.
source
.
My Own Experiment
Since temperature inversions are common over water, it is relatively easy to devise experiments in which distant objects beyond the curvature of the earth are visible. Perhaps the most famous are the photographs of the Chicago skyline taken across Lake Michigan, about 60 miles away. The photographer, Joshua Nowicki, does not promote the flat earth, but flat-earthers have used his photographs many times, such as here, as supposed proof that the earth is flat. Flat-earthers do not seem to be aware of just how rare these photographs are. If the earth were flat, then the Chicago skyline would be visible across Lake Michigan nearly every clear day, but it is not. If the earth is spherical, then the hulls of ships ought to disappear as the ships move away from the observer. Since the ship must move many miles away for this to become noticeable, it is difficult to see this with the naked eye.
.
As with the Chicago skyline, there are many images on the internet, usually videos, of ships some distance away in which their hulls are visible. Many of these are taken during warm weather, such as late spring and summer, when the water is likely to be much cooler than the air, producing a temperature inversion. However, what would happen if one were to repeat this experiment over water that is warmer than the air temperature? Since there is no temperature inversion, the hulls of ships ought to disappear. This condition is likely to prevail on cool days in late autumn and early winter, when water temperatures are higher than air temperatures. These conditions also can produce inferior mirages, though not nearly as pronounced as over land on sunny summer days.
.
On November 12, 2016, I had the opportunity to conduct this experiment. I was near the water’s edge, just beyond the surf, at Virginia Beach from middle to late afternoon. When I began, the air temperature was 50 degrees F, and the temperature dropped a degree or two by the time that I was done, near sunset. The water temperature was 62–64 degrees F, so the air immediately above the water was at least ten degrees warmer than the air temperature a short distance above the water. I photographed two cargo ships as they made their way out to sea from the port at Hampton Roads. I mounted a digital SLR camera on a 3.5-inch Questar telescope, having a 1,200-mm focal length. The ISO setting on the camera was 100 for all photographs.
.
The first photograph (Figure 4) is of a cargo ship bearing the name of the company on its hull. The company is the NYK line, a major Japanese shipping company. Notice that the bottoms of the letters are not visible. The letters on the hulls of cargo ships do not extend to the water line, even when fully loaded, so clearly the bottom of the hull is not visible. This is consistent with what we would expect on a spherical earth, but not on a flat earth. Notice the white bridge castle to the left. The shipping containers are multicolored, and they are stacked at least seven high above the hull directly in front of the bridge castle. Below the visible tiers of the multi-colored containers there is a level of what appears to be gray containers. It is not clear why the containers in this layer are the same color. Finally, notice that the image is a bit blurry. This is because of turbulence in the air between the ship and shore. With increasing distance, the turbulence will get worse, and the images will get blurrier.
.

Conclusion 
(Second ship's photos will be added later)
These photographs clearly reveal that the hulls of these (two) ships progressively disappeared as the ships moved farther away. This is consistent with what we would expect if the earth is spherical, but this cannot be explained if the earth is flat. Therefore, this is good evidence that the earth is spherical. The results presented here contradict the many photos on the internet of objects beyond the horizon that supposedly prove that the earth is flat. Those alleged proofs are flawed because they failed to take account of atmospheric refraction due to a temperature inversion. By conducting this experiment when there was no possibility of a temperature inversion, I avoided that complication. The fact that inferior mirages consistently showed up in the photographs prove that there was no temperature inversion, indicating instead that there was a slightly warmer layer of air in contact with the water, with slightly cooler air above.

.

Quote from: Neil Obstat on Yesterday at 10:14:44 PM

Quote

This is consistent with what we would expect if the earth is spherical, but this cannot be explained if the earth is flat.

.

False.  You can clearly see the resolution of the pictures getting worse ... as the markings on the side get more and more blurry.  So the adequacy of the magnification remains in question.  Nor do we know the sea conditions ... i.e. how high the waves are.

.
I had to go back and find what you are quoting because "This" (which you say is false) is not contained in your quote.
.
"These photographs clearly reveal that the hulls of these two ships progressively disappeared as the ships moved farther away. This is consistent with what we would expect if the earth is spherical, but this cannot be explained if the earth is flat."
.
The author says, "These photographs clearly reveal..." and you say these photographs are not clear but blurry.
.
The author isn't talking about the resolution of the photos. He's referring to the clarity of the evidence that the two ships progressively disappeared (from the bottom up, gradually) as the ships moved farther away.
.
You can see (or you ought to be able to see) that even with additional blurriness as they moved away, it is evident that the blue water under the ship is not the same thing as a view of the hulls which are evidently obscured by the blue water.
.
If the earth were "flat" we would still be able to see the first ship's hull, even with additional blurriness.
.
When the hull is no longer visible, such as in Figures 6 through 10 (first ship), the magnification is adequate (you say it's in question?) to show the containers on deck and therefore we ought to see the hull too, but we can't.
.
Some technical info is given for the camera and lens:
"I mounted a digital SLR camera on a 3.5-inch Questar telescope, having a 1,200-mm focal length. The ISO setting on the camera was 100 for all photographs."
.
Are you suggesting that the lens or the camera are somehow questionable? 1,200 mm focal length is more power than most sports photographers use for football games, for example. Do you think more magnification is needed here? Or what?
.
What manner of magnification would you be satisfied with? If anything?
.
As for "how high the waves are" it would be nice to know what the swell height was that day, but let's face it, there are no white caps anywhere so we know from that alone that the seas were not choppy. If the swells were high we would see some effects of that in the images of the water but there isn't any. We could expect a swell height of about 4 feet for such conditions, but certainly no more than 6 feet. The hulls of such container ships are generally 50 feet high above the water line, and you can estimate that by the comparative size of the standard containers on the deck. The first image, Figure 4, shows 8 levels of containers with a partially obscured ship hull height of 6 container heights. So the first ship had a hull height of at least 8 container heights since the painted letters are never touching the water line of container ships.
.
Do you suppose that 50 feet of hull can be hidden behind less than 10 feet of swell on a "flat" earth? Or what?
.
Why is this difficult for you to recognize? It sounds like you're trying to say that since you don't like the magnification (for the increasing blurriness?) you therefore think a "flat" earth is consistent with these photographs. How so?
.

