotham's perspective theory as it directly contradicts his Bedford Level Experiment results, and if you believe one thing Rowbotham says then you have to believe the whole book. You may not cite bendy light as that has been disproved by absence of predicted stellar distortions.
This observation was carried out entirely zetetically.

You forgot to include your pictures.

You forgot to include your pictures.

So did Rowbotham.

You may not cite bendy light as that has been disproved by absence of predicted stellar distortions.

I would like to see that disproof. It's being referenced very frequently, but someone simply forgot to ever conduct it.

If there was a viable theory (something better than a Paint drawing) we'll be glad to thrash it.

If there was a viable theory (something better than a Paint drawing) we'll be glad to thrash it.

Oh, so you will be glad to trash it, but you claim that you already have done it is invalid? How nice of you to admit it.

Also, lurk moar.

We still need the value of the "Bishop constant".

Your theory is a bit incomplete.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 16, 2011, 03:16:12 PM

You may not cite bendy light as that has been disproved by absence of predicted stellar distortions.

I would like to see that disproof. It's being referenced very frequently, but someone simply forgot to ever conduct it.

I've noticed you pretending that you haven't read it before, even in threads where you have commented. Here it is again.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 13, 2011, 10:39:11 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 13, 2011, 10:35:33 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 12, 2011, 12:56:38 PM

Why are people still trying to explain things with bendy light when it's been totally disproved? Bendy light doesn't work, Xenu. You should read the forum a bit more thoroughly.

*sigh*

You're using quotes from yourself as a source now? In my opinion, no REer has been able to convincingly disprove bendy light. Just saying "read the forum lol" is not evidence.

Quote from: parsec on January 18, 2010, 11:02:10 AM

Nope, I don't make that fallacy at all. This method of debunking bendy light in fact relies on the very idea that the light would appear to come from somewhere else. You really are a bit dim aren't you? Let me clout you with the idea some more, see if it sinks in:
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.

This is easy to find if you use the search function. Numerous other posters have linked to it from many other threads.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 18, 2011, 04:37:02 AM

If there was a viable theory (something better than a Paint drawing) we'll be glad to thrash it.

Oh, so you will be glad to trash it, but you claim that you already have done it is invalid? How nice of you to admit it.

Also, lurk moar.

You'll find that regardless of the value of the Comedy Constant, this equation predicts a variable distance between stars proportional to their height above the horizon, something which is not observed and proved not to be the case.

I had the pleasure of being at the seaside two days ago, in the evening as the light faded. A fishing boat was going out from the harbour into the distance. When watching it from the beach, I could see the light on its mast perfectly clearly. However, when I crouched down, the light disappeared.
As the boat went further from me, so the amount I needed to crouch for it to vanish became less and less. The sea was calm, I estimate the highest waves to have been no more than half a metre at maximum. This is insufficient to obscure the light by getting in the way.
This first-hand observed phenomenon directly demonstrates the curvature of the earth, as one would expect if a sgement of a sphere was between myself and the boat. This nullifies the "it looks flat" claim from the brainless FE mantra squad, because if it looked flat one would always be able to see the light, no matter how low you crouched. It also disgrees with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.
FE'ers, please contribute to this thread by agreeing that this is what would be expected to be seen on a large sphere. You may not cite Rowbotham's perspective theory as it directly contradicts his Bedford Level Experiment results, and if you believe one thing Rowbotham says then you have to believe the whole book. You may not cite bendy light as that has been disproved by absence of predicted stellar distortions.
This observation was carried out entirely zetetically.

The waves may  have been small, but you admit yourself that they existed.

/thread

What's your point about the waves?

What's your point about the waves?

They were there, and thus the Sinking Ship Effect takes place.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 18, 2011, 01:25:49 PM

What's your point about the waves?

They were there, and thus the Sinking Ship Effect takes place.

What do waves have to do with the sinking ship effect?

Quote from: Tausami on November 18, 2011, 01:32:07 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 18, 2011, 01:25:49 PM

What's your point about the waves?

They were there, and thus the Sinking Ship Effect takes place.

What do waves have to do with the sinking ship effect?

The chicken guy is trying to claim that waves less than half a metre in height can obscure the view of a light on a ship's mast several metres above the waves, much the same way as a large audience composed entirely of dwarves will obscure a six foot man's view of a band playing on a raised stage at the other end of a venue. In Tausami's world, if you pack enough dwarves in, the raised stage will eventually be concealed by them. Logic, there.

Also, Pizza Planet can't post in this thread any more because to do so would indicate that he'd read the thread and therefore the bendy light disproof, preventing him from using the "nobody has posted a disproof" argument in the future. But he's secretly reading it anyway. Hi Pizza Planet!

The ocean is part of the Conspiracy and has trapdoors in it into which the ship was slowly sinking.