More clues about a flat earth; many videos; last thread

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 22, 2015, 07:19:12 AM

I find it odd that when watching some of those videos, the horizon is behind the boat or object in question.  This means that reported distance is incorrect, even for a Flat Earth explanation.  So what you are saying, for at least a few of the videos, is that you are reporting false parameters, i.e. lying.  Also why is the video of the large sailboat a fake?  What evidence do you have for this, other than modest's assumption that it is sinking too fast.  Odd how they add in times showing that it took quite awhile for it to happen.  But I guess you want to watch the whole few hours long uncut video.
Nope, once again FE people shooting themselves in the face trying to wave their arms around and claim experiments without any type of experimental controls, or reporting truthful parameters.  I posted the same two videos saying hey, here ya go some videos without any experimental data that disprove your videos.  You just claim they are fakes without any reason.  Sure, thats believable.  Please, try harder.  Your videos disprove themselves, your integrity is shot, and you have the balls to claim we are dishonest.
The only reasons you guys even have for claiming that any of the rest of us lie is because it doesn't match with your fantasies.  I still await something that resembles an honest rebuttal of anything I have ever shown here.  BTW, I have made some mistakes too, but at least I admit when i mistyped or misphrased something, I have yet to make a blatantly false statement.
So, can we get someone honest to argue for the FE please, so far all I see are little whiny babies whose only recourse is to claim the opposition is lying, all while giving obvious false information.  Ohh the irony.

All my 18 videos show objects at a large distance that not sink one centimeter below your imaginary calculated horizon. Not one centimeter.

There are many many more on youtube. Go and find them yourself.

I would love to see your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

When does RE say an object should start to sink?

@Tom, you know that the Flat Earth Society doesn't deny that ships appear to sink as they move away?  It's such a well established and observed phenomenon that it's impossible to deny.

Instead Rowbotham tried to explain it away as being some kind of perspective trick:

On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

So you are not only at odds with round earthers, but denying flat earth doctrine as well.

I think sokarul showed a still for you to look at again.  I guess I will watch all of your BS when I get home today.
But from what I saw, there were quite a few that showed the horizon behind the object in question.  How am I to take anything you state as truthful when I keep seeing false statements from you.
I have seen you constantly claim that your opposition never does experiments.  When presented with some, you ignore it and continue to perpetuate the lie.  you refuse to address anything that shows your observations may be in question, or you jump on someone else's coat tails and claim fakery.  You sir, need to provide accurate data, and get it verified by a reputable source before being taken as anything other than another lying fool.  Right now you are not reputable at all.  Which is why I think you tried the, "I'm leaving" bit.  I am surprised you didn't just take up another personality alt and try to broach the subject again.  But I am starting to think, with your obvious lack of integrity, that you may in fact be an alt of tappet.

@Tom, you know that the Flat Earth Society doesn't deny that ships appear to sink as they move away?  It's such a well established and observed phenomenon that it's impossible to deny.

Instead Rowbotham tried to explain it away as being some kind of perspective trick:

Quote

On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

So you are not only at odds with round earthers, but denying flat earth doctrine as well.

Keep in mind that all the 18 videos are made with a super zoom camera. There are many more.

The bottom of objects at a large distance (15-80 km) at sea may disappear behind a bubbling sea line, but not much. You can still see (with a magnifying device) most part of the objects which don't disappear below a non-existing calculated horizon.

You can see also the bubbling sealine with a magnifying device.

See, two examples of objects far away:

a video from minute 1:00 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


a video and post #78 on page 4  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


Did you find ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 22, 2015, 08:10:07 AM

@Tom, you know that the Flat Earth Society doesn't deny that ships appear to sink as they move away?  It's such a well established and observed phenomenon that it's impossible to deny.

Instead Rowbotham tried to explain it away as being some kind of perspective trick:

Quote

On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

So you are not only at odds with round earthers, but denying flat earth doctrine as well.

Keep in mind that all the 18 videos are made with a super zoom camera. There are many more.

The bottom of objects at a large distance (15-80 km) at sea may disappear behind a bubbling sea line, but not much. You can still see (with a magnifying device) most part of the objects which don't disappear below a non-existing calculated horizon.

You can see also the bubbling sealine with a magnifying device.

See, two examples of objects far away:

a video from minute 1:00 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


a video and post #78 on page 4  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


Did you find ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

My favorite part is how you say there is no drop but then say there is a drop and bubbles are the cause.

All my 18 videos show objects at a large distance that not sink one centimeter below your imaginary calculated horizon. Not one centimeter.

