Floating water behind the curve?

  • 44 Replies
  • 1746 Views
*

faded mike

  • 857
  • new world
Floating water behind the curve?
« on: August 09, 2019, 09:44:30 PM »


I posted this vid a while back, it's a debunk vid reportedly showing the curvature, but it looks like theirs water still, behind the boat! womp womp.
The view is at 7:45 in the vid.
How could national geographic have missed this? And do they study the map more than cartographers?

edit: -who studies the map more was mostly rhetorical, different topic.
         -not even sure what the point of this video is
« Last Edit: August 10, 2019, 12:00:05 PM by faded mike »
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2019, 01:16:42 AM »


I posted this vid a while back, it's a debunk vid reportedly showing the curvature, but it looks like theirs water still, behind the boat! womp womp.
The view is at 7:45 in the vid.
How could national geographic have missed this? And do they study the map more than cartographers?
This is a screenshot and it looks from that as though the might be some water visible past the boat;

It looks as though the waves are too high to learn much but bigger boats further away are more convincing but a bit harder to "arrange on demand".
But here's one:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is 16.7 km from the camera, the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind "something".
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

The maker of the video those screenshots came from wrote:
Quote from: MCtheEmcee1

MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018

Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.
There is some water beyond the nearer ship so it was not quite as far away as the horizon but the farther ship is clearly past the visible horizon.


*

faded mike

  • 857
  • new world
Re: Floating water behind the curve
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2019, 01:35:39 AM »
What a strange picture.. with the slanted water horizon, must be a swell or a mirage bulging...?
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2019, 02:14:25 AM »
What a strange picture.. with the slanted water horizon, must be a swell or a mirage bulging...?
There's no evidence any large swell nor of any mirage.
Why do you day there's a slanted horizon?

Re: Floating water behind the curve
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2019, 02:29:46 AM »
What a strange picture.. with the slanted water horizon, must be a swell or a mirage bulging...?
Or, that the camera isn't being held perfectly level.

*

faded mike

  • 857
  • new world
Re: Floating water behind the curve
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2019, 11:58:20 AM »
No i think the water definitely looks slanted in that one; just look at the boats, they look flat and level.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2019, 02:24:14 PM »
No i think the water definitely looks slanted in that one; just look at the boats, they look flat and level.
Take a look at the video full screen. There's no slant or significant swell.
But whatever the case, the nearer ship, 16.7 km away, is all quite visible but the farther ship, 26.0 km, has probably 10 m hidden by "something".

Here are some more ships:
Flat Earth or Globe - Time-lapse of a ship departing Perth Australia
by Wolfie6020 - best from 0:50
     
Flat Earth - Ships going over the Horizon in Perth Australia - P900
by Wolfie6020 - best from 2:08

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2019, 05:14:47 AM »
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.

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2019, 05:35:23 AM »
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.

But in this case

But the "disappearing acts" that trump them all are the sun setting and the moon setting. Explain those away without unsupported hypotheses if you can.

And then there are these two ships:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is 16.7 km from the camera, the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind "something".
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

The maker of the video those screenshots came from wrote:
Quote from: MCtheEmcee1

MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018

Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.

It's a bit hard to explain that one away because in the same video the nearer ship was not quite as far away as the horizon and quite visible but the farther ship is clearly past the visible horizon and only the superstructure and containers are visible.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2019, 05:40:20 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 05:42:55 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2019, 05:46:18 AM »
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. >>
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 02:24:34 PM by rabinoz »

*

Macarios

  • 1682
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2019, 07:30:25 AM »
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.

From Valparaiso you can see Aconcagua, 160 km away.
But that's not inconsistent.
You can not see the lower part of it. :)

Standard refraction bends light slightly downwards, around the curve,
making you see farther than what pure geometry would allow.
But those effects are very well known and explained.

Near water the effect is stronger.
That's why Rowbotham could see the Bedford water as flat.
But when Wallace moved the viewing line out of the effect he proved the bulge.

That is also well known.

Didn't see a single case where "finding inconsistencies" in GE helped establish any "consistency" in FE model.
I don't believe that any theory can successfully lay its foundation on nitpicking. :)

On the other hand, Geodesy has shown the shape of this planet long time ago and shows it again and again day after day.
And not just Geodesy.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 12:42:12 PM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2019, 12:39:16 PM »
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.

Always fun to hear flat earthers dismissing refraction.

No refraction = no lenses, no cameras, no P900s, no YouTube, no modern flat eartherism.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2399
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2019, 12:43:05 PM »
Link 1

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.

Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2019, 02:06:25 PM »
There are plenty of videos of people seeing further than Aristotle's ancient sinking ship proof should allow.
You mean further than ignoring refraction would allow.

Do you have a single example of people being able to see further than the curvature of Earth, along with refraction would allow?

If not, the matter remains very much sound.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2019, 04:56:00 PM »
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.

Interesting speculations on illusions. However and unfortunately, the flaw is that since you have not provided proof of causation, your explanation is easily rebutted with "No, your videos are illusions."

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2019, 05:02:13 PM »
Interesting speculations on illusions. However and unfortunately, the flaw is that since you have not provided proof of causation, your explanation is easily rebutted with "No, your videos are illusions."
Since you've presented no alternate explanations for this commonly observed occurrence I not bother considering you claims.

Unless you have more to offer we're done.

Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2019, 09:33:31 AM »
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.
there really aren't.  Once you do the actual calculations and look at the actual distances and heights, I have never seen a single video where something could be seen past the curve without a perfectly legitimate heliocentric explanation.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2019, 10:17:10 PM »
Interesting speculations on illusions. However and unfortunately, the flaw is that since you have not provided proof of causation, your explanation is easily rebutted with "No, your videos are illusions."

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2019, 12:59:44 AM »
Interesting speculations on illusions. However and unfortunately, the flaw is that since you have not provided proof of causation, your explanation is easily rebutted with "No, your videos are illusions."
Please give a better explanation for ships etc being hidden.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2019, 01:04:57 AM »
Interesting speculations on illusions. However and unfortunately, the flaw is that since you have not provided proof of causation, your explanation is easily rebutted with "No, your videos are illusions."
Please give a better explanation for ships etc being hidden.

Addressed above.

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2019, 03:38:24 AM »
Interesting speculations on illusions. However and unfortunately, the flaw is that since you have not provided proof of causation, your explanation is easily rebutted with "No, your videos are illusions."
Please give a better explanation for ships etc being hidden.

Addressed above.
In other words you have no reasonable explanation.

The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce,  Cottesloe Western Australia.

Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft
     
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
The screenshots are from this video:

Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.

  • If the ocean is flat, why is far more visible from 100 ft above sea-level than when 6 ft above sea-level.
    It does look as though a "bulge of water" is between the camera and Rottnest Island.

  • The focal centre of the lamp on the lighthouse is also 100 ft above sea-level so if the earth were flat that lamp would be at eye-level.
    On the flat earth the we are told that "however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level."
    But  in this case the horizon clearly does not "rise eye level".

    So, why doesn’t the horizon rise to eye-level as it should if the ocean were flat?

Do you have any any answers to these questions?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2019, 07:45:15 AM »
We have already spoken about this and you refuse the provide proof of causation. You have failed to show which observations are and are not illusions.

*

Yes

  • 76
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2019, 08:28:40 AM »
Tom Bishop is actually believes in round earth, and everything he types defends round earth.  However, what we read of his posts are an illusion.  We can't prove that his posts aren't illusions.

You can't prove to me that Tom Bishop is a flat earther.  After all, you fail to show which of his words are real and which are fake.  Any remarks about Tom Bishop being a flat earther are just empty speculations.
Me, a Flat Earther, on a Flat Earth Forum, a Troll? Hahahaha

Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2019, 08:38:18 AM »
Tom Bishop is actually believes in round earth, and everything he types defends round earth.  However, what we read of his posts are an illusion.  We can't prove that his posts aren't illusions.

You can't prove to me that Tom Bishop is a flat earther.  After all, you fail to show which of his words are real and which are fake.  Any remarks about Tom Bishop being a flat earther are just empty speculations.

