Rory
Closed Account
Here's an interesting video shot with a P900 from just 10 inches above the water:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p6mJHkA_sQ
He shows houses in Westhampton up to about six miles away, where the predicted hidden amount (standard refraction) is 13 feet. Nicest of all are deer grazing on a beach about 3.6 miles away, from 1:16.
Clearly, there's a little hidden, otherwise their snouts would be in the water. Predicted hidden amount at 3.6 miles is 3.3 feet.
The cameraman seems to think that he's shooting to the horizon 6 miles away, and that the beach the deer are on are in front of the houses, but this clearly isn't the case.
Observer: Mastic Beach, end of Jefferson Drive
Deer: Just east of Great Gun
Houses: Westhampton Dunes
The two houses at 6:50 here: 40.775061, -72.726202.
If anyone can identify the distinctive structure with the turret that's behind the deer, that would pinpoint their exact location.
In general, it's just a nice video that some may feel contradicts the globe model, but doesn't. I share it because it's quite a useful example of why the new flat earth 'explanation' of "upward refraction" isn't valid.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p6mJHkA_sQ
He shows houses in Westhampton up to about six miles away, where the predicted hidden amount (standard refraction) is 13 feet. Nicest of all are deer grazing on a beach about 3.6 miles away, from 1:16.
Clearly, there's a little hidden, otherwise their snouts would be in the water. Predicted hidden amount at 3.6 miles is 3.3 feet.
The cameraman seems to think that he's shooting to the horizon 6 miles away, and that the beach the deer are on are in front of the houses, but this clearly isn't the case.
Observer: Mastic Beach, end of Jefferson Drive
Deer: Just east of Great Gun
Houses: Westhampton Dunes
The two houses at 6:50 here: 40.775061, -72.726202.
If anyone can identify the distinctive structure with the turret that's behind the deer, that would pinpoint their exact location.
In general, it's just a nice video that some may feel contradicts the globe model, but doesn't. I share it because it's quite a useful example of why the new flat earth 'explanation' of "upward refraction" isn't valid.
Last edited: