Just here to destroy the notion of ships over the horizon having anything to do with earth curve. It's a done deal
Joined January 2021
- Tweets10.7K
- Following342
- Followers1K
- Likes5.3K
Pinned Tweet
The horizon always APPEARS to rise with the observer.
This is the argument that should be used. Arguing that the horizon literally “rises to eye level” is something people can argue against.
A slight dip in the horizon is nothing to stress about—there should be one. For example, if you’re 35,000 feet above the surface, well, no shit: when you pull out a precise measuring device, it may show that perfectly level is just above the apparent horizon.
You’re 35,000 feet up.
That device can detect differences your eyes cannot.
Then add the effects of looking through hundreds of miles of atmosphere and the refraction involved, and the measured dip can change.
Who cares?
Turn the argument into this:
THE HORIZON ALWAYS APPEARS TO RISE WITH THE OBSERVER.
Here we see the horizon appearing to be above the base of a window that is thousands of feet in the air. Any time you see the horizon appearing above an object—no matter what that object is—you have another example of this apparent rise.
There is endless observational evidence of that appearance.
Remember:
THE HORIZON ALWAYS APPEARS TO RISE WITH THE OBSERVER.
Don’t forget it.
POST 1 – Cherry-Picked Evidence
These are the three screenshots originally presented by Skippy the Bush Kangaroo as evidence supposedly destroying my position.
Notice the carefully selected altitudes: 69,177 ft, 158,206 ft and 249,250 ft.
The screenshots give the impression that the horizon progressively drops lower in the window as altitude increases.
But there's a serious problem with this presentation.
These are selectively chosen frames, not a continuous demonstration.
After examining the actual video, we can see that the horizon's position in the window varies throughout the flight. These three screenshots leave out important context.
The camera may be fixed inside the capsule, but that doesn't mean the capsule maintains a fixed orientation relative to the horizon.
Selecting three frames that support your argument while ignoring others that complicate it is cherry-picking evidence.
Now let's examine what the rest of the video actually shows.
POST 5 – The Horizon Appears to Rise With the Observer
Now look at this sequence from approximately 340,125 to 343,196 feet.
As Emily raises her arm and the camera she's holding, we also see the horizon appearing to rise in the image.
Notice that her arm gives us an approximate indication of the camera's position, and the horizon remains remarkably high in the frame, even at over 340,000 feet.
Once again, this is consistent with my position that the horizon appears to rise with the observer.
We also need to acknowledge that we don't know the precise orientation of the camera relative to the capsule, or the capsule's orientation relative to the horizontal. Therefore, these images cannot establish the actual angular depression of the horizon, let alone demonstrate the approximately 10-degree drop being claimed.
But the observation is interesting: as her camera rises, the horizon also appears to rise.
This is further visual evidence consistent with the horizon appearing to rise with the observer, rather than remaining at a fixed position within the camera's frame.
POST 6 – Final Conclusion: What the Full Video Actually Shows
Now we come to the final sequence, as the Blue Origin capsule descends back towards Earth.
And what do we see? The horizon is once again appearing remarkably high in the window.
Throughout the flight, the horizon repeatedly shifts up and down. Yet across much of the footage, it remains surprisingly high, even after the capsule reaches approximately 340,000 feet.
This is very different from the impression Skippy attempted to create with his three carefully selected screenshots showing the horizon progressively dropping.
But here's the important distinction: We don't know the precise orientation of the capsule relative to the horizontal throughout the flight. Therefore, we cannot establish the actual angular depression of the horizon from these screenshots alone.
And that is precisely the problem with Skippy's argument!
The full video contains numerous frames that don't fit the simple progression his selected screenshots suggest.
These observations are consistent with my position that the horizon appears to rise with the observer, although the footage alone cannot establish that relationship independently of camera and capsule orientation.
Skippy presented three selected frames as though they conclusively destroyed my position. Yet watching the actual video reveals a far more complicated picture.
My final point is simple:
If you're going to present photographic evidence as proof of a measurable 10-degree horizon drop, you need to establish a reliable horizontal reference, not simply select screenshots where the horizon happens to appear lower.
Three carefully selected screenshots are not a substitute for examining the entire video.
I encourage everyone to watch Emily Calandrelli's original footage and judge the evidence for themselves.
This guy just has a boner for eye level.
I didn't mention it once.
I had mentioned NDT saying the earth looks flat from 350,000 feet, he then posts something he supposedly did in Autocad or whatever its called saying the Horizon would drop this much.
I went and found where the horizon actually is from 350,000 feet.
Gess what, its not at the bottom of the screen.
Far from it..
Then he cries like i said something about eye level..
Nah bro, but look how much the horizon has appeared to rise, its almost like it has appeared to rise with the observer..
Oh, but it looks curved, cool story when looking though windows that curve back around..
Eye level is right there in my post. Read ffs.
xitter.cf/Skippy_Bush_Roo/status…
Oh Damn...
This is classic, the guy who constantly argues against a optically rising horizon is now arguing for a physically Rising horizon.
He's done this because ive shown him that his meme has the horizon physically Rising to its observer..
Lol, and raised to the observers height..
Yes, thats what ive been saying the whole time.
The Horizon ALWAYS APPEARS To Rise With The Observer..
Thanks for finally admitting it
Here we have piper running from the obvious answer, so instead of answering the obvious thats right in front of his face he diverts.
We are discussing the horizon
Is the horizon appearing above or below the table in the top right hand pic piper?
EGolder here clearly admits that the horizon APPEARS to rise with the observer, while simultaneously attempting to deny that very observation.
In his own words:
"Going higher means the line of sight to the horizon will eventually rise above the TOP of the tower."
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!
Now look at the two photographs.
In the first image, the observer is positioned ABOVE the tower. The horizon clearly APPEARS above the top of the tower.
In the second image, the observer is positioned BELOW the top of the tower. The horizon clearly APPEARS below the top of the tower.
TWO DIFFERENT OBSERVER HEIGHTS. TWO DIFFERENT APPARENT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE HORIZON AND THE TOWER.
Yet EGolder somehow concludes:
"This doesn't mean the horizon APPEARS to rise with the observer."
HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE?
He has literally described the very phenomenon he's attempting to argue against.
I've never argued that the horizon physically rises in elevation, nor have I argued that it must remain precisely at eye level.
My argument has consistently been that THE HORIZON ALWAYS APPEARS TO RISE WITH THE OBSERVER.
That is a statement about its apparent position relative to the observer and surrounding objects, not a claim that the horizon must coincide with a perfectly horizontal measuring instrument.
The horizon can appear higher relative to a stationary tower while still exhibiting a measurable angular dip below true horizontal.
THESE TWO THINGS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
And that's precisely what EGolder is failing to distinguish.
His own explanation acknowledges the apparent relationship, and his own example illustrates it.
HE IS ARGUING AGAINST THE VERY OBSERVATION HE HAS JUST DESCRIBED.
Going higher means the line of sight to the horizon will eventually raise above the TOP of the tower, you'll see the horizon and the TOP of the tower belw the line of sight to the horizon..
This doesn't mean the horizon will raise above the TOP of the tower. This doesn't mean the horizon APPEARS to raise with the observer.
Your reading comprehension needs some work. I never said “the horizon rises TO eye level.” You are literally trying to debunk a statement I didn't make.
What I actually said was:
“THE HORIZON ALWAYS APPEARS TO RISE WITH THE OBSERVER.”
WITH the observer, not TO eye level. Those are different statements.
I've already acknowledged that a sufficiently precise instrument such as a theodolite can measure a small angular separation between horizontal and the apparent horizon. That doesn't contradict what I said.
So before trying to debunk my argument, at least address the argument I actually made rather than substituting a different one that's easier for you to attack.
There's a name for that too: straw man.
You can fight it if you like, that's your prerogative.
But horizons are cause by refraction.
We can add your height above the surface to that as well, but refraction is why we see the horizon where it is.
We know the trolls will cry in here, but the challenge is there for a live debate on the horizon, why we have one, and why objects disappear beyond it.
The trolls love to troll, but they dont put their money where their mouths are..
Tomorrow at 7pm est I'm America, I will be on the Earth Awakenings discord server presenting my latest finding on why objects appear to disappear beyond the horizon.
If you are a detractor,feel free to come over and challenge the info live.
If you are a supporter, come over and learn newly discovered reasons of how and why ships disappear beyond the horizon.
How insulting to put Einstein in there with Tesla.
I guess when you spend almost 700 days observing the horizon with multiple Zoom cameras, then you can present on your findings. Until then, my medium-sized brain will do it.
So, rather than being a keyboard warrior child, be a big boy, join the discord, and refute the arguments
So I have a new round of presentations that I have been presenting lately.
I'll be over on @RunBostonBear channel, where I'll be going over the real reason why everything appears to dissapear beyond the horizon.
Come join the chat
youtube.com/live/9MxxcS7965s…
Oops,sorry @RunBostonBear I edited the post to have your twitter link and it deleted your repost
Hey all,
Last minute warnings seem to be my thing.
I'll be on tomorrow with the Iron Realm Media crew having a chat and presenting.
Come join us at 830am Australian Central Time, possibly 9am
youtube.com/@ironrealmmedia?…
@IronRealmMedia