Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction]

MisterB

New Member
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nCaGCUy6XMk


Source: http://imgur.com/oqIx5oM


The video shows a portion of the Isle of Man from the waterline of a beach in Blackpool, at a distance of roughly 65 miles, and claims that this should be impossible on a globe, therefore the earth is flat.

Most flat earth videos and arguments are pretty flimsy and easy to debunk... but I'm not sure what's going on here, and am honestly stumped, because as one if the commenters on the video pointed out, even using the calculator here and accounting for standard refraction, even the peak of Snaefell should be hidden from view.

I did notice that there are some turbines in between the camera and the island. Despite being very tall, enough of their height is hidden that their blades appear to be scraping the water, and are heavily distorted, so my guess is that refraction is at play here, but even still, this seems to be a bit extreme.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
The comments on the youtube channel seem to questioning the claim of location and camera direction. Can you provide a map that would show us the turbines in line with the isle of Man?

Provide a height of the isle of man. Tell us the the youtube video gives us no data other than the title of the video.

6.PNG


upload_2018-7-1_23-57-2.png

one of the more recent comments says:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCaGCUy6XMk&lc=UgyHn4GaatK2VEdiFKB4AaABAg.8i9jfsGgCro8iAitRTk174
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Most flat earth videos and arguments are pretty flimsy and easy to debunk... but I'm not sure what's going on here, and am honestly stumped, because as one if the commenters on the video pointed out, even using the calculator here and accounting for standard refraction, even the peak of Snaefell should be hidden from view.
There's two possibilites:

1) That's not the Isle of Man
2) That's not standard refraction.

The second one seems the most likely. The camera is very close to the water, which makes the effects of reaction much more significant (basically makes standard refraction be impossible). They should see how much of the island is visible from higher up. What they are seeing appears to be the peak, the last 50 feet or so of the highest point. 99% of the island is hidden by the curve of the the horizon.
Metabunk 2018-07-01 21-23-02.jpg
 

Majd Saedy

New Member
This is irrelevant but bear with me...
Average height for American males is 175.7 cm = 5 ft 9 in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide)

But then there is Shaquille O'Neal towering at 2.16 m = 7 ft 1 in
...and Danny DeVito at 1.47 m = 4 ft 10 in

The point? In statistics the average provides no indication whatsoever on the edge cases.

So unless the video is accompanied by experimentally verified values for refraction, it is overly reductive to compare with the standard refraction in the calculator and claim the discovery of an anomaly.

Here is what an official document says about refraction:
source:
SANDIA REPORT SAND2012-10690 January 2013
Earth Curvature and Atmospheric Refraction Effects on Radar Signal Propagation

 
Last edited:

Tedsson

Member
That doesn’t look like the Duddon Sands wind farm, which has a far more regular appearance than the distribution of the turbines in the video. This is it:

0BC54137-3175-4052-AF28-B2954FCA5990.jpeg

(Source: https://ecofriend.com/dong-energy-s...laborate-to-generate-389mw-of-wind-power.html)


This is a picture of the wind farm, taken from Blackpool. I imagine it was taken from higher up than the OP video.
79BA2776-CFB7-4483-A963-2F8722051706.jpeg
(Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_of_Duddon_Sands_Wind_Farm)

I can’t find the height of the masts, but whilst they can be site-specific they are typically 90m high. (According to the manufacturers: https://www.siemens.com/content/dam...heets/data-sheet-wind-turbine-swt-3-6-120.pdf). So whilst it is difficult to calculate the actual height above sea level a reasonable estimate would be 35-40m based on a blade length of 58.5m.

As was pointed out in the OP the blades are virtually slicing through the water in the video (or at least appear to be). In the photographs above they are clearly and significantly above sea level.

If asked for a conclusion it would have to be that the mast heights in the OP video and the pictures are in fact pretty good evidence of curvature.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
That doesn’t look like the Duddon Sands wind farm, which has a far more regular appearance than the distribution of the turbines in the video

This site above has lots of photos (not necessarily at sea level) from Cleveley which is maybe 5 miles to the north. shows the layout of the turbines.
View-of-Isle-of-Man-David-Pennington-2016.jpg

cl.PNG
 

DavidB66

Active Member
That's a good article in Deidre's link. Scrolling to the end of the article, it gives quite a clear explanation of why refraction sometimes shows more of the IoM than 'should' be visible from Cleveleys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some great images there. From the higher positions you can see more of the Isle of Man, and get a better sense of how much is obscured by the horizon.
Metabunk 2018-07-02 08-14-20.jpg Metabunk 2018-07-02 08-15-03.jpg


