Conspiracy about the flat earth conspiracy - Thread bans in OP

But the link you provided make no such claim at all. It's a blog about a guy who takes long distance photography, but isn't a flat earther. He doesn't find it strange that he's able to see something that you claim should be behind the curve. You are not able to explain this contradiction, so you just ignore it and continue to misrepresent the link.

The most likely explanation is that you are using the calculators incorrectly, or are pretending to to avoid the uncomfortable point you've fallen into.

As for explaining, you have abandoned several points where you were unable to explain why certain photos were showing things disappearing over the horizon.

You've also yet to actually explain your beliefs in any detail.

Again perfect demonstration of the inherent hypocrisy in conspiracy theories.

To many flat earthers, those authors are actually part of a conspiracy, as there's obviously no aliens, as there is no such thing as space.

It’s a distance of 252km, taken from up a mountain. The fact it’s so high makes the range so far.

From a higher vantage point and a higher target. You can see further. I linked to a calculator on the last page that validated the distance of a photo that 252km. It’s not even noteworthy.

IR light still refracts like visible light. But it’s not obscured by haze, that’s true. Which means if the Earth well flat, you could photograph New York from Galway harbour. Well done, you just complete disproved the flat Earth delusion.

There are a lot of variables that affect how light travels. Such as how fast it goes (it's not a constant as people often mistakenly believe). As such those calculators are simplified by making some assumptions. Luckily, the calculators list those assumptions.

This app calculates how much a distant object is obscured by the earth's curvature, and makes the following assumptions:

Both of those assumptions are incorrect. I'm pointing out the first as incorrect to highlight the simplistic nature. Only the second one is relevant here to how far we can see. Obviously everyone knows that light does not always travel in straight lines, light bends as it passes through mediums of different densities. And as all three calculators has the sae result, we know they made the same assumptions.

The calculator you posted even confirm that in coastal conditions, air patterns can cause refraction. This would mean the horizon we see is further around the curvature. Here is a calculator that considers refration;

Calculator: ( https://www.metabunk.org/curve/?d=252&h=2785&r=6371&u=m&a=n&fd=60&fp=3264 )

Geometric results (no refraction): Hidden= 317.45 meters

With the refraction approximation Refracted Hidden= 177.49 meters. And that's at a temperature of 72 degrees. Lower temperature will refract more. You'd need to know that to get accurate details, as the note below states;

Note: Not accurate for observations over water very close to the horizon (unless the temperature and vertical temperature gradient are accurate). But that's all moot, you proved your self wrong when you brought up IR photos, were are all the photos across vast oceans. Come on man, is this really the best you can do. Its not even difficult to prove this nonsense wrong. You were better off when you were misquoting Neil Degrasse Tyson. Embarrassing

More assertions that don't actually make any sense.

You claim that there's is no camera "powerful enough". This statement does not have any actual meaning. You don't define what you mean by power.

This is also a new excuse by yourself. Your fourth in your attempts to explain the flaws in your theory, completely different from your previous ones, unmentioned before. Again, it seems more like something you've made up on the fly because you're struggling and getting more desperate.

You then return to your silly notion of "rough seas" and giant invisible waves.

You don't understand the Father Ted meme at all it seems.

It's also very funny that you're accusing people of not understanding science given your previous claims about how rockets cannot work in space.

You're simply announcing that you're engaging in your tactics of ignoring issues you can't address rather than doing it without comment.

Your claim that there is no camera powerful enough is still not defined or substantiated and it is already debunked by the video I posted. The only ignorance of photography being displayed is your own.

But notice how the claim that that photo proves the earth is flat. It's only just been implied so that it can be backtracked later if it's convenient.

Markus hasn't actually directly stated his beliefs.

I also imagine that the pictures I pointed out of Saturn and Jupiter would be dismissed as fake because they were also enhanced by photoshop.

There's no consistency whatsoever in conspiracy theories. Rules only apply to the official story and real evidence while any evidence that is believed to support the conspiracy theory is completely above those rules when it suits.

Some Flat Earthers did this as part of a documentary and ended up proving the curve. Unfortunately, they were not convinced and started to justify and excuse things after the fact to preserve their believe. Most Flat Earthers aren't willing to do similar experiments (never mind spend a small amount of money and effort to produce definite proof) because they aren't actually willing to put their beliefs to any test.

Irrefutable... because if it could be refuted, it would have been, simply execute the experiments noted on this thread. And yet flat earthers have not done so, because that would burst the fantasy bubble. The scientific understanding of flat earthers is about 500 years out of date, at least.

The usual heads-up. "It's a fish-eye lens", "It's fake", "There's cuts", "It's CGI", "There's atmospheric distortion" all the types of responses you will receive from a flat-earth believer to that video.

There's no discrepancies in the curvature calculators I've come across.

The photos show objects like turbines and ships below the horizon due to curvature. Like the below

There's video of ships disappearing over the horizon, e.g. the below

At longer distances curvature kicks in, it's as simple as that. At e.g. 20km out, the curvature is around 31 meters. So if you are looking at an object 20 km out, it's missing around 31 meters due to the curve. It's not linear either, so at 30 km it's around 70 meters.

Crude diagram below (not to scale)

As predicted the backtracking begins.

You still are being evasive and vague about your beliefs.

You are now engaging in some very immature tactics of misspelling a famous scientists name as an insult for some reason. Not sure why you are doing that or why you think that helps your case.

You are also repeating your fishornst misrepresentation of the photographers site. This has already being addressed and debunked.

The pictures you are claiming show mountains beyond the curve are not claimed to be beyond the curve. The person who created those images does not claim that and is not a flat earther. You are lying about what the images are because you are desperate for points.

But oddly not desperate enough to actually get the evidence you've been told how to get easily.

That telephoto lens had a focal length of 500mm. A consumer telescope has a lens of up to 3,000mm. The largest lens have a length of 50m-100m.

Oh, and what terrain would you see at sea, this is pathetic. Next...

Why would the angular dimension decrease by a factor of 10 when you double the distance. It's a linear triangle. One of us has no grasp of geometry, and as I've repeatedly proven, its not me.

Atlantic waves rarely get above 20m, and never above 40m. Once you are above that height, they could not obscure your horizonal view. From any decent height you are looking down on the new york coast. Combine a large telescopic zoom, say 100-200x and New York is no smaller than that photo of Notre Dame de la Garde. Next...

We already cover Degrasse Tyson https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599086/#Comment_120599086

I explain why you were wrong. Next...

You are not disputing the shape of the earth? Well clearly you were, but not surprised you since you've been embarrassed at every point. You also let it slip a few times. Like fellow flat earther Lex Luthor also messed up repeatedly.

So if you concede that its curved, they why are you trying to explain that the curve doesn't obscure object at distance? That would happen for any curve radius, al be it as different distances.

And I already explained the discrepancy in the curve calculator. 12kn of refraction. (You've also conceded refraction exists).

Indeed, that one not "not to scale" at all (which I pointed out). Am too lazy to do one myself and took the first one on google to demonstrate the basic principle.

Some flat-earth believers accidentally proving that water bends.