There are plenty of videos of people seeing further than Aristotle's ancient sinking ship proof should allow. Inconsistent proofs invalidate the matter. Find real evidence rather than spamming the same old same old.
No, "Inconsistent" evidence does not necessarily "invalidate the matter" when there are known effects, refraction etc, in this case that can cause those variations.
As you have not shown the special effects which cause illusions to be in your favor, this explanation of illusions can also apply to your video. Hence the invalidity of the matter.
What "you have not shown the special effects which cause illusions to be in your favor"?
Almost all cases of refraction show less hidden than the simple geometric model with its 8"/(mile squared) "curvature" would predict.
This is simply because of the expected decrease in refractivity of the atmosphere with altitude.
On top of the, for quite obvious practical reasons, so many such photos are taken close to water or even ice surfaces and this can readily cause extra refraction.
Take this case in point.
The video is taken from a point about 10 m above MSL so the camera would be about 11.5 m above MSL
The nearer ship (the EPIC) is 16.7 km from the camera and is entirely visible. If we use one of the curve calculators we find that:
- For no refraction: Horizon distance = 12.11 km and hidden height = 1.66 m.
- For "standard" refraction: Horizon distance = 13.07 km and hidden height = 0.88 m.
The farther ship (the CONTI LYON) was 26.0 km from the camera and was largely hidden. The horizon distance and hidden heights are:
- For no refraction: Horizon distance = 12.11 km and hidden height = 15.15 m.
- For "standard" refraction: Horizon distance = 13.07 km and hidden height = 11.24 m.
So any "the special effects which cause illusions to be in your favor" are not in "our favour" but there is still a large amount of the far ship hidden.
If the ocean were flat there could not be that well-defined horizon past the nearer ship but hiding much of the farther ship.
On a flat earth, there would have to be more water showing behind that farther ship.
That "Floating water behind the 'curve'?" was the
Faded Mike's way of questioning the
National Geographic's video in the OP.
Faded Mike had a valid question and that video showed a small rubber dinghy in waves that made the result rather questionable.
On the other hand, the EPIC and CONTI LYON video has much greater distances, two large ships and insignificant swell and waves.
<< Completely changed after further consideration. >>