https://beyondhorizons.eu/2017/09/15/grignetta-mont-blanc-196-km/#more-2314
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Tournalin
Angular Size Calculator: http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm
In the photo, Mont Blanc has a larger actual height of 15,777 feet; while Grand Tournalin has an actual height of 11,086 feet. However, in the photo Mont Blanc looks to be slightly smaller than Grand Tournalin. Is this proof of a globe? Absolutely not!
We must compare the angular sizes of both peaks and we're going to compute the angular sizes for both peaks without considering the purported curvature of the earth.
Let's begin with Mont Blanc, with a distance of 122 miles or 644,160 feet and an elevation of 15,777 feet, Mon Blanc has an angular size of 1.4032 Degrees.
Grand Tournlin with an elevation of 11,086 feet, at a distance of 82 miles or 432,960 feet, has a slightly larger apparent or angular size of 1.467 degrees.
Again, Mont Blanc has an angular size of 1.4032 and Grand Tournalin has a larger angular size of 1.467 degrees.
In other words, on the flat earth, Grand Tournalin should appear slightly larger than Mont Blanc just as shown in this photograph.
Flat earth passes the angular size test! The photo matches what we would see on the flat earth!
But would happen on a ball earth? Undoubtedly, we must still calculate the angular size of both respective peaks as we just did for the flat earth, but we must then include the drop of curvature in accordance with accepted globe dimensions.
The distance from Grignetta, where the photographer was, to Mont Blanc was 122 miles; that's a Curvature drop of 9,923 feet. The distance from Grignetta to the Grand Tournalin was 82 miles; that's a curvature drop of 4,483 feet.
You then subtract the two curvature drops to calculate the curvature drop from Grand Tournalin to Mont Blanc from the observer's point of view – that's a difference of 5,440 feet.
Therefore, under the globe model, that means that the top of Mont Blanc would have dropped an additional 5,440 feet beyond Grand Tournalin and would then be only 10,337 feet tall with respect to the closer Grand Tournalin at 11,086 feet. This is curvature drop only (not angular size).
Based only on the curvature drop, does it look like Grand Tournalin is 749 feet taller than Mont Blanc? Yes, it does and the globe model would appear valid when you only consider curvature drop and that's where the globe shill will want you to stop but that's only halfway.
So now, let's figure in the angular size reduction …. I must reiterate, an angular size computation is without question a 100% necessity … objects get apparently smaller with distance … that is a FACT.
We're going to include the angular size reduction by calculating a new angular size for the curvature adjusted and shorter Mon Blanc (meanding the Mont Blanc that shrunk to 10,337 feet due to the alleged curvature drop).
Adjusted height of Mont Blanc if 15,777 ft minus 5,440 ft which equals 10,337 feet. According to the angular size calculator, the adjusted angular size of Mont Blanc is now 0.91942 degrees
Now let's compare the adjusted Mont Blanc angular size with the additional curvature drop with Grand Tournalin. Under the globe model, Mont Blanc should appear 63% the height of Grand Tournalin – 63%.
Without question, Mont Blanc is much larger than 63% of Grand Tournalin.
Flat earth wins!!!
