DISAPPEARANCE OF SHIPS AT SEA

ZETETIC COSMOGONY:
OR
Conclusive Evidence
THAT THE WORLD IS NOT A
ROTATING—REVOLVING—GLOBE,
BUT
A STATIONARY PLANE CIRCLE.
By Thomas Winship
1899

 start here

(Post 9/47)

DISAPPEARANCE OF SHIPS AT SEA.

J. W. Draper, in his "Conflict between Religion and Science," page 160, says: "The circular visible horizon and its dip at sea, the gradual appearance and disappearance of ships in the offing, cannot fail to incline intelligent sailors to a belief in the globular form of the earth."

The "circular visible horizon" amounts to nothing, because if we take our stand in a large square of, say, 20 miles, the visible horizon will be circular, any point in the distance being the edge of the circle of vision. If we measure off a square of 100 miles or so, the vision will be bounded by a circle, the limit of sight. So the "circular visible horizon" may at once be dismissed. But "its dip at sea" is just what has never been seen. It is the very thing that requires to be seen to establish the globular theory; it is the very thing that never has been seen. Wherever we look at sea, the water extends in one straight line, as far as the eye can reach. A flat surface is always seen, and ships are seen at distances altogether out of proportion to the allowance to be made for convexity, if the surface were a convex one.

When a ship or any other object recedes from the observer on a level surface the highest part is always seen last by reason of perspective. So that the masts and sails of; a receding vessel on a flat surface should be seen long after the hull has become invisible to the naked eye. Besides this law of perspective, the hull of a vessel is generally of a dark colour, and often at a very short distance disappears to the naked eye, because it has lost its individuality in the mass of surrounding water, both hull and water being nearly of the same colour. It appears to have mingled with the water, and is thus lost to sight. The hull has no background whatever, but the masts and sails have a splendid background against the sky, and stand out to advantage, and are, for this reason also, seen long after the hull has vanished. But that the hull has not "gone down behind a hill of water"—that it is not because of the globular surface of the water that it is invisible—has been proved by the writer many times.

At Capetown, sometime ago, I made special experiments with a view to arrive at the truth of the matter. On one occasion I watched the schooner Lilla, of Capetown, sail away north, bound to Saldanha Bay. Instead of gradually going down the hill of water—the observer always being on the highest part—she appeared to ascend an inclined plane, until she reached the level of my eye—perhaps 100 feet above sea level—and then gradually diminished in size. Soon her hull disappeared—it was painted black—and her masts and sails became smaller and smaller every minute. I then applied a binocular to the eye, and saw her hull plainly enough. It remained in sight until the individuality of the vessel's parts were lost in the distance.

The iron barque La Querida, of Liverpool, sailed out of Table Bay bound to Australia. I watched her until the hull had completely disappeared; but on applying the glass saw it as clearly as possible, and this when the vessel was at least 10 miles away. So that the "hill of water" in both these instances was imaginary only.

In May, 1895, I was a passenger on board the U.S.S. Goth. In Algoa Bay I gave a brief lecture on the subject of this work, and had much discussion with some of the passengers; one affirming he could believe all I said, with the exception of the way I accounted for the disappearance of ships at sea. I replied that we would likely see one of the ships, and then it could be tested. Next day I observed a vessel about ten miles away, but though the masts and sails were pretty clear, the hull was not to be seen. Applying the glass I saw the hull as plain as any other part of the ship, I called the gentleman with whom I had the previous day's conversation and showed him the vessel. I asked him to look at the ship for some time so as to be quite sure whether the hull was visible or not. After looking a minute or so he was quite certain that the hull could not be seen. I asked him why it was invisible. "Because," said he, "it is hidden behind a hill of water, the surface of the ocean being convex." I asked him if he believed my glass could see through a "hill of water," and gave him the astronomer's curvature for the distance—which he admitted to be 10 miles—as 10 by 10 by 8 inches = 66 feet, less 20 feet for height of eye and 10 feet for height of the other vessel's hull, = 36 feet the hull should have been below the water. He replied that the glass could not, of course, see through a hill of water, and applied it to his eye. Great was his astonishment on seeing the hull, but equally ready was his confession that the theory of the earth's rotundity founded on the disappearance of ships at sea was false.