There are many many more on youtube. Go and find them yourself.

I would love to see your ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

When does RE say an object should start to sink?
[/quote]

Prove it that your imaginary RE-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

Quote from: Tom Last on June 22, 2015, 09:08:25 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 22, 2015, 08:10:07 AM

@Tom, you know that the Flat Earth Society doesn't deny that ships appear to sink as they move away?  It's such a well established and observed phenomenon that it's impossible to deny.

Instead Rowbotham tried to explain it away as being some kind of perspective trick:

Quote

On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

So you are not only at odds with round earthers, but denying flat earth doctrine as well.

Keep in mind that all the 18 videos are made with a super zoom camera. There are many more.

The bottom of objects at a large distance (15-80 km) at sea may disappear behind a bubbling sea line, but not much. You can still see (with a magnifying device) most part of the objects which don't disappear below a non-existing calculated horizon.

You can see also the bubbling sealine with a magnifying device.

See, two examples of objects far away:

a video from minute 1:00 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


a video and post #78 on page 4  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


Did you find ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

My favorite part is how you say there is no drop but then say there is a drop and bubbles are the cause.

I don't know what the exact cause is. I'm describing what I see.

There is a small part of the bottom that disappears. The bottom of objects at a large distance (15-80 km) at sea may disappear behind a bubbling sea line, but not much. You can still see (with a magnifying device) most part of the objects which don't disappear below a non-existing calculated horizon.

Your video shows an example (see also post #78 on page 4)  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Did you find ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon?

You can't even handle two videos. The first two videos had a good zoom on them. Why don't you show the first one to be fake. Saying it's fake means nothing.

You can't even handle two videos. The first two videos had a good zoom on them. Why don't you show the first one to be fake. Saying it's fake means nothing.

Both videos are proof of a flat earth as well as all other 18 videos (see the 1st post of this thread and oin other posts).

a video from minute 1:00 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

a video and post #78 on page 4  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Now, Prove your imaginary RE-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

If you can't, then go and take your ball with you.

Sitting here bored at the moment, so figured why not, and watched the videos.
1 boat is in front of horizon, can't determine how much of island is hidden from view.
2 same as 1
3 building isn't very far away, can't even see horizon through trees
4 shot from very high elevation, boat nowhere near horizon
5 same as 4
6 looking from one hill to another
7 shows evidence of curvature, waterline isn't as hazy as trees and brush behind it.  They should be the same distance if the water surface is flat.
8 also same as 4, plus too much haze to see horizon in one of the shots
9 boat in front of horizon
10 one ship is right on horizon, shot from slightly elevated position, normal for RE.  However why doesn't the water surface continue past the ship and fade into haze?
11 same as 4
12 same as 4
13 same as 4
14 boat looks to be just beyond horizon and boat did 'sink' more than a few centimeters.  If Earth is flat, the boat was nearly completely submerged and managed to bob back to surface without slowing. 
15 shot from high elevation, as camera zooms out from domed structures, is that a building right on edge of water?  Is there more shoreline hidden below it?  Needs comparison shots from different elevations to be sure.
16 high elevations.  Last couple ships might be below horizon. 

Since you have not provided any videos of 'super zoom' that really demonstrate flatness as there were no alternate shots from different elevations or close up shots to compare, here are some "super zoom" pictures of ships, buildings, etc, partially obscured by the horizon, or 'sunk more than a few centimeters'.

Ship 2, 8x mag. 1m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

1st floor and embankment hidden

Amazingly, there are many buildings that are completely obscured by your video at the 1:00 mark of Toronto.  So you can see the tops of the tallest buildings there.  There is also some (a little) refraction going on over the water.


 

Quote from: tappet on June 21, 2015, 03:10:20 AM

In this video how much further would the ship need  to be before it sinks. Er, if it was out any further you would not even know it was there to film.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Funny thing is I see sinking ship easily, clear, big and close by with the naked eye regularly.

Has anybody on this forum except Tom seen sinking ship in real life.

I am sure that anyone who has ever been to sea in real life has seen "the sinking ship."

And  anyone who has ever been to sea in real life has seen "the sinking land."

Either in the Navy or as a tourist on a cruise ship. To these people it is such a common occurrence in real lifethat they really don't give it much thought.

And I have never seen anyone  who was able to "recover a sinking ship with a telescope" in real lifewhich has passed over the horizon. To these people the whole flat earth idea looks as ridiculous as their other fantasies.

