Nostr Web Client

The point where we started is me showcasing the fact that it is geometrically impossible to see 443km away according to the earths official size and dimensions. I only mentioned perspective, as you claimed that the original photo somehow does not show the lack of 5km tall obstruction in the form of the physical horizon (which it clearly does).

This is a completely separate discussion, but if the picture does not show mountains to appear smaller the farther away they are, please make a coherent argument that suggests otherwise.

The photo clearly does not provide any evidence for “light bending round curvature and bringing objects up from under the physical horizon by the tunes of many kilometres”. That is impossible to conclude from a single picture without any other crucial measurements needed to support such an extraordinary claim.

Jac 2y ago

One of the things I find interesting is how our trust in what we see has changed with the advent of the technological means to alter perception. No one would have questioned the authenticity of that photo taken by Ansel Adams in his time. We would have marveled at the wondrous circumstances that made such a photo possible.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

I don't think anyone is questioning the authenticity of the original photo taken by Mark Bret Guma? Only the official theory that claims that light bending around the curvature is able to visually bring objects up from under the horizon by the tunes of many kilometers. I don't think most people can even imagine what it means for an object to be below the horizon by 5km. And consequently how unbelievable the official explanation is, especially that it is just an unproven theory without properly documented evidence.