So are the steadily rising (then subtly lowering) of the 19 points he places at the top of the towers purposeful obfuscation of the issue?
Who says they are rising then lowering?
Until they become too difficult to resolve, they follow the same points in the tower, unless you are going to complain that they aren't pixel perfect.
Regardless, at this point in time, I no longer care...
Of course you don't; you have been shown to be wrong and have no justification for any of your claims.
Caring would require you to admit that.
Then take that up with NAZA:
...I placed a reference line (red) to show what the line of perspective would be if bridge was flat.
A line of perspective on a flat surface = LEVEL!!!
No, =FLAT!!!
Do you understand the difference between flat and level?
You can have objects on a hill with a smooth gradient and draw a line of perspective.
You can have objects which decrease in height in a linear manner and a draw a line of perspective.
That does not require it to be level, just straight or flat.
It is a straight line.
The towers don't need to rise up above you.
From the perspective of the camera, the line is pointing downwards and the towers go downwards. Not much at first, but significantly more near the end.
Google is your friend for the numbers.
So you have no basis and are just making up the numbers?
10 feet is the claim made by NAZA for the height of the observer in the photos.
Yes, that is one number out of the 3 you have.
Science has never made such a statement regarding air density or clarity
Yes it has, quite frequently.
For example, the numerous results you can easily find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Altitudehttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_195.htmlhttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.htmlhttps://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosmet.htmlIt is a smooth gradient, not a magic step.
This is what you would expect based upon gravity, where the air pressure increases closer to the surface of Earth as it is being compressed by the air above.
What science has never claimed is that there is magic step in the density of air.
No, the picture does NOT show curvature.
Yes it does. You are yet to provide an alternative.
It shows the lengths disingenuous RE-tards will go to in order to present a case.
Nope. But it does show the lengths you will go in order to pretend there is no case, making up strawman after strawman, baselessly asserting and then refusing to back it up and so on.
1) He places a line he purports to be level across the waist line of the towers, then plots 19 dots at the shoulder points of the towers, supposedly increasing in curvature over the waist line of the towers!!!
No he didn't.
He placed a line connecting the first and last tower.
This would only be level if Earth was flat.
If Earth is round it would only be level at one point, around the middle of the line.
Before that point (i.e. closer to the camera) it would be pointing downwards. After that point it would be pointing upwards.
Stop lying about what the line is.
2) Anyone with a shrimp (hats off to the bayou creator of this fantasy image and explanation) for a brain knows towers are not manufactured this way and every other photo of these towers in a line distinctly shows that construction of the towers is identical as far as height, shape, and dimensions.
Which just goes to show the curve observed in the photo is not due to the construction of the towers, that the tops of the towers should follow Earth and thus the curve is the curve of Earth.
There is no way a person standing at a ten foot observing level on the Earth, facing any direction (even if it is a sphere), will experience an eight feet wall of "curved water" prior to the horizon line, or other construction raised an additional eight feet IN HIS LINE OF SIGHT DUE TO A SPHERICAL EARTH.
To the horizon, you are correct.
I also wouldn't call it a wall of water.
The horizon is a smooth curve of water (in this case) following the curvature of Earth.
You can easily see it. The exact "height" will depend upon how you are trying to measure the height.
The line of sight to the horizon, according to RE-TARD MATH, is dropping from OBSERVATION POINT to horizon...
No, according to rational people math.
Is is the retards (that are FEers) that don't seem to understand.
You are measuring the "height" in completely insane ways.
The curvature of Earth obstructs the vision of objects beyond the horizon starting from the bottom up.
But the horizon is below you. It doesn't magically rise up, and you are the only one pretending it does.
Would you have referred him to draw a line connecting the first few towers in a straight line to show a clear drop instead?
Is this one better for you:
The magenta line is still not perfectly level. In fact it points slightly downwards. I used the first three towers to get the line.
Yet you can clearly see the towers curve away from this line, showing they get lower and lower, as you would expect on a round Earth.
The red line IS NOT LEVEL!!! (at least not all the way alone)
It would be if Earth was flat, but that would also mean all the red dots would be on that line.
So, these photos are due to lense distortion.
No they aren't.
You have been shown that lens distortion cannot result in this image due to the numerous straight lines in the image.
If you wish to disagree you will need to provide evidence.