A "new" sinking ship observation.

I have read your explanation of the Bedford Experiment and wonder why on this site at the Flat Earth Wiki tab it seems to be a cut and paste job from Wikipedia except for one major adjustment....you left off the bit that explains the illusion.

The sinking ship effect and others seem to be typically explained by a Victorian era "scientist" or some such. 

Here's my observation from the cockpit:  When I am flying along at 40,000 feet and approaching a very large thunderstorm..top of these storms can reach 50,000+ (at 40 degrees N latitude)... I don't see the storm at all until about 250 miles from it...and then I only see the very top just above the horizon.  It's not until a get closer to it that I can begin to see the entire storm from top to bottom...perhaps 100 miles away.

In a flat earth world wouldn't this same storm appear as whole and seem to get larger as I approach it?

Hi Thork,

That document is more of a conclusion, are there any links to his actual research?

He seems to have found a phenomena and then just gone around going "look at that, that confirms it".

Just curious if he tried different times of day, different light levels, different shapes, heights above the ground and colours. If he explained why it only happened to make an object proportionally shorter than it should be, essentially why a boats hull disappears but it's mast remains visible even though it's thinner than the hull.

This post is a prime example of just how lost FE'ers are.

Sir, picture the world as a globe (Reality) the put a ship on the horizon about...let's say...20 miiles off. If your were to increase your altitude, you would be able to see all of the ship. Think, man, think.

Now, if Earth were flat (Makes no logical sense) you would be able to see the entire ship, regardless of how low you are.
Same thing goes with distant mountains on land.

Sir, picture the world as a globe (Reality) the put a ship on the horizon about...let's say...20 miiles off. If your were to increase your altitude, you would be able to see all of the ship. Think, man, think.

Now, if Earth were flat (Makes no logical sense) you would be able to see the entire ship, regardless of how low you are.
Same thing goes with distant mountains on land.

If the Earth were flat, you wouldn't even see a sharply defined horizon.  You would see the land or sea gradually smudge into the sky - like you do when it's foggy.  You certainly wouldn't see a clearly defined sun or moon sinking below or rising above it.

Here's a Zetetic experiment I can do.  On a clear day, I drive over to the white cliffs of Dover, look South East & see Calais.  I can see buildings, patchwork of fields, even the sun glinting off the occasional car windscreen 25 miles away.

But can I see the beach ?  No - because it's below the horizon.

Quote from: Sphere on December 20, 2012, 05:50:59 AM

Sir, picture the world as a globe (Reality) the put a ship on the horizon about...let's say...20 miiles off. If your were to increase your altitude, you would be able to see all of the ship. Think, man, think.

Now, if Earth were flat (Makes no logical sense) you would be able to see the entire ship, regardless of how low you are.
Same thing goes with distant mountains on land.

If the Earth were flat, you wouldn't even see a sharply defined horizon.  You would see the land or sea gradually smudge into the sky - like you do when it's foggy.  You certainly wouldn't see a clearly defined sun or moon sinking below or rising above it.

Here's a Zetetic experiment I can do.  On a clear day, I drive over to the white cliffs of Dover, look South East & see Calais.  I can see buildings, patchwork of fields, even the sun glinting off the occasional car windscreen 25 miles away.

But can I see the beach ?  No - because it's below the horizon.

Oh, and are you a RE'r? I I thought you were using that as evidence for the FET

Please learn about ocean swell.

Yours is is a picture of swell which you get with wind on all large bodies of water. Please examine the exact same phenomenom in the picture below.


Picture originally posted by a round earther. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50529.msg1241340#msg1241340

The earth does not curve by more than a foot to hide the bodies of people just 20 yards away. What has happened is a big wave is covering them, despite the water appearing near flat in the top picture. In your pictures, swell is covering the ship in exactly the same way. Greater distance, same effect.

If the Earth were flat, you wouldn't even see a sharply defined horizon.

That's cobblers as well. The horizon is defined by the visibility on any particular day.


^ Nice sharp horizon there.

The horizon is merely the edge of your perception.

Thork would the perspective effect happen for something on a straight flat vertical surface like a wall?

Now "explain" the same thing happening to a far away object on flat land.

No ocean swell there.

Or how about the curved shadow of the Earth on the moon? Or how about seeing the ISS with binoculars?

