Flat Earth - Jesse Kozlowski Lake Pontchartrain Soundly Marriot photo - responding to a comment on my last video.
About a month ago I posted a video attempting to model a photo taken by Jesse Kozlowski of the Marriott hotel across lake Pontchartrain. I received one detailed comment by steemit user haveyouvisited, which I didn't get a chance to properly respond to. Here is the comment in it's entirety. Afterwords I'll address the claims.
Comment:
haveyouvisited (45) · 22 days ago
You didn't figure in the BASE of the height of the marriott. And i doubt your model figured in horizon drop. This is just first glance.
https://www.metabunk.org/curve/
So, just on first glance that you did not take the base of the height of the marriott over the lake into account
Here is his theodolite image with the horizon drop. I'm not sure if you understand this, but that RIGHT THERE debunks the flat earth! Horizon drop IS the curvature!
Then, if you were to take an image of the Marriott and superimpose it, there is a HUGE amount of the building missing! At least 1/3 of the building is obscured. And even your calc says that about 260 feet should be missing. But you didn't take the height above the lake into account either! That would be imperative.
In any case, perhaps there is a BIT of the building that should be missing more than the calc says, but it's within 50 or so feet of the calc that even YOU did!
and from YOUR OWN VIDEO, when you went higher in elevation, I caught the almost EXACT image that Jesse got and it was at an elevation of 6. 9 meters. I actually think it could have gone up just SLIGHTLY higher to capture it perfectly, but you put your text right over the top of the image so I couldn't see it. But it might have been a meter or two higher to get it exactly right.
The height you used is 4.65 meters. That is 3. 25 meters from nearly perfectly capturing what he did. Lets add 2 meters to that for 5-6 meters off of exactly what Jesse was showing. Which would be easily explainable by the height of the Marriott above the lake that you didn't calculate!
So, I don't see how you can conclude that this is not consistent with the globe. A calculation of about 1% is a legitimate amount off due to reasonable errors. But this one is nearly spot on. It's around 6 METERS off your own calculations and you are saying that is inconsistent with the globe!
You have yet to show any calcs with verified heights and distances that are 50-1000% off, as would be expected on a flat earth.
You take an error rate of 6 meters and declare that it's inconsistent with the globe! That seems completely dishonest and biased. And you ignore the fact that the horizon drop right in front of you debunks the flat earth entirely!
You literally debunked yourself. 6 meters difference and you failed to take the base of the Marriott into account! I honestly think you should do a retraction video and say you are incorrect and that it is perfectly consistent with the globe!
-----end of comment
Here is my late but detailed reply;
To begin with, by Jesse's own numbers, the observation point was 6 ft above a 6 foot location. Google Earth confirms the elevation of his location to be 2m (if you can trust the elevation accuracy of Google Earth) so I went with the 12 foot elevation which should be 3.66 meters. This is the value I had in my spreadsheet (3.65 actually). However, I did make a mistake in my video and had the camera at 3.1 meters for the majority of the point I was trying to make. I'm not sure where you got the 4.65 in your comment but maybe you meant 3.65. In any case, 3.1 was the value I demonstrated originally and 3.66 is the value that should be used, but the difference is negligible and shown in the images below.
The first claim asserts that I didn't include the base elevation of the Marriott in my calculations. According to Google Earth, the Marriott sits between 0m and -1m elevation. The top of the building (the very top section) measures 123 meters above sea level. This coincides perfectly with my model. I was aware of the base elevation but I did fail to mention this in the video. Considerably, there would be no change to the math in my model unless I went with the -1m figure, which would not be in the globes favor.
Second point I can address is the horizon drop. The green line is eye line (at eye level when not angled) and I indicated how the entire building is below the eye level. My statement is mathematically incorrect, however, since true eye level would be at 121.66 meters (drop plus observer height) of a 123 meter building, leaving 1.33 meters appearing above eye level. At that distance 1.33 meters is basically covered up by the 2 pixel eye line but I should have said the building "appears" to be entirely below eye level. As the camera rises, yes more of the building becomes visible, but the eye level line moves further away from the top of the building as well. This proves that the image is geometrically impossible on an airless sphere. As for horizon drop being proof of the curve, I disagree, but that is a different topic and probably an upcoming video.
So here are 5 full images and a composite for comparison. Also, I'm using a new image for the Marriott hotel which is a little more clear and from a better angle. The 123 meter scale height of the building and all distances remain the same. Observer heights are indicated.