You also see how problematic looking right AT the horizon is. The temperature difference between air an water means there almost always a much steeper temperature (and hence density, and hence refractive index) gradient there than there is in the air even a few tens of feet above. In the overcast example the water appears warmer than the air, so there's a little bit of a reflection, a tiny inferior mirage.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

DavidB66

Active Member
'Miles Davis' has a video up on YouTube today which pretty conclusively identifies the wind turbines seen in the flat earth video. They line up well with the direction of Scaefell as it would be seen from Blackpool beach (as it occasionally is). Miles also uses one of Walter Bislin's calculators to simulate the effect of various strengths of refraction, and concludes that the land apparently visible in the distance most likely is the Isle of Man, as a result of moderately strong but not freakish refraction. A comment on Miles's video suggests that it might just be a bank of cloud, but Miles doubts this.

md.PNG
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
View attachment 33619

29 Jun 2018, 5:51PM BST.
The temperature at Blackpool airport at 6pm BST was 26.5C (79.7F) at 6pm BST on June 29, which is quite unusually warm for the time of day and location: https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/wea...tur&ART=tabelle&RUBRIK=akt&R=310&CEL=C&SI=mph

upload_2018-7-4_10-53-31.png

(Interestingly the temperature actually rose by 1C between 5pm and 6pm, perhaps due to a change in wind direction or lessening of sea breeze.)

The altitude given for the airport weather station is 10 metres, and it is only just over 1km in a straight line from the weather station itself (which is visible on Google Maps) to the sea:

upload_2018-7-4_11-3-47.png



The current sea surface temperature is 16.1C, and probably hasn't changed much in the last week - if anything it will have warmed up a little with the continued hot weather, so it could have been slightly lower when the video was made. https://www.seatemperature.org/europe/united-kingdom/blackpool.htm

upload_2018-7-4_10-59-4.png

So there was quite a temperature gradient over the Irish Sea.


All of which is kind of beside the point. The question to ask the people who claim such sightings are proof of a flat Earth is what has happened to the rest of the Isle of Man? As the comparisons posted by Mick show, the only bit that is visible is the very top of the highest peak.
 

Jon Leighton

New Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBdmspnCZyc


This is similar to the Blackpool to the IoM thread, with an important difference, the observer height is claimed to be 45ft from a sand dune in Southport, approx 72 miles away.

The poster does not account for refraction whatsoever, but in any case, allowing for standard refraction should mean the the IoM is entirely below the horizon, with its max elevation of 2037 ft.

Screenshot_2019-02-21_00-19-38.png

The poster claims to see the whole island, and even shows a profile graphic with correct bearings to the edges of the island at 1:00, but then fails to show how these compare to actual bearings in footage (eg at 1:34).

Either:

There is more than standard refraction present, despite the observation height, or
This is not the isle of man, or
The earth is flat :)

I've been unable to debunk the claim, and offer it to the group for analysis please.



add: location 53.63336, -3.037085

iom2.png

stitched.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Either:

There is more than standard refraction present, despite the observation height, or
This is not the isle of man, or
The earth is flat :)
It appears to be refraction. Here's a preset in the refraction simulator for this situation:
https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/?~(p~'Isle*20of*20Man*20From*20Southport)_
Metabunk 2019-02-21 07-24-59.jpg

Zoomed in a bit
Metabunk 2019-02-21 07-27-14.jpg

Flat Earth view, no refraction, same zoom as above.
Metabunk 2019-02-21 07-26-32.jpg

Notice how compressed the (globe, refracted) image is - a sure sign of "looming" (refraction raising things over the horizon)
 
Last edited:

Jon Leighton

New Member
Nice! Thanks Mick. Would you mind explaining the subplots in the refraction simulator a little further? In the left subplot, does the blue line represent standard refraction? What do subsequent red lines represent?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Nice! Thanks Mick. Would you mind explaining the subplots in the refraction simulator a little further? In the left subplot, does the blue line represent standard refraction? What do subsequent red lines represent?
The red and blue lines are light paths. Red are those that are above the horizontal plane at the camera.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Nice! Thanks Mick. Would you mind explaining the subplots in the refraction simulator a little further? In the left subplot, does the blue line represent standard refraction? What do subsequent red lines represent?
And see this video explanation:
Source: https://youtu.be/8zzEWy5SGKg?t=307


I discuss that window at 5 minutes in.

I know I did not do the best job of explaining - so please let me know what is not clear.
 
Top