On a steamer in March, 1897, when near St. Helena my attention was called to a large vessel, just before sunset. With the naked eye the masts and sails were visible enough, but nothing of the hull could be seen. On applying the glass, there appeared to be no difference, and I was for some time lost in wonder. But as the sun got lower in the heavens, I noticed that the vessel's hull was overshadowed by banks of black clouds low down on the water and thus could not be seen. The hull was enveloped in dense blackness and was lost to the eye. But as soon as the sun was low enough to counteract this effect, I saw the hull quite plain with the glass, when only the sails were visible to the naked eye.

Between Teneriffe and Southampton we sighted a large four-masted steamer astern of us. The hull was also plainly to be seen—the vessel appeared to be in ballast. Our ship's officers said she was 12 miles away, and I think the distance was not less. For two whole days she was visible to us astern; sometimes the hull being quite plain, at other times being invisible; thus proving that the state of the atmosphere has more to do with the matter than globularity, if it existed, could have. According to the globe theory, an object plainly visible to the naked eye and seen by scores of people, should have been 96 feet below the horizon, allowing both vessels to be the same height above the water, which was as near as possible correct, as our ship had scarcely any cargo on board and presented a high side out of the water. ANOTHER WITNESS:

To the Editor of the Earth Review. Sir,—In August last I, with several other friends, being in Oban for a holiday, took a trip for a day in a small yacht on Loch Lorne, and being a glorious sunshiny day and so calm that not a ripple was seen, and being becalmed for an hour about midday we observed a good many sights of various kinds. Amongst other things that we saw was a yacht, which the captain told us was 12 miles distant. We saw all the masts and part of the hull, and to get a better view of her we took our binocular opera glass. Now, sir, wouldn't it require a funny curvature table either with or without the odd fractions to explain how we saw the hull of that vessel twelve miles off? According to a table furnished by the present Astronomer Royal recently, it ought to have been 66 feet below the line of sight; but the 'table' that we saw it from was the side of our yacht, and we concluded the sea was level. Yours respectfully, JOHN SMITH, Siddal, Halifax.

The following is from "100 Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe": "If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the daytime, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that when a vessel appears 'hull-down,' as it is called, it is because the hull is 'behind the water': for, vessels have been seen, and may often be seen again, presenting the appearance spoken of, and away—far away—beyond those vessels, and, at the same moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement of tall trees, towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the 'hull-down' ships!"

The following is from Chambers' Journal, of February, 1895, page 32: "A good many years ago a Pilot in the Mauritius reported that he had seen a vessel which turned out to be 200 miles off. This incident caused a good deal of discussion in nautical circles at the time, and strange to say, a seemingly well authenticated case of the same kind occurred afterwards at Aden. A Pilot there announced that he had seen from the heights the Bombay steamer then nearly due. He stated precisely the direction in which he saw her, and added that her head was not then turned towards the port. . . . . . Two days afterwards the missing steamer entered the Port, and it was found on enquiries that at the time mentioned by the Pilot she was exactly in the direction and position indicated by him, but ABOUT TWO HUNDRED MILES AWAY."

Under exceptional conditions of the atmosphere, therefore, enormous distances can be penetrated by the unaided eye, and with a good telescope, objects at distances totally out of proportion to the globular theory, can be seen. Take the case of the above steamer. If the globe theory be correct this vessel would have been FOUR MILES BELOW THE LINE OF SIGHT, allowing one mile for height of observer, and thus even when aided by the most powerful telescope ever invented, could not have been seen. Once more, it dawns on the thinking man, that the world is not the globe of popular credulity, but an extended motionless plane.