Even photo is an illusion. That photo shows us a man in a suit and tie, giving an illusion of intelligence.

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2019, 04:09:51 PM »
We have already spoken about this and you refuse the provide proof of causation. You have failed to show which observations are and are not illusions.
The simple explanation is that the ocean is curved and that explains the near sharp horizon, objects hidden behind the horizon and the horizon failing to rise to "eye-level" (or the local horizontal at the viewing position),

You, however, have failed to present any alternative explanations and continually evade giving such answers - why?

The earth has been accepted as near-spherical for around 2300 years and the findings in measurement (geodesy), astronomy and physics all support that shape.

Your flat earth hypothesis only started in the mid-1800s so you are the "John-come-lately" and the onus is on YOU to prove your case at the very least with:
  • Better explanations for simple observations like the sun and moon rising and setting and objects hidden by "something".

  • A better and more accurate map of the surface of the earth with better measurements.

  • A better explanation for the shapes of constellations appearing exactly the same no matter where they are observed from on earth except for slight distortion near the horizon.
And that is just a few the YOU have to present better explanations for.

And there is a massive "Elephant in the room" that I'll raise later.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2019, 07:01:10 PM »
We have already spoken about this and you refuse the provide proof of causation. You have failed to show which observations are and are not illusions.
The simple explanation is that the ocean is curved and that explains the near sharp horizon, objects hidden behind the horizon and the horizon failing to rise to "eye-level" (or the local horizontal at the viewing position),

"The simplest explanation" is your own opinion on what is "simplist" and has no bearing on truth.

Again, you utterly fail to show us which observations are illusions and which are not.

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2019, 08:33:30 PM »
We have already spoken about this and you refuse the provide proof of causation. You have failed to show which observations are and are not illusions.
The simple explanation is that the ocean is curved and that explains the near sharp horizon, objects hidden behind the horizon and the horizon failing to rise to "eye-level" (or the local horizontal at the viewing position),

"The simplest explanation" is your own opinion on what is "simplist" and has no bearing on truth.
So what is your simplest explanation of the hidden island and part hidden lighthouse from 6' above sea-level but not from 100' in:
Re: Floating water behind the curve? « Reply #21 on: August 15, 2019, 08:38:24 PM ».

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Again, you utterly fail to show us which observations are illusions and which are not.
Why should I? I don't believe that I claimed that any were "illusions".
What observations have I suggested that observations might be "illusions"?
Observations caused by refraction, looming and mirages are not illusions. They are real observations caused by known physical phenomena.

There seems little doubt that most observations fit quite well with what would be expected on the Globe and you don't even attempt to show otherwise.

In "his" thread, Plat Terra posted this video with the horizon showing severe heat haze and obvious signs of a mirage:
Rogers Centre from 6ft above Lake Ontario 30.84 miles away. Alleged curvature should be 516.85 feet of drop. Rogers Centre should not have even been visible!

But look at the horizon in Plat Terra's video:

See around 1:13 in the video.

Then there are other videos showing a clean horizon with no sign of excess refraction of mirages as in:
The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce,  Cottesloe Western Australia.

Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft
     
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
The screenshots are from this video:

Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.
Not only is the horizon clean and sharp but the island and lighthouse is shown from two known elevations allowing an easy comparison.

Can't you even appreciate the difference?

But you are the one claiming "illusions". I did not claim that any of those were "illusions". They are all "real observations" with "real explanations".

I gave my explanations and deductions what are yours?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17189
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2019, 09:11:57 PM »
You are speculating on an illusion for one set of observations, and claim that another set of observations are not illusions. I am asking you to prove your claim. How do you know what is and is not an illusion?

*

rabinoz

  • 22127
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Floating water behind the curve?
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2019, 09:41:01 PM »
You are speculating on an illusion for one set of observations, and claim that another set of observations are not illusions. I am asking you to prove your claim. How do you know what is and is not an illusion?
I claimed none were illusions information can be gained from all. But it seems you have no answers.

Why is the Bathurst Lighthouse and all of Rottnest Island visible from 100' above sea level but part of the lighthouse and all the island except for the tall trees is hidden by water from 6' above sea level?

Your answers please.