in regards to the video..
Hey mate, interesting footage, and I appreciate the effort you’ve put into the observation — it’s clear you enjoy these kinds of experiments, and that’s great. But I’ve got to challenge some of the conclusions here with a few points to consider: 1. Atmospheric perspective and angular resolution
When a ship disappears “bottom first,” this doesn’t automatically prove curvature. What you’re often seeing is the effect of angular resolution limits — meaning your eye (or lens) can’t distinguish fine detail at distance, especially near the water where humidity, haze, refraction, and mirage effects distort what you see. The hull becomes indistinct before the mast because it’s closer to the visual noise of the horizon. 2. Zoom refutes the “curve”
There are many documented cases where ships disappear over the “curve,” yet when powerful optical zooms are applied, the entire ship reappears — even the hull. If it were truly behind a physical curve, no amount of zoom could bring it back into view. 3. The hill invalidates the test
You mention filming from a hill — but that elevation gives you a longer line of sight, meaning you're not seeing what someone at sea level would. On a globe, your visible horizon expands with height, so this doesn't prove curvature — it actually masks it even more. Plus, a hill view would allow you to see farther on a flat plane too. 4. Ship Tracker Data
Ship tracker data gives GPS location, but it doesn't provide precise altitude differences or wave height, which affect how much of a ship is obscured. Without correcting for lens distortion, heat shimmer, and atmospheric refraction, the “disappearance” is inconclusive. 5. Curvature math doesn’t match
Using the standard globe model (radius approx. 6,371 km), the drop over 10 km should be about 8 meters, and over 20 km it’s about 32 meters. If you can still see most of the ship — especially the hull — from distances where that curve should have buried it completely, that’s worth questioning. Why are we seeing more than we should?
6. Newcastle example proves visibility, not curvature
Newcastle’s coast offers a long, flat view across the ocean. Just because the ship disappears in the distance doesn’t confirm a globe — it just confirms atmospheric obstruction and optics limits. To make a claim of curvature, you’d need to rule out all other factors that can cause the same visual effect — and that hasn’t been done here.
I’m not here to call anyone names or argue in circles. I’m just saying let’s keep digging. Don’t assume everything we see means we’re living on a ball. Let’s question both sides — not just those who challenge the mainstream.
If anyone has footage showing a ship disappearing and never being recoverable by zoom, I’d genuinely love to see that.
in regards to your other points..
I appreciate your response — very articulate, and clearly you're thinking deeply. That’s all any of us can ask for. Let me gently offer a few thoughts in reply — not to argue, but to reason together.
1. "The Earth is so large we can’t see curvature"
Yes, Earth is said to be 6,371 km in radius, and according to globe math, we should see around 8 km of drop over 100 km. That’s not small. From high elevations like Glass House Mountain or long flat stretches like the Nullarbor Plain, we should see a noticeable curve if it existed. But the horizon appears flat, and water — always level — doesn’t curve around a ball.
And if we're being honest, even from high-altitude weather balloons (over 30 km), videos without fish-eye lenses show a flat horizon, not a visibly curved one. 2. Satellites and synchronisation
This assumes Earth is spinning at 1,670 km/h at the equator, orbiting the sun at 107,000 km/h, with the solar system flying through the galaxy at 828,000 km/h, and yet — satellites supposedly stay in sync?
That’s a lot of coordinated movement without anyone feeling a thing, seeing motion blur in the stars, or watching satellites whiz by like bullets. Many believe high-altitude balloons are responsible for much of what we call “satellites.” NASA uses them regularly and even admits it. 3. NASA uses CGI for marketing
That’s a powerful admission. NASA’s lead graphic designer, Robert Simmon, openly said, “It is Photoshopped, but it has to be.” So why are we calling it science if the images are composites and animations? Surely, with today’s tech, we should have thousands of real, full-globe photos, yet we don't.
Marketing should never replace truth — especially when billions of dollars are involved and when so much belief is built on these images. 4. Natural law and God’s creation
God is the author of natural law — no disagreement there. But man’s interpretation of those laws isn't perfect. The idea that Earth “must be round” because of gravity assumes gravity works as we're told.
Yet we see birds, insects, clouds, and even smoke defy gravity daily. Water always finds its level — it doesn’t bend, bulge, or wrap around objects. That’s observable natural law. 5. The stars and perspective
This is actually one of the strongest arguments against the heliocentric model. If Earth truly orbited the sun, then after 6 months we’d be on the opposite side, about 300 million km away. That’s a massive shift in perspective — yet the night sky looks identical.
We still see the Southern Cross every night from Australia. We still see the same constellations year-round. According to heliocentric logic, our orientation should have flipped, and we should be looking into a completely different section of space. Final thought
You're right about one thing: we should test everything. Not blindly trust schools, governments, or even religious interpretations. But when the Bible, observable nature, and common sense all align — it’s worth pausing to rethink what we've been told.
If nothing else, I encourage you to keep asking the hard questions — because the real truth can handle scrutiny.
