That is why this photograph is not a good choice for this discussion, but if you chose any other photograph that you can find at the same place (where you have found "Willis tower" photograph, aslo), then you would have a good material for further discussion.
This is the place: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1661813#msg1661813
This is a photograph that i would like to recommend to you :
The view from the height of 8650 m from the ridge of Mt Everest:
On the right MAKALU (8463m - distance 12 miles)
In the back KANCHANJUNGA (8456m - distance 78 miles)
Dip for MAKALU : 29 meters
Dip for KANCHANJUNGA : 1 217 meters
HOW COME THAT KANCHANJUNGA IS AT EYE LEVEL AND ABOVE THE LEVEL OF MAKALU???
WHERE IS THE GROUND DROPPING FOR 1 217 METERS AT A DISTANCE OF KANCHANJUNGA?
4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1639044#msg1639044
Your logic sounds good to me, so if that is correct (that an observer is not so far away from these buildings) then i am the one who had been duped, in the first place by giving credit to unverified informations concerning alleged distance between the observer and those towers. If you asked me, where i found this image and accompanying data about alleged distance, i would not hesitate to admit that the source for these informations was one old discussion that had been going on right here : at this very forum!
That is why this photograph is not a good choice for this discussion, but if you chose any other photograph that you can find at the same place (where you have found "Willis tower" photograph, aslo), then you would have a good material for further discussion.
This is the place:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62885.msg1661813#msg1661813This is a photograph that i would like to recommend to you :
The view from the height of 8650 m from the ridge of Mt Everest:
On the right MAKALU (8463m - distance 12 miles)
In the back KANCHANJUNGA (8456m - distance 78 miles)
Dip for MAKALU : 29 meters
Dip for KANCHANJUNGA : 1 217 meters
HOW COME THAT KANCHANJUNGA IS AT EYE LEVEL AND ABOVE THE LEVEL OF MAKALU???
WHERE IS THE GROUND DROPPING FOR 1 217 METERS AT A DISTANCE OF KANCHANJUNGA?
4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1639044#msg1639044[/quote]
OK, not difficult to explain. I will give you a little insight into what i do. I have been in Industrial Construction for over 30 years, have built many larger structures, some worthy of bragging rights, others were nightmares i'd just assume forget...but i've learned a lot from each and everyone.
What i am going to tell you is what i have told many many people over the years, some that are far far more intelligent than myself, and each and everytime, i prove them wrong, some go away pissed,convinced their 6 figure education can't be wrong.
There is no such thing as "LEVEL". it does not exist. Not on earth that is. Do not confuse straight with level, two completely different things all together. Trust me, this applies to this photo as well.
When building anything, say a large structure, one must set a benchmark, meaning elevation / grade. EVERYTHING you do after that is based on that benchmark. Easy enough,right? Wrong! And this is where flat earth believers will call bs, and thats fine, but i can with certainty say that none of them have ever built anything in their lives, or they would know what i'm about to say is fact. On EARTH, a round sphere, there is no such thing as level in relationship to the earth,period. Perhaps on a small degree one could say something is level, and for all intensive purposes, it is,meaning its level enough to support anything we build or design, one would never know the difference, BUT....Say you have a project that is 5.4 miles long, and I have, what is level at point "A" in not level at the other end of point "B" in relation to the earth, due to the subtle curvature of the earth. Here is a mathematical fact. what is level at point "A" is 8 inches out of level after 2 miles, fact. This is something we MUST account for,without fail. Example, look at the keywest bridges in Florida, 90 miles of bridge, NOT LEVEL. BUT, to the naked eye it appears level as we cannot see nor judge such a minimalist change in level. IF we did not account for the curvature of the earth, our point "A" level benchmark extending for as far as we needed it to be, by the time we got to the end of our desired point of reference, we would be meters above the ground / grade. The earth is HUGE, in order to see the big picture you must step back, far back until you can see the entire picture, only then will you see the curvature. It is relative to distance. The same thing applies to this photo. Albeit a pretty photo, it is cropped, by that i mean you have a very limited side to side view. Up close, it seems level, but step further back and you will see a gradual curve. One can see it from an airplane at 35,000 ft. it is not drastic by any means, but it is there. Clouds will follow the curvature of the earth as well, gravity dictates that, no getting around that.
HOW COME THAT KANCHANJUNGA IS AT EYE LEVEL AND ABOVE THE LEVEL OF MAKALU???
easy to explain. The photo was taken from a higher elevation than the closest mountain.
[/quote]
I know this is old, but I thought I had some comments that would be applicable.
I just got into Flat Earth stuff, and I'm going to have to call BS on this as well. If the gravitational force is what orients us and levels us, then all things must be straight, yet they can't be. It's an ultimate paradoxical hoax. You say level and straight are not the same thing? What is sea level? It constantly finds its level and if you measures it with a ruler it would be a straight line. What you are basically claiming is something that is non-falsifiable. You claim it's such a small amount that it has no practical application in a small space, but at a larger scale it does matter? We're talking about our orientation and how that orientation should be changing for those things we view from a distance. As we move, on a spherical earth, our gravitational orientation should change. So if we can see buildings from 20 miles out, hundreds of feet of it should be missing, and it should also be bowing or towering away from us. This just does not occur. The supposed curvature of the spherical earth is measurable, and we are not able to detect it, so it is not spherical. You can fake having to measure for supposed curvature of a several mile project, but you would just chalk up the inevitable inaccuracies to faulty measuring on your part, and confirm your assumption that the earth is still round. I doubt that a project of that magnitude would be that accurate over that span of distance. Under or over measuring could be attributed to many things, and getting exact could just as easily be a coincidence. When you're exact, you'll claim it was due to factoring in curvature, if you weren't exact, you'd say it was measuring errors, I mean, after all, it's a mile or 2 miles of measuring and leveling. It's just like those who claim that you weight .003 percent more at the equator. That's absurd. That could easily be accounted to other factors, including measuring errors. You'd have to be able to measure the same exact thing in a short amount of time in different locations and somehow claim that you can be so accurate as to account for .03 percent and attribute it to the spheroidal shape and nothing else.