3.1 meters, like the original video showed.
3.6 meters, no refraction.
3.6 meters, with standard refraction (7/6 globe radius).
7.1 meters, no refraction.
7.1 meters, with standard refraction.
Here is a comparison with the eye level lined up. The closest match is obviously the refracted at 3.6 meters, but even then, a bit more than standard refraction would be required. But would it line up even then? And does refraction effect the horizon position? I'm not done with this photo yet, I will be revisiting this standard refraction issue in a video very soon.
All of what you see is calculated automatically and angular size doesn't lie, unless there is atmospheric lensing or refraction present. The underlying math in my simulation has not been shown to be incorrect and as long as I enter correct values for the few user variables, what you see is an accurate full scale model. As for your suggestion that I should do a retraction video, my original claim remains, that this image would not be possible without refraction. Refraction is absolutely necessary for explaining every case of something being obscured less than it should on a globe, at least that I have seen so far. But that is the reason I made this calculator, so that I can model and test these curve 'proofs' and determine what refraction really has to be capable of in each situation. So bring forth your examples of accurately measured and reasonably verifiable claims of curvature and put them to the test. I do appreciate your comment and if you respond to this, I will try to reply promptly. Thanks!
I may or may not give this a more detailed response, but you seemed to have missed the point that I made in my response. I got the 'viewer height' in the middle of your video (where I took a screenshot and you can see the viewer height) where YOU started panning UP as if the viewer was going higher in elevation. I stopped and took a screenshot at EXACTLY the spot where it looked almost exactly like Jesse's thumbnail in the bottom right corner (again, it probably should have been a meter or so higher, but your lettering obscured the exact point).
But you still have missed the point that I made in several of your comments, that you claim we MUST have refraction for it to work. OK, lets say globers actually do fabricate refraction. This still only shows that it's about 1-2% over the actual stated values.... just like in all of these videos and images.
Why is there NEVER EVER EVER an image with verified numbers that is 20% or even more, as we'd see on a flat earth? As in the French "Longest land to land shots in the world" it's STILL only 1-2% over the line of sight calculated targets, and the images are ALWAYS taken from extremely high elevations.
Why? Why do we NEVER see a 200 mile landscape photo taken from 100 feet? Even in YOUR videos and your comments, you are admitting that the buildings are obscured, just not as much as you seem to to think they should be. Well, why would they be obscured AT ALL on flat earth?
The conclusions you are making are suggesting that the earth is a ball, but 1-2% larger than the stated measurements! That you cannot see that you, yourself, are making this conclusion is ironic.
Why don't you just get this argument over with and instead of nitpicking about 2-10 meters of curvature that are missing, you show us multiple images that should be 50-1000% behind the curvature? Why not show us 200 mile landscape shots with nothing obscured that are taken from 100 feet of elevation instead of 10,000 feet?
You can't, or you would. The earth is not flat. And you keep proving it. Thank you.
Remember, this is YOUR OWN PROGRAM, and the image that I showed from YOUR OWN VIDEO and from YOUR OWN PROGRAM shows that a viewer height of 6.9 meters would have proven the globe. To say that is inconsistent with the globe, and not simply unavoidable errors of viewer height and distance, or that it simply confirms the atmospheric refraction we know exists, but that we cannot measure PERFECTLY all of these factors, can only be due to confirmation bias.
Thanks for the comment. I provided a shot at 7.1 meters showing basically what you saw at 6.9 meters in the original video. While it is close to Jesse's image as far as the amount of buildings we see, the eye line is much higher and again the entire building falls below the line. Because Jesse's position couldn't have been out by more than a couple of feet, we know refraction must be at play. And since the "horizon" seems to be in the right place in the image, we have to assume that refraction is only capable of raising objects far behind the horizon while not raising the water and horizon line.
I intend to feature some images that show far less apparent curvature but the measurements have to be fairly precise in order to be accepted by either side, otherwise if becomes an endless back and forth about viewer height. But one example I can think of off the top of my head is YouTuber "Wide Awake" and his bird rack observations. The fact that we can see water rising up far beyond a distant mile marker (not going to quote numbers here) is proof in itself that the horizon is not 3 miles away for a 6 foot observer. I may do a short video on this soon in which case I will provide all the correct numbers, although Taboo Conspiracy has already done this to some degree.