Sitting here bored at the moment, so figured why not, and watched the videos.
1 boat is in front of horizon, can't determine how much of island is hidden from view.
2 same as 1
3 building isn't very far away, can't even see horizon through trees
4 shot from very high elevation, boat nowhere near horizon
5 same as 4
6 looking from one hill to another
7 shows evidence of curvature, waterline isn't as hazy as trees and brush behind it.  They should be the same distance if the water surface is flat.
8 also same as 4, plus too much haze to see horizon in one of the shots
9 boat in front of horizon
10 one ship is right on horizon, shot from slightly elevated position, normal for RE.  However why doesn't the water surface continue past the ship and fade into haze?
11 same as 4
12 same as 4
13 same as 4
14 boat looks to be just beyond horizon and boat did 'sink' more than a few centimeters.  If Earth is flat, the boat was nearly completely submerged and managed to bob back to surface without slowing. 
15 shot from high elevation, as camera zooms out from domed structures, is that a building right on edge of water?  Is there more shoreline hidden below it?  Needs comparison shots from different elevations to be sure.
16 high elevations.  Last couple ships might be below horizon. 

Since you have not provided any videos of 'super zoom' that really demonstrate flatness as there were no alternate shots from different elevations or close up shots to compare, here are some "super zoom" pictures of ships, buildings, etc, partially obscured by the horizon, or 'sunk more than a few centimeters'.

Ship 2, 8x mag. 1m alt.


Ship 2, 8x mag. 12m alt.


1st floor and embankment hidden

If you watch all videos, the objects are farther away than your illusionary RE-horizon. The Flat Earth horizon is much farther away.

Now, Prove that your imaginary Round Earth-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

Amazingly, there are many buildings that are completely obscured by your video at the 1:00 mark of Toronto.  So you can see the tops of the tallest buildings there.  There is also some (a little) refraction going on over the water.


 

According to the flat earth notion if you looked at these buildings through a telescope  you should "restore" or see the bottoms of the shortest buildings.

Amazingly, there are many buildings that are completely obscured by your video at the 1:00 mark of Toronto.  So you can see the tops of the tallest buildings there.  There is also some (a little) refraction going on over the water.
 

regarding video " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


If you watch the video at the beginning and at 1.03-1.10 (minute) you see a clue how high the cameraman stands! Not very high, agreed? So, we have to account for these, let's say, 2 meters.

The coordinates are given, The video is recorded 60 km away from the tower and the buildings.
So, the buildings should sink 280 meters below an imaginary horizon. See, http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

The CN Tower is 553 meters high. From this huge distance the tower and the buildings look small.
I see much more than half of the tower, probably more about 7/8 or more (if you look closely). You see it too. Let's say more or less 483 meters we can see.

see, http://www.canadawanderer.com/top-5-attractions-in-toronto/cn-tower-toronto-ilkerender/

How high are the buildings next to the tower? Most are lower than 200 meters. You can see that on the picture (comparing the height of the buildings with the height of the tower).

Why do we see them in your video?

We can see a very big part of the buildings.

More than half of the tower and the complete buildings should not be seen if the earth is round. Then, you would only see (part of) objects that are higher than 280 meters.

But, we see much more!

As explained earlier, the bottom of objects at sea at a large distance disappear because of the bubbling sealine-effect. It's an act of nature. Sorry, I didn't make it. It distorts our vision a bit. We can live with that.
Let's say we can't see about 1/8 of the tower, which is about 70 meters. So, we can see 210 meters of the tower that should not be seen on a round earth!

We see so much more 'building', it can only mean one thing: your video of the CN Tower and buildings is proof of a flat earth!



I showed you 18 videos with not one centimeter sinking objects below an imaginary horizon.
There are so many....

Now, Prove that your imaginary Round Earth-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 22, 2015, 10:02:48 AM

Amazingly, there are many buildings that are completely obscured by your video at the 1:00 mark of Toronto.  So you can see the tops of the tallest buildings there.  There is also some (a little) refraction going on over the water.


 

According to the flat earth notion if you looked at these buildings through a telescope  you should "restore" or see the bottoms of the shortest buildings.

see post 50 (above this one).

What is this "bubbling sea line" ? I can assure you from personal experience  the sea is not "bubbling" on the horizon on a clear day at sea when the sea is perfectly calm.

