Is there any flat earther that is able to come up with an explanation of what is happening here in New Zeleand? It's been bothering me for a while now.

You see, in New Zealand there is an old volcano, called Mt Taranaki, which is 2518m high, and it takes a lot of sweat, blood and tears to climb this beauty in a day. One day as I was loitering around the North Island, I found myself at a favourite tourist spot at the bottom of the North Island, called "Cape Farewell from Pillar Point". As I looked north over the ocean through my super duper tele lens, I spotted what looked like the tip of Mt Taranaki. But lo and behold, the mountain was sinking into the ocean! All the surrounding land had already disappeared, and only the tip of the mountain was left!

As I rushed back to my car, and drove at full speed back to Taranaki, I feared for the worst.

But as I approached Taranaki, lo and behold, somehow the mountain had popped back up, as if he hadn't left at all.

Please, doctor, don't tell my I'm going loopy !? I really saw it happen with my own camera. I posted this picture online (here, bottom of the page) in the hope that someone will be able to explain this to me.

Maybe the flat earthers can help?

PS : I tried science, I tried common sense, I tried sweet talk, nothing worked. Maybe sarcasm will do the trick?

Samuel, I'm not a scientist so I can't (nor do I want) to understand the science in many of the arguments.  Thanks for posting an article/picture which explains a problem with the flat earth in "laymen's" terms.  

.
Apparently the flat-earthers are unable to help with this Mt. Taranaki-is-sinking-or-not problem.
.
It's been a whole day now and no active participation, as they say.
.

.
That is, unless you can call it "help" when they post things like:
-- That's a fake image
-- You must have used CGI
-- Anyone can do anything with Photoshop
-- That mountain on the left isn't the same color so it's not the same mountain
-- The water is blue on the left and green on the right so it's all make believe
-- There isn't enough snow on the left mountain anyways so it's not real
-- Next thing you'll be showing pictures of aliens
-- This is all perfectly explained by perspective
-- What happened here is the horizon rises to the level of the viewer in the left photo
-- Haven't you heard the news, the earth is "flat?"

Here's another one to add to your list. It was posted last year on ABLF3, by a real flat earther, in reply to this Taranaki problem:

What is happening here in these cases is the simple phenomen of convergence. It is why we cannot see to somewhere the other end of the world. It is an observation, based on the (well founded - as you will see) assumption that the earth is flat.
 

Did you get that? I never found out what kind of an animal this "observation based on an assumption" could possibly be. All I found out is that the beast is called "convergence".

Inconclusive.  By your own admission you can't say where the pictures were taken.  So we can't ascertain where sea level actually is.  In the picture at the top, the view of the mountain appears to be from inland and appears to have an inland body of water in front of it.  Then, later, when you compose the two pictures together, the mountain peak is the same size in each picture, suggesting that they were taken from the same distance (unless one was blown up to match the other one).  We also do not know the levels of magnification and angles, etc.  You take a number of "educated guesses".  But such photographic manipulations as well as the admission of the writer that it is not known where the pictures were taken results in an epic fail for this proof.  I'm not saying that proof is not possible, just that this is not proof.  It fails the basic scientific method in that the basic and essential facts are not even known.

Since I did not know where the photo was taken from I took an educated guess.

Fail.

Inconclusive.  By your own admission you can't say where the pictures were taken.  So we can't ascertain where sea level actually is.  In the picture at the top, the view of the mountain appears to be from inland and appears to have an inland body of water in front of it.  Then, later, when you compose the two pictures together, the mountain peak is the same size in each picture, suggesting that they were taken from the same distance (unless one was blown up to match the other one).  We also do not know the levels of magnification and angles, etc.  You take a number of "educated guesses".  But such photographic manipulations as well as the admission of the writer that it is not known where the pictures were taken results in an epic fail for this proof.  I'm not saying that proof is not possible, just that this is not proof.  It fails the basic scientific method in that the basic and essential facts are not even known.

Fail.

.
If you had had some experience with telephoto or zoom lenses you'd know that the photo on the left was taken with a telephoto lens at greater magnification than the one on the right, consequently at a greater distance, very likely. You can see it in the pixel resolution. The added fact of the water surface covering half the mountain might seem to make it obvious but the photographer might not have been expecting the "flat-earth" attack of looking for anything to criticize, and throwing spit-wads on the wall to see what sticks.
.
It would be nice to have the data represented, as you say. Amateur photographers are sometimes in the good habit of including those but when you're not in the good habit it's hard to change bad habits.
.