Is there any truth to the claim that the statue of liberty shouldn't

>>8224564
When you are 6 feet tall the horizon is less than 3 miles away

>>8224583
True, but I'm not sure what you mean to get at by pointing this out?

At 2,500 ft the horizon is 61.3 miles away. Say you were riding in a helicopter; technically, the statue of liberty could be seen from roughly that same height and distance. Admittedly the image doesn't provide any specifics as to the conditions of the viewing or other relevant data, but if it is to be believed then shouldn't the statue not be visible in the scenario described above due to the curvature (even though it could, in theory, still be detectable to the naked eye)?

Then again, perhaps the conditions were such that the naked eye was not what was used to measure the sight of the statue in the image. They could have used a telescope.

In any case I don't see how citing the fact that the horizon is about 3 miles away at 6 ft elevation refutes or in any way answers the question.

>>8224564
>>8224753
Have you any proof that it IS visible from 60 miles away?

>>8224772
Well... no. So, yeah, there's that working against the claim. But I don't think an absence of proof which can be quickly and easily located online should necessarily be taken as proof that it's completely false, either.

There's multiple sources stating that it is visible from 60 miles, but none of them provide proof, and all of them share a certain bias. The closest, non-biased thing I could find was this:

>In 1886, U.S. President, Grover Cleveland, ordered that the statue serve as a lighthouse. After several failed attempts using the then-new electrical technology, the electric arc lights were eventually lit and were able to be seen from a distance of 24 miles away. The statue functioned as a lighthouse for the next 16 years, until March 1, 1902.

According to that, it's visible from 24 miles; although it's not clear whether the statue itself was visible, or merely the light emitted from it.

Using the same math formula which was used to derive the 2074 ft figure, however, even from 24 miles the statue should still be 58 feet below the horizon.

>>8224836
>Using the same math formula which was used to derive the 2074 ft figure, however, even from 24 miles the statue should still be 58 feet below the horizon.
I'm not going to check any of this using your stupid imperial units, so what exactly are you doing to get those numbers? Chances are you've forgotten to multiply something by 2/3.

use the ocean, dumb brainlet

>>8224945
((60 x 60 x 8)/12)-326=2074
((24 x 24 x 8)/12)-326=58

My guess: it is taller than wider

You can't see it because of the width

File: roundearth.png (101KB, 1129x531px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1129x531px

>>8224564
It isn't visible from 60 miles away. Ir is visible from about 30 miles away though.

>>8224998
>>8224836
Well then both of those still beg the question, how can it be seen at all considering curvature?

>>8224564
IIRC, maybe(?) the atmosphere also causes something of a lensing effect, which increases how far you can see over the horizon by a small but substantial margin.

>>8224772
This, it all sounds pretty unreal

>>8225855
>considering curvature
But >>8224998 showed exactly what the limit is when you DO consider curvature

>>8224564
Yes, because of convection.

>>8224564
freedom of being trapped in jews book forever