Or how about the countless photos of Earth from space that are in no way, shape, or form, edited?

The earth does not curve by more than a foot to hide the bodies of people just 20 yards away. What has happened is a big wave is covering them, despite the water appearing near flat in the top picture. In your pictures, swell is covering the ship in exactly the same way. Greater distance, same effect.

Trigonometry fail

These photos were taken from vantage points of 2 & 12metres.  Please show how a 30cm swell is going to hide half a container ship.

Who said the swell was only 30cm?

Its an ocean. You can get swell of 60m or more. You really need to read more and post less. Your haste to reply belies your ignorance of many topics.

Who said the swell was only 30cm?

Its an ocean. You can get swell of 60m or more. You really need to read more and post less. Your haste to reply belies your ignorance of many topics.

It's not an ocean - it's the English Channel.

The first photo is from 2m high.  The swell would need to be 2 m to obscure objects several kilometers away.

The photo is clearly one of a calm sea.  You are clutching at straws.

Even as I type on a calm day with absolutely no wind, the swell in the English Channel is almost 1m. It'll be over 3m on Sunday. It won't dip below 0.5m at any time this week.

http://www.myweather2.com/Marine/United-Kingdom/English-Channel-Eastern.aspx

I don't think a 2m swell is out of the ordinary. I think you just need to stop clutching at straws.

Also, please note that swell and waves are not the same thing. You seem to be having enormous trouble with this concept.

Even as I type on a calm day with absolutely no wind, the swell in the English Channel is almost 1m. It'll be over 3m on Sunday. It won't dip below 0.5m at any time this week.

http://www.myweather2.com/Marine/United-Kingdom/English-Channel-Eastern.aspx

I don't think a 2m swell is out of the ordinary. I think you just need to stop clutching at straws.

Also, please note that swell and waves are not the same thing. You seem to be having enormous trouble with this concept.

Wouldn't a 2m+ swell obscure more of the ship in the foreground?

Quote from: Thork on December 20, 2012, 06:59:09 AM

Even as I type on a calm day with absolutely no wind, the swell in the English Channel is almost 1m. It'll be over 3m on Sunday. It won't dip below 0.5m at any time this week.

http://www.myweather2.com/Marine/United-Kingdom/English-Channel-Eastern.aspx

I don't think a 2m swell is out of the ordinary. I think you just need to stop clutching at straws.

Also, please note that swell and waves are not the same thing. You seem to be having enormous trouble with this concept.

Wouldn't a 2m+ swell obscure more of the ship in the foreground?

How much is being obscured already?

Change your mind on that answer did you?

The picture from a higher elevation shows where the water level is on the front ship and that is consistant with the picture from a lower elevation.

Change your mind on that answer did you?

I felt my second answer has more content.

The picture from a higher elevation shows where the water level is on the front ship and that is consistant with the picture from a lower elevation.

So what? Is swell a consistent phenomena? The sea is uniform is it?

Even as I type on a calm day with absolutely no wind, the swell in the English Channel is almost 1m. It'll be over 3m on Sunday. It won't dip below 0.5m at any time this week.

http://www.myweather2.com/Marine/United-Kingdom/English-Channel-Eastern.aspx

I don't think a 2m swell is out of the ordinary. I think you just need to stop clutching at straws.

Also, please note that swell and waves are not the same thing. You seem to be having enormous trouble with this concept.

Odd how that swell just happens to have got in the way at just the right time, and have altered the positions of the ships in just the right way to make it look like they are on the surface of a big globe.  Odd how that keeps happening on photos

Just like it's odd how the UA bends sunlight to just the right amount to create the illusion of a sunset in precisely the right place & time, there just happens to be an aircraft going overhead in the right place when I go satellite spotting...

You have asserted that swell is what is causing the ships in the distance to be obscured by the horizon.

How is the swell obscuring the ships on the horizon but not obscuring the objects closer to the camera?

Have you got any links etc to the research material that shows how the author of the article you originally linked to tried to thoroughly test his hypothesis rather than just confirm it?

Do you know how far away the ships are? It is important information when analyzing these photos.