So lets deal with your lack of integrity then.  First, using Google maps to measure the distance from the space needle in Toronto to the Harbor walkway trail in St. Catherines, which is where this may have been taken from, using a spot near the middle of the pier there, which I see they were not really at for the final picture is only 48 km.  Not greater than 60 km.  Now take into account the refraction that occurs over the water due to temperature, the height of the camera above the water.  It's not at ground level, its more like 5 to 6 meters.  The CN tower is (the space needle looking building) is 553 meters high.  So even taking your obvious false parameters into account, we should be able to see half of the building.
Well, add in the correct parameters, account for some refraction, and you should see not quite 3/4 of the building. 
So once again, you are incorrect.  Your own video shows an obvious curvature of the Earth, unless it is now fake.
I am guessing you are going to say its fake.
Please say its fake.
Make me happy.

What is this "bubbling sea line" ? I can assure you from personal experience  the sea is not "bubbling" on the horizon on a clear day at sea when the sea is perfectly calm.

It does when you look at it with a magnifying device.

Nevertheless, the video is proof of not enough curvature. So, the earth is not round on this lake.

All the other 18 videos show no curvature whatsoever.

Please prove that an imaginary Round Earth-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

Nevertheless, the video is proof of not enough curvature. So, the earth is not round on this lake.

Sigh,   let's do it properly,   say the camera is 5 meters above lake level,   that means the camera horizon is   sqrt(5)*3.86 = 8.6 km,   we know from google earth the distance to the CN tower is 48 km,  so subtract the camera horizon and we get 40 km,   40 = 3.86 * sqrt (x)  so x= 107 meters.   So the bottom 107 meters of the CN tower should be obscured so long as there are no abnormal temperature gradients.

The CN tower is 533 meters high, so that's  533-107= 426,   = 80% of the cn tower should be visible.

You could get out a ruler and measure it to see how the theory compares,  but it looks about right to my eye.

So once again Tom proves the earth is round.

If you watch all videos,

I did, and I stated why they don't show proof of flat Earth.

Now, Prove that your imaginary Round Earth-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

I posted 3 pictures so far (I could find more, but I don't see the point) that show the bottom portions below the calculated horizon.  Whether video or pictures, they'll show the same thing, but without comparison shots, your videos prove nothing for FET.

Keep trying Tom, I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

Quote from: Tom Last on June 22, 2015, 10:10:40 AM

If you watch all videos,

I did, and I stated why they don't show proof of flat Earth.

Quote

Now, Prove that your imaginary Round Earth-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

I posted 3 pictures so far (I could find more, but I don't see the point) that show the bottom portions below the calculated horizon.  Whether video or pictures, they'll show the same thing, but without comparison shots, your videos prove nothing for FET.

Keep trying Tom, I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

The objects in all 18 videos are much farther away than the non-existing calculated Round-Earth Horizon.

Your images are not proof.

Now, Prove that your imaginary Round Earth-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 22, 2015, 08:10:07 AM

@Tom, you know that the Flat Earth Society doesn't deny that ships appear to sink as they move away?  It's such a well established and observed phenomenon that it's impossible to deny.

Instead Rowbotham tried to explain it away as being some kind of perspective trick:

Quote

On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

So you are not only at odds with round earthers, but denying flat earth doctrine as well.

Keep in mind that all the 18 videos are made with a super zoom camera. There are many more.

Tom, do you know how a debate works?  You are meant to respond to what the other person is saying, not just repeat the same thing over and over again.

Quote from: Tom Last on June 22, 2015, 09:08:25 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 22, 2015, 08:10:07 AM

@Tom, you know that the Flat Earth Society doesn't deny that ships appear to sink as they move away?  It's such a well established and observed phenomenon that it's impossible to deny.

Instead Rowbotham tried to explain it away as being some kind of perspective trick:

Quote

On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

So you are not only at odds with round earthers, but denying flat earth doctrine as well.

Keep in mind that all the 18 videos are made with a super zoom camera. There are many more.

Tom, do you know how a debate works?  You are meant to respond to what the other person is saying, not just repeat the same thing over and over again.

You guys are making statements about a non-existing imaginary Round-Earth horizon without any valid proof that it exists. I have to ask for proof over and over again as you are not listening.

Now, Prove that your imaginary Round Earth-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

So lets deal with your lack of integrity then.  First, using Google maps to measure the distance from the space needle in Toronto to the Harbor walkway trail in St. Catherines, which is where this may have been taken from, using a spot near the middle of the pier there, which I see they were not really at for the final picture is only 48 km.  Not greater than 60 km.  Now take into account the refraction that occurs over the water due to temperature, the height of the camera above the water.  It's not at ground level, its more like 5 to 6 meters.  The CN tower is (the space needle looking building) is 553 meters high.  So even taking your obvious false parameters into account, we should be able to see half of the building.
Well, add in the correct parameters, account for some refraction, and you should see not quite 3/4 of the building. 
So once again, you are incorrect.  Your own video shows an obvious curvature of the Earth, unless it is now fake.
I am guessing you are going to say its fake.
Please say its fake.
Make me happy.

 

Here are a few things that you could answer that would make me happy with your answers.:

1.How many times you have been to sea ?
2.How many times have you seen a ship pass over the horizon ?
3.How many times have you used a telescope to "recover a ship which has passed over the horizon" ?
4.Could you tell me why a crow's nest or a radar antenna is mounted on the highest point on the tallest mast on ship ? If the earth was flat would it make much difference as to how far you could see depended on how high you were ?
5.Have you ever seen a time when the horizon "faded away into the distance" instead of being clearly defined - on a clear, calm day....especially at sea ?

Quote from: Tom Last on June 22, 2015, 10:28:48 AM

Nevertheless, the video is proof of not enough curvature. So, the earth is not round on this lake.

Sigh,   let's do it properly,   say the camera is 5 meters above lake level,   that means the camera horizon is   sqrt(5)*3.86 = 8.6 km,   we know from google earth the distance to the CN tower is 48 km,  so subtract the camera horizon and we get 40 km,   40 = 3.86 * sqrt (x)  so x= 107 meters.   So the bottom 107 meters of the CN tower should be obscured so long as there are no abnormal temperature gradients.

The CN tower is 533 meters high, so that's  533-107= 426,   = 80% of the cn tower should be visible.

You could get out a ruler and measure it to see how the theory compares,  but it looks about right to my eye.

So once again Tom proves the earth is round.

And your presence and attitude prove the earth is flat.

And your presence and attitude prove the earth is flat.

So if I change my attitude the earth will change shape?

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 22, 2015, 10:27:25 AM

So lets deal with your lack of integrity then.  First, using Google maps to measure the distance from the space needle in Toronto to the Harbor walkway trail in St. Catherines, which is where this may have been taken from, using a spot near the middle of the pier there, which I see they were not really at for the final picture is only 48 km.  Not greater than 60 km.  Now take into account the refraction that occurs over the water due to temperature, the height of the camera above the water.  It's not at ground level, its more like 5 to 6 meters.  The CN tower is (the space needle looking building) is 553 meters high.  So even taking your obvious false parameters into account, we should be able to see half of the building.
Well, add in the correct parameters, account for some refraction, and you should see not quite 3/4 of the building. 
So once again, you are incorrect.  Your own video shows an obvious curvature of the Earth, unless it is now fake.
I am guessing you are going to say its fake.
Please say its fake.
Make me happy.

 

Here are a few things that you could answer that would make me happy with your answers.:

1.How many times you have been to sea ?
2.How many times have you seen a ship pass over the horizon ?
3.How many times have you used a telescope to "recover a ship which has passed over the horizon" ?
4.Could you tell me why a crow's nest or a radar antenna is mounted on the highest point on a tall mast on ship ? If the earth was flat would it make much difference as to how far you could see depended on how high you were ?
5.Have you ever seen a time when the horizon "faded away into the distance" instead of being clearly defined - on a clear, calm day....especially at sea

Many times. It's not relevant.

Please stay on topic.

It boils down to the following:

I showed you 18 videos showing many objects farther away than a calculated illusionary RE-horizon.
The objects did not disappear below a non-existing RE-horizon. Not one centimeter.

You guys are refuting the 18 videos by making claims about an imaginary RE-horizon.
You are making statements and claims about a non-existing imaginary Round-Earth horizon without any valid proof that it exists. I have to ask for proof over and over again as you are not listening.

I cannot prove that something does not exist. It's up to you guys to prove that a RE-horizon exists!

Again, please prove that your imaginary Round Earth-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera testing people that display a curvature of the earth by showing the top of ships (not seeing the bottom half) or buildings (far) below the calculated horizon.

There is plenty of proof. Just look it up. Unless you are one those people that believe  all the scientists in the world are liars. That would include sailors, too. And just about every one else who works in the real world.

Now, Prove that your imaginary Round Earth-horizon exists by showing ten videos from super zoom camera

So just what is the difference between a video taken with a high-powered zoom, and a picture taken with a high powered zoom, that invalidates one.

I showed you 18 videos showing many objects farther away than a calculated illusionary RE-horizon.

No, most of the objects were in front of the horizon, and in some of the videos no horizon was even visible, just a hillside or trees.

The objects did not disappear below a non-existing RE-horizon. Not one centimeter.

One video did show that actually.