That is a question which should best be asked of someone who is specialized in the field of photographic equipment.
No, it isn't.
It is a question for someone like you who is outright rejecting reality.
If you want to claim the camera is magically lowering Toronto or raises up the water, the burden is on you to show that.
Your baseless assertions are worthless.
Until you justify this insane claim of yours this will remain solid evidence of a RE.
Again, the best you are able to do is claim these photos are worthless and cannot be used as evidence of the shape of Earth.
The second best is saying that they are proof of a RE, but the size of Earth is much larger than claimed.
Or you can take the more rational option of the multitude of unknown variables meaning it is just evidence of a RE and cannot be used to determine the size.
I am asking for the mechanism. What causes their emission?
The subquarks are being assembled by the Black Sun, using the streams of bosons coming from Jupiter.
How, you will ask.
Here is the proof:
You are aware those 2 are completely unconnected?
If I am asking how, why try and provide proof?
But now you are talking about loads of whorls. I might come back to them later.
Instead, I will ask how are these bosons coming from Jupiter?
So, you are not up to the job of explaining the MISSING 80 METERS.
Again, that is entirely your job. You need to justify these missing 80 m. You are yet to do so.
The standard formula based upon your alleged 50 km distance and your alleged 1.5 m height gives 163 m hidden based purely upon geometry and 138 m hidden based upon standard refraction.
No. Not necessarily the magical removal of 25 meters by refraction, but this, the facts mentioned by your tag team partner:
Metabunk curve calculator estimates that 138 meters should be hidden.
"At its highest point, the CN Tower is 553.33 metres tall" and, by scaling that photo, about 26% is hidden so that would make about 147 metres hidden.
Notice how he is saying 147 m is hidden in the photo? Notice how he isn't saying that refraction makes 147 m hidden?
Notice how this shows your claim was an outright lie?
Notice how you are completely unable to back up your claims?
You have a track record, well established here, of lying with each and every message.
You can do nothing else but lie.
I see you are projecting again.
Go ahead and invent the photographic equipment which would permit the viewing of all of the details.
Again, better photographic equipment wont help.
If you wish to claim such garbage, PROVE IT!
Go get the better equipment that will permit taking a photo of the shore of Toronto, with nothing hidden from the beach 1.5 m above the water level, 50 km above the ground.
You are yet to prove any is missing.
[SAME PATHETIC BS SPAM]
Again repeating the same spam wont help you.
You need to actually justify it.
This means you need to show the height of the observer is the height you claim.
You need to show the distance is what you claim.
You need to show just how much is actually hidden, including justifying the height of the dome (again, I have provided a source which shows that it is higher than you claim).
And most importantly, YOU NEED TO FACTOR IN REFRACTION SHOWING THE LIMITS!
So far all you have done is repeat the same set of assertions and repeatedly ignore refraction to pretend there is some missing curvature.
You have the video, a continuous filming from the Toronto skyline to the boots on the ground.
Which provides no clear indication of just what the height is.
Why assume it is 1.5 m?
Low quality cameras will not magically cut out the middle.
For long distances, THEY ALWAYS DO.
Pure garbage.
For long distances, the curvature of Earth gets in the way.
If it was a low quality camera you should be able to do it without using long distances, or have the missing chunk not be on the horizon.
The fact that it is always were the horizon is, where objects beyond the horizon have the lower section removed clearly indicates it is the curvature of Earth getting in the way, not a low quality camera magically cutting out a section.
Learn some physics.
Good advice.
Go learn some physics, such as the physics of how cameras work.
If you do, you realise your claim that they magically cut out the middle of a photo is pure nonsense.
All they do is lower the resolution.
I was able to retrieve the original page, even though it was discontinued.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080117192830/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html
With none of the images you claim.
But fortunately, the width of the images is preserved.
Lets see what it has vs what you has.
First what it has:
Now what you have:
Now, a huge surprise for the RE.
Here is the original caption for the zoom + image:
Notice how they are nothing alike?
So thanks for providing proof that you are lying yet again.
Original threads:
The second one even contains the original photograph.
The RE called Ms. Lecky-Hepburn and found that the altitude was 170 meters. I had to accept that figure.
Even in that thread you still just appeal to REers calling her years ago.
So still no justification at all.
VERTICAL temperature gradient, not horizontal.
Yes, that is what I said.
Don't you understand? The temperature over a small portion of a distance at the same latitude/longitude will be similar, especially over a lake, at the observer and on the other shoreline.
So you don't understand what vertical means?
You are discussing a horizontal gradient.
This alone proves the Earth is flat:
You left out the "n't" part.
That photo alone proves the Earth
isn't flat.
That is because it is missing the lower portion of Toronto and the island in front of it is completely missing.
The islands in front of the shoreline clearly visible, we can see the lights.
Repeating the same lie wont help you.
The island is clearly not visible.
We can see the lights of the buildings in front of the tower.
We can't see the island with its shore and trees.
The visual obstacle is 5 meters.
Now, even if we ascend to 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge) and you get 1 centimeter for the visual obstalce, it still won't help you.
Are you completely insane?
You are trying to claim that you can tell that not a single cm is hidden from the photo?
Now cut out all the BS and tell us why the lower portion of Toronto is hidden in so many of these photos, where clearly resolution is not the issue.
A 'black hole' is not 'black' either but that's what we call them. They aren't even 'holes'
No, a black hole is most certainly black. It is the blackest thing we have. It is even blacker than a perfect black body.
The accretion disk around it isn't black, but the hole is.