The reason I choose this image is because so far the strongest examples of "curvature" have been in Soundly and Jesse's lake Pontchartrain videos. This particular image was one of the only few that actually used a level transit or telescope providing the suggested level eye line to work with. It's also one of the few examples that has well documented and verifiable measurements. Again, the point of this video was only to show that even the strongest examples of curvature MUST rely on refraction to be considered possible on a globe of the size we are told.
I intend to dissect multiple images from curvature tests as I am sure there are many that show refraction far greater than 7/6R would be required to make them possible. I have yet to see a diagram or animation explaining the path of refracted vs non refracted light on a globe and how light can navigate a curve or hump while only being bent "down". I can also generate the same effect as Jesse's photo on a flat plane nearly perfectly using only 1 layer of atmosphere with a refractive index very slightly less than normal air.
Anyway I'll be doing a full video on refraction soon. If I find any examples that meet or exceed the mathematically prescribed curvature without refraction, I will let you know.
Again, you simply seem to be nitpicking a few meters here and there and, instead of just admitting that it's due to refraction, are SOMEHOW coming to the bizarre conclusion that there is no curvature, when even YOU just admitted that 7.1 meter viewer height gave virtually exactly the correct amount of the building hidden.
That is an insignificant amount that can be explained by simple acceptable error or refraction. You are quibbling over 1%! But can't show ANYTHING that is 20-1000% over the math as would be expected on a flat earth.
You said that those are the 'best examples of curvature', no, we see the best examples of curvature everyday that we don't see hundreds of miles from a 100 foot cliff at the beach. All those millions of images of empty horizons, what is 100 miles away that we WOULD see if the earth was flat?
IN fact, @kerriknox did a piece on Soundly's planes landing (that was actually taken DURING that same livecast as the Marriott, so it HAD to be where they said it was) of planes landing below the horizon of lake ponchartrain.
The entire airport is missing! But if it weren't for the planes, we'd not see ANYTHING, which is what we see constantly. No one goes "Ohhhh, Ahhhh" over a picture of nothing on the horizon, but what SHOULD we be seeing on a flat earth is a LOT more than we do.... like an airport in this video.
here's the specs. Stop obsessing over a few meters here and there. It's silly when you can't see hundreds of miles from 100 feet, as we should. Your OWN COMPUTER model shows that reality is only a few meters difference from your computer model. Any reasonable person would have seen your video as evidence in favor of the globe. To see it as evidence in favor of the flat earth is pure confirmation bias.
https://steemit.com/science/@kerriknox/this-video-of-planes-landing-is-a-compelling-and-slightly-hypnotic-piece-of-evidence-for-the-curvature-of-the-earth
Like I said, the reason I choose this photo for this example is because it has accurate numbers to work with. I never claimed this as evidence of a flat Earth, I was simply proving that refraction must be necessary for this image to be possible on a globe, even though at first glance it looks like obvious curvature.
I'm not disputing the numbers. And your video says that it's not consistent with the globe when you actually proved that it very much IS consistent with the globe. Even on your youtube video, everyone is commenting that you proved the flat earth, because they are AGREEING with you, when that is not what it shows at all! It is perfectly consistent with the globe with a small amount of refraction.
So you EITHER have to admit that refraction exists (it does) or that you somehow proved the earth is a globe, but 1-2% larger than scientists state! You simply CANNOT deny that is obvious curvature EVEN if you completely deny refraction, since it is completely inconsistent with a flat earth... as your video PROVES.
Since we have known about refraction for thousands of years, and we have been measuring it for several hundred, and all the photographers who take those long distance images say they got them in positive refractive conditions, and even the Chicago Skyline image was PREDICTED on television the night before with the weatherman actually showing the public what the conditions looked like that were likely to cause refractive conditions, I think the former is the most likely, don't you? Refraction exists. I don't know why you have this issue with refraction.
Here's the video of the Chicago Skyline newscast the night before the notorious skyline image was taken predicting refractive conditions.
http://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage
Here is a comment from one of the photographers on the long distance photography website.
I don't deny that refraction exists but I question the mechanics of it as it pertains to a globe. I can't help if people interpret this as proof of a flat Earth, it was never suggested and I tried to be intellectually honest by stating that what we see is not possible on a flat Earth either, without refraction of course. Anyway, since you seem to understand refraction so well, maybe you could show me or make a simple diagram explaining the downward curve of light over a bulge of water?
Not sure what you are questioning about refraction. It's quite well studied and you could just... well... look up why that happens.
http://piecubed.co.uk/atmospheric-refraction/
you want you to post more beautiful, so that we can all see and you can vote a lot