# Utah "Flat Eath" Frozen Lake Experiment Shows Light Visible over Longer Distance than Expected

#### Robert Oberdove

##### New Member
Greetings,

I have watched the following video from Taboo Conspiracy a few times. It is done on Lake Utah. I have yet to find where the error is that disproves the video claim.

His wife shines a light (placed directly on the ice surface) on one shore which is 7.53 miles away from the camera (30.5-inches above the ice) on the other shore. She also held the light at arms lengths and it was visible even then.

The following GPS coordinates of their position on the Lake does measure out to 7.5 miles distance between them

Camera Coordinates: 40.31524628 N 111.76501156 W

Spotlight Coordinates: 40.33612475 N 111.90493711 W

Based on standard curve Earth calculations, the spot light should be several feet below the horizon and not visible from the camera position. But he does show the spotlight and therefore claims there is no curvature.

Assuming that the video is not outright fraud, possible explanations could be:

Either he has not correctly identified the night light as really being his wife's, who was standing on the opposite shore. He located his wife after seeing here turn on and turn off the light.

or

the is some property of the ice that transmits the lantern light across it for a large distance.

or

maybe the light he saw was a mirage or other type of atmospheric refraction over near freezing water

or

look at the attached file for another idea, but I don't know if the physics is correct for it.

I appreciate your help in identifying what error(s) he committed that made the video show no curvature.

kind regards,

Robert

#### Attachments

• 2017-12-15_01-06-20.png
34.7 KB · Views: 685

#### deirdre

##### Senior Member.
at

5:46 he says "shine it on the water a bit" and the light goes completely black. she says "this is shining on the ice". he says "i don't see it"

then tells him she is now shining it at him.. and he sees it. she proceeds to lower it while asking him if he still sees it. it seems to me that means when she was shining it on the ice (which he saw no light), she must have had it at least waist high.

the light throughout is a dancing blob. before the nerds answer, I'm going to venture to guess it is "diffusion"* and what he is seeing is the top edge of the light cone. like how a laser beam "cones" out as it travels through the atmosphere as in the Lake Balatan thread.
Some later measurements were claimed to be from a "direct hit" in a camera on the boat, however these "direct hits" lasted for over a minute while the boat moved significant distances perpendicular to the beam. This indicated a "direct hit" could be had anywhere within a large cone, meaning height estimates were possibly catching the bottom of the cone.
https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balat...of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/page-18#post-190419

*diffusion might be the wrong word. I mean how light beams spread with distance

Last edited:

#### scombrid

##### Senior Member.
There is an optical possibility of a thermal inversion over the lake; cold air pooling in the basin during calm conditions with good radiational cooling. That could refract lights below the inversion around the curve.

Notice the three lights to her left at around the 4:19 mark when he finally quits shaking the camera all over the place. Compare those lights to the lights further up the hill.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Robert Oberdove

##### New Member
Thanks for your replies.

Is the following possible.

a) She shines the spotlight at say 4-feet above the water, so her horizon is out to 5-miles.
b) That spotlight illuminates the ice at that 5-miles distance.
c) Camera distance to the horizon is 2-miles, since it's 30.5-inches above the ice
That total is about the 7-miles that they tested

So the camera is seeing the spotlight reflection IN THE ICE at a distance of 2-miles, not the actual spotlight itself located 7-miles away.

kind regards, Robert.

#### Clouds Givemethewillies

##### Senior Member
Standard lapse rate is ~ 2 °C per thousand feet, so about 0.006 per. 3ft. They were probably a little outside that value, being so close to the ground.

#### Mick West

Staff member
I appreciate your help in identifying what error(s) he committed that made the video show no curvature.

Some basic errors:

1) Doing the experiment at night, when you can't see the effects of refraction on the surrounding terrain.
2) Doing it so close to the ground, where the effects are refraction are greatest.
3) Doing it over ice (or near freezing water), well known for creating strange optical effects

And we know from other examples that this type of mirage can pull FAR more of the hidden view over the horizon. For example in daytime views of Toronto. You can see the Roger's center when it shoudl be hidden, but because it's daytime you can see it's a mirage from the distortion.

And from the squashing of the bottom of the image:
(drag slider to compare)
[compare]

[/compare]

#### Robert Oberdove

##### New Member
Thank you gentlemen for helping!

kind regards, Robert

#### Robert Oberdove

##### New Member
Now that we have debunked the video, how can I change the title of this post to “Utah Lake 7.53 miles flat Earth experiment debunked”

Can you please make that change?

Kind regards, Robert

Replies
34
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
15K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
1K
Views
305K
Replies
59
Views
27K