Photo taken from Mr. Brunswick peak. Elevation 5,866 ft.
Largest peak in photo is of Mt. Rainier. Elevation 14,411 ft.
Notice all of Mt. Rainier is visible.
According to these calculations dizzib.github.io
... about 40% of it should be below the horizon.
Am I getting a red pill enema or too stupid for reality?
Pretty sure I can see a horizon line in front of the mountain.
Are you blind or just that retarded? You can clearly see the horizon line in front of Mt. Rainier.
If you're referring to the white line that is low altitude cloud coverage.
Either A: Everything you've ever been told about our planet's shape and space travel is an elaborate lie maintained by literally tens of thousands of people.
Or B: You're not interpreting the information you have correctly.
Could the curvature of light owing to thermal effects be extending your ability to see? Could your flawed eyes and imperfect camera perhaps be deceiving you? Think about everything very carefully before coming to any conclusions.
The only problem I have with your argument is that it's conjecture. I don't give a crap about my opinion on plausibility, yours or anyone else's. I care about empirical fact.
I agree it's absurd. That's why I made the post. This photo almost gives me a headache.
What about fluoride in water. Isnt it absurd too?
Welcome to the real world, OP.
>all of Mt. Rainier is visible.
nope
roughly 40% of it is hidden op, that mountain has one hell of a shape doesn't it?
Can you prove it isn't hiding about that much?
Your information and calculations are incorrect are incorrect,there is no way the distance is more than 50 km.
Compelling. I lived in Seattle for 17 years. I know what Mt. Rainier looks like.
Hard to prove because of how much effort and finances it would require. I'd have to be on site with some very high tech. But I know what Mt. Rainier looks like.
Verified. Measured the distances on google maps. It's between 190-195 miles.
en.wikipedia.org
Consider the following
epod.usra.edu
also relevant
I will give OP credit for leading me to some excellent reading on atmospheric phenomena, I'm now staring at lovely pictures of sunsets and chuckling at the foolish blindness of flatards
lol reading. Despite the debate's presumably preposterous nature, it does have intellectual value. I would probably assign it as a debate subject if I were a professor or teacher.
That's right, it's about 194 miles
>Notice all of Mt. Rainier is visible.
No it isn't. Tthere's your error right there.
round earthers BTFO
not sure if the atmospheric refraction caused by measuring a few inches above the water, which is cleared up by making measurements a few feet higher, is relevant here.
>epod.usra.edu
This one is more relevant.
mods delete this, we can't let the people know or they will revolt against our science conspiracy to rule the world.
Can you also see Russia from your home?
>all of Mt. Rainier is visible.
The height of a mountain is measured as distance above sea level, not the height from its base, wherever that is.
>> about 40% of it should be below the horizon.
Judging by this photo, 40% visible might be about right.
OP here.
I was also saw that photo on google.
Maybe? The first photo I posted still trips me out.
Just did the calculations.
The peak of the mountain in the picture should be -0.9312 degrees down, while the horizon is -1.3551 down.
This means that 68.71% of the mountain should be concealed by the horizon.
Looming is a possible answer OP. Related pic is an example.
>he's been staring at 60% of mount rainier for 17 years without realizing it
My point in posting that was to make the point that sometimes there's more going on than meets the eye.
It isn't all visible. About 40% of it is below the horizon.
It looks like this
Which isn't the entire mountain down to sea level, only these parts
And more is visible, but it's not all that different from the view from Mt. Brunswick