After many years working at sea, and using a range of optical equipment (binoculars, scopes, and DSLR cameras with powerful zoom lenses), I can say the only result increased magnification provides is to make the image larger. If a motionless/anchored ship (confirmed by AIS), skyscraper, or other structure is seen in the distance to be halfway "above" the "horizon" of the ocean with the naked eye or low-power binos, all you get with a high powered camera is a bigger image of the ship still at the halfway point.

Once again with respect, not necessarily.

Sea conditions can be reliably assessed and are coded by mariners. For example, the observations I made were during conditions with low wind speed, a sea height/swell height of less than or equal to the 2'-4' bracket, and clear visibility without precipitation. If there were storms/heavy weather you would know it, as you can very clearly see the clouds/rain curtains from miles away.

Thank you for bringing some semblance of sanity back to the forum. Warning, be prepared to be ridiculed because your first hand experience has no weight when compared to online videos of unknown origin!

I respect that, at least you are being honest.

I will not ridicule Hansel at all.  I'm interested in the truth.  If FE is proven false, then fine.  I really don't care.  But I've yet to see/hear a valid explanation for the lack of globe curvature.  And I would like his expertise in explaining the video, from his point of view.


What he said in his ocean travels could be 100% correct, and I could've butchered/botched my explanation/words.  But the problem remains...why is the curvature not there?  So let's discuss the video.

1. At 1:12 and about 2:40 in the video, there are short clips of actual video footage. Notice how both platforms appear to "shimmer" or "boil" at high magnification. It is evident that the images of both are experiencing some kind of turbulence due to a temperature gradient, or different temperatures between two different regions, whether air or water. I've seen this at sea whenever there is a large difference in temperature between the ocean and the atmospheric air, or between different bodies of water such as an ocean and a bay. Mariners don't rely on images seen in these gradients as definitive descriptions, as they distort images, change the shapes/apparent size of ships, stack multiple images of the same ship on top of one another,  and/or make objects appear taller than they are. Sometimes, they even make it harder to find the true horizon itself. However, it is temporary. On clear days, you see a much clearer image all the way to the horizon, and you don't see the "boiling".

2. The water shows an unusual line near the horizon, which coincides with the base/lower limit of the platform Habitat (see blue arrows in the image below). This further suggests that something strange is going on. Notice in the video at 1:12 and 3:20 that you see obvious wave patterns moving before this apparent line, but not many beyond it. In truly clear conditions, you see the waves out to the very end of the horizon, and even on it. Here we have a smeared relatively featureless band that the furthest platform (Habitat) appears to sit on.

1. Repeat video with better atmospheric conditions at horizon at same or similar location for several days or even weeks.

2. Run several replicates of the above video over several days (prove beyond a doubt that it is repeatable in this specific location)

3. Take photographs of each of the two specific platforms up-close (in other words, from a vessel near them), not only to prove that these really are the platforms in question, but also to see if the image changed at all between that and the footage.

4. More strongly docuмent a starting point that proves where the point of observation is. We do see part of a balcony in the zoomed-out footage, but it is impossible to prove that this is really the stated location or not.

 

For what it is worth, with regard to natural phenomena, as a matter of principle I believe can only comment definitively on that which I have observed directly myself a significant number of times, such as the examples  already given. "Levels of certainty", if you will.  That is the reason why I very specifically covered/targeted only the detail of the ships over the horizon/magnification subject, rather than the whole flat earth/globe earth subject in general. It is one thing I have seen first-hand, so I commented on it. My overall intent for my few posts in this part of the forum is to provide only what I know with the greatest level of certainty through my own work, even if it is a tidbit, so others can make their own independent conclusions based upon that or replicate it for themselves. And I am open to input from a wide range of viewpoints.

Basically, the video referred to above indicates that we are seeing too far,  since we can visualize the oil platforms and we see an apparent horizon line beyond rather than in front of them, particularly the further one. If what we see in the video was in fact true and accurate, and there are no other "variables" (atmospheric/weather etc. interfering as you said earlier), than that would in fact be a remarkable finding. I don't have oil platforms in my region, and as a result I don't have the ability to exactly replicate this specific video, put it through its paces etc. However, I can make the general statements/observations based upon experience at sea:

1. At 1:12 and about 2:40 in the video, there are short clips of actual video footage. Notice how both platforms appear to "shimmer" or "boil" at high magnification. It is evident that the images of both are experiencing some kind of turbulence due to a temperature gradient, or different temperatures between two different regions, whether air or water. I've seen this at sea whenever there is a large difference in temperature between the ocean and the atmospheric air, or between different bodies of water such as an ocean and a bay. Mariners don't rely on images seen in these gradients as definitive descriptions, as they distort images, change the shapes/apparent size of ships, stack multiple images of the same ship on top of one another,  and/or make objects appear taller than they are. Sometimes, they even make it harder to find the true horizon itself. However, it is temporary. On clear days, you see a much clearer image all the way to the horizon, and you don't see the "boiling".

2. The water shows an unusual line near the horizon, which coincides with the base/lower limit of the platform Habitat (see blue arrows in the image below). This further suggests that something strange is going on. Notice in the video at 1:12 and 3:20 that you see obvious wave patterns moving before this apparent line, but not many beyond it. In truly clear conditions, you see the waves out to the very end of the horizon, and even on it. Here we have a smeared relatively featureless band that the furthest platform (Habitat) appears to sit on.

So, what I can say in general about this video from an at-sea perspective is that there are obvious variables in the sea and sky in this footage, and these could be affecting the image. This contrasts with observations I've made myself in which the sea conditions were fairly constant between the point of observation and the object observed (determined visually and by radar). The conditions in the video are actually not a perfectly clear atmospheric situation.  In my own at-sea observations, I certainly wouldn't record anything seen in that boiling mess as definitive or swear on it as definitively true or quantifiable. My suggestions to prove whether the observation in the video is "real" or not would be to do the following:

1. Repeat video with better atmospheric conditions at horizon at same or similar location for several days or even weeks.

2. Run several replicates of the above video over several days (prove beyond a doubt that it is repeatable in this specific location)

3. Take photographs of each of the two specific platforms up-close (in other words, from a vessel near them), not only to prove that these really are the platforms in question, but also to see if the image changed at all between that and the footage.

4. More strongly docuмent a starting point that proves where the point of observation is. We do see part of a balcony in the zoomed-out footage, but it is impossible to prove that this is really the stated location or not.

Unfortunately, most of these YouTube videos do not supply this kind of rigorous proof/ground-truthing. And the origin of such videos is often hard to find. Hence why overall, I think they are highly subject to manipulation either way, and the best way to figure out questions is to do things oneself...



 

Below is a picture of Platform Habitat, which is the farther platform.  Look how much is missing in the above photograph.



It seems that the water might be causing some sort of mirage. The structure is said to be 290 ft high.

Ref:  https://www.independent.com/2022/01/19/so-long-offshore-platforms/