Odd how that swell just happens to have got in the way at just the right time, and have altered the positions of the ships in just the right way to make it look like they are on the surface of a big globe.  Odd how that keeps happening on photos

Being as you keep deliberately scouring the net for photos you can attribute to rotundity and you keep posting those, no its not odd. This precise set up is the one you always bring because its the one you always confuse for the earth being a ball. When there is swell in the distance, it hides far objects. If you keep looking for photos of sea hiding far objects, no, its not odd at all.
I gave you a picture of swell hiding a near object.

You have asserted that swell is what is causing the ships in the distance to be obscured by the horizon.

How is the swell obscuring the ships on the horizon but not obscuring the objects closer to the camera?

Have you got any links etc to the research material that shows how the author of the article you originally linked to tried to thoroughly test his hypothesis rather than just confirm it?

I answered all this above. I showed a picture of near objects being obstructed. As for links, I gave you a link if you could be bothered to follow it.

Quote from: Major Twang on December 20, 2012, 08:02:19 AM

Odd how that swell just happens to have got in the way at just the right time, and have altered the positions of the ships in just the right way to make it look like they are on the surface of a big globe.  Odd how that keeps happening on photos

Being as you keep deliberately scouring the net for photos you can attribute to rotundity and you keep posting those, no its not odd. This precise set up is the one you always bring because its the one you always confuse for the earth being a ball. When there is swell in the distance, it hides far objects. If you keep looking for photos of sea hiding far objects, no, its not odd at all.
I gave you a picture of swell hiding a near object.

Quote from: Manarq on December 20, 2012, 08:07:43 AM

You have asserted that swell is what is causing the ships in the distance to be obscured by the horizon.

How is the swell obscuring the ships on the horizon but not obscuring the objects closer to the camera?

Have you got any links etc to the research material that shows how the author of the article you originally linked to tried to thoroughly test his hypothesis rather than just confirm it?

I answered all this above. I showed a picture of near objects being obstructed. As for links, I gave you a link if you could be bothered to follow it.

No you showed how a near swell photographed from just above the ground can obscure everything behind the swell.

The sight of just the top of a ship sailing across the horizon is a common one are you saying that in every case the swell, that you say is an inconsistant phenomena, is getting in the way?

Yes I did read the article you linked to and at no point did he try anything that might have contradicted his hypothesis, he started with the assertion that the earth is flat and never strengthened his own argument by trying to disprove his hypothesis. Just a simple experiment sticking toy ships to the side of a long straight wall to see what happens would have been worth much more than just drawing the same picture half a dozen times.

This precise set up is the one you always bring because its the one you always confuse for the earth being a ball.

Maybe my 35 years of using the 'balls & gravity' model to correctly predict the position of stars & planets in the sky has addled my brain.  Remind me again how good the planar / UA model is for working out where to find things in the sky.

Anyway - I'm bored with this.  I'm off to watch my TV that's being broadcast from an invisible transmitter in the sky.

You should read and study this chapter. Don't just glance over it, for it takes more brain power to understand it.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

You should read and study this chapter. Don't just glance over it, for it takes more brain power to understand it.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

I can just look at the title of that site and tell it's utter bullsh*t.

How about you ditch your "sacred texts" and learn some damn science.

Quote from: Major Twang on December 20, 2012, 06:09:02 AM

If the Earth were flat, you wouldn't even see a sharply defined horizon.

That's cobblers as well. The horizon is defined by the visibility on any particular day.


^ Nice sharp horizon there.

The horizon is merely the edge of your perception.

That's not the same as the horizon. It's gradually smudging out as he stated it does. Notice that the tree is also affected by this.

Quote from: hoppy on December 20, 2012, 09:07:24 AM

You should read and study this chapter. Don't just glance over it, for it takes more brain power to understand it.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

I can just look at the title of that site and tell it's utter bullsh*t.

How about you ditch your "sacred texts" and learn some damn science.

Noted. Contempt prior to investigation.

Quote from: Sphere on December 20, 2012, 09:17:17 AM

Quote from: hoppy on December 20, 2012, 09:07:24 AM

You should read and study this chapter. Don't just glance over it, for it takes more brain power to understand it.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

I can just look at the title of that site and tell it's utter bullsh*t.

How about you ditch your "sacred texts" and learn some damn science.

Noted. Contempt prior to investigation.

No need. It obviously supports the fet. So it's complete hogwash