These photographs clearly reveal that the hulls of these (two) ships progressively disappeared as the ships moved farther away. This is consistent with what we would expect if the earth is spherical, but this cannot be explained if the earth is flat. Therefore, this is good evidence that the earth is spherical. The results presented here contradict the many photos on the internet of objects beyond the horizon that supposedly prove that the earth is flat. Those alleged proofs are flawed because they failed to take account of atmospheric refraction due to a temperature inversion. By conducting this experiment when there was no possibility of a temperature inversion, I avoided that complication. The fact that inferior mirages consistently showed up in the photographs prove that there was no temperature inversion, indicating instead that there was a slightly warmer layer of air in contact with the water, with slightly cooler air above.[/font][/size][/color]

Such nonsense.You are trying to confuse people with false assertions so they will be put off from seeking the truth.
 
This is explained on the flat earth by perspective, but you don't agree because you presume the earth is round.Which is not scientific. If you want to propose  a  theory that the earth is round, which is contrary to appearances, then your theory has to stand up to scrutiny. It does not.

Temperature inversion has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. We've gone through mirages. But you're just copying and pasting. Intelligent debate might be too much for you.

Such nonsense.You are trying to confuse people with false assertions so they will be put off from seeking the truth.
 
This is explained on the flat earth by perspective, but you don't agree because you presume the earth is round.Which is not scientific. If you want to propose  a  theory that the earth is round, which is contrary to appearances, then your theory has to stand up to scrutiny. It does not.

Temperature inversion has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. We've gone through mirages. But you're just copying and pasting. Intelligent debate might be too much for you.

Yet this comment here is not intelligent debate either.

Yet this comment here is not intelligent debate either.

A curious thing to say. Because I attacked the poster doesn't mean my comment didn't contain substance as well.

People can be morally irresponsible as well as factually incorrect. I can correct both.

This explains at least why you don't post on flat earth.

The only decline will be in your mind as more and more people around you become flat earth and you obstinately refuse it.

How you can  say that something which the majority of human beings accepted for thousands of years will lead to a decline is beyond me.

But that is the power of globe-think

Fool.

.
Between Figure 13 and 14, not only the writing disappears, but also (in 14) an inferior image appears IN ITS PLACE.
.
Where you see the tops of letters in 13 you see in 14 the reflection of the top of the hull upside down with the first course of containers reflected just above water level -- the same thing you see higher up on the ship but here it's upside down, an inferior image.
.
Is that reflected lower part what you mean by "visual convergence with the water level?"
The website refers to this as "inferior image."
.
The horizontal line that divides the lower image with the upper, upright image can be at a level that more accurately indicates the highest level of ocean water, and tangent to the high point of ocean curvature. The inferior image below that high or tangent line is then a reflection appearing upside-down, of the narrow band of ship image ending with the first course of containers.
.
The blurriness of the pictures is due to atmospheric interference, which would be much worse if it were foggy. These telephotos are pretty clear for shoreline shots, but apparently they're not clear enough to meet your expectations!
.
The other thread with submarine periscope photos has some examples of very clear telephotos, but remember those were taken out at sea where there is no shoreline conditions. Sometimes long distance images can be very good in the open ocean but they're much more rare shooting from land out to sea.
.
This one has no inferior image and very little "blurriness":

Yet the very bottom part of the ship's hull where it meets the water is obscured by the high point of sea curvature between the ship and the periscope. Since the periscope is usually only 3 to 5 feet above the water surface this high point of sea curvature is much closer to the ship than it is to the periscope and so it hides less than 3 to 5 feet of the ship's hull. Since the ship is probably in motion, some wake or surge at the bow would be visible from close range but it could be hidden in the same 3 to 5 feet that is obscured by the high point of sea curvature.

Sea curvature? Quite a stretch.  Not even NASA says "sea curvature".  In fact, no one at all says it or suggests it.  Always and everywhere it is known as sea level.  Water surface does not 'curve'.