Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 276  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence for Universal Accelerator force
« on: January 19, 2019, 12:50:42 AM »
Would refer some other evidence/info outside of FEW Tom if you dont mind. All the links you have listed are from FE Wiki and therefore somewhat biased. And presumably written by you.

You think that I wrote the litany of books and sources referenced, filmed that video, and conducted all of those experiments myself?  ???

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 18, 2019, 04:36:38 PM »
Tom, neuralgia isnt a disease. So therefore phosphorus cannot cure something that isnt a disease. Go back and read the actual text that goes with the table, not the table. It explicitly states by the author that the pain was gone. It does not state that it was cured.

It does say "cured." If they weren't cured, but it was helpful, they would be under the "relieved" section.

If you don't understand what a clinical study actually is, it means you can't understand their relevance.  And if you can't understand that, then you're clearly not qualified to argue for the validity of his phosphorus treatments.

This is the condition that was cured:

Trigeminal neuralgia is a chronic pain condition that affects the trigeminal nerve, which carries sensation from your face to your brain. If you have trigeminal neuralgia, even mild stimulation of your face — such as from brushing your teeth or putting on makeup — may trigger a jolt of excruciating pain.

An argument that these people were just accidentally cured by their cup of orange juice that morning when they took the phospherous, or that the doctor only needed to give some other people with that condition some sugar pills to see that it's all the same, is a farce.

There is evidence for phosphorous, and it was not contradicted.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 18, 2019, 04:18:53 PM »
Placebos don't cure chronic diseases overnight. Please point out a placebo that cured a disease.
Nor do medicines. You again show in this post you don't understand what a double blind medical trial is and why it's important.

If there is a body of research and knowledge on the matter, on what happens to people with a chronic illnesses when you give them nothing or something non-effective, then you already have that research, and conducing that full study is not actually necessary. There are many studies which refer to previous literature as their control.

In a previous example, phosphorous cured a hopeless case of disease. Did that doctor need to give someone a placebo and sentence them to death before reporting his successful result? No.

Quote from: Bad Puppy link=topic=11825.msg179935#mAsg179935AC
Are you having trouble comprehending my question?  Let me make this simple..... Choose A, or B.  A single letter response would suffice.

Definition of clinical study:

A) A controlled study is mainly needed when you don't know about the disease.
B) A clinical study that includes a comparison (control) group. The comparison group receives a placebo, another treatment, or no treatment at all.

None of that is needed. The doctors know what a hopeless case is, and the doctors know what a chronic disease is.

You are playing difficult because you have no evidence to contradict the links given, and really have no standing argument on the matter.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 18, 2019, 03:54:15 PM »
I'll add this to the list of things Tom doesn't understand.

A controlled double-blind study is always preferable as it eliminates factors such as the placebo effect which can be quite powerful - if people are told that they're being given something which will make them feel better then they often do even if the medicine itself has no effect. That's pretty much how homeopathy works. A double blind study with a control eliminates that factor.

Placebos don't cure chronic diseases overnight. Please point out a placebo that cured a disease.

I am requesting that you clarify why your claimed definition of the term that you used "controlled study" is not consistent with the definitions I have seen on medical sites on the internet, and what your source is for your definition.

I believe that you are misinformed on the matter. A great number of the controlled studies just refer to previous literature and cases on the disease as their control group. It's not actually necessary to continuously repeat the action of not treating people and causing them to suffer.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 18, 2019, 03:33:52 PM »
Studies with some people being untreated is unnecessary and unethical. People with late stage cancer don't just spontaneously cure themselves, for example. It would be unethical to give one person medicine that may help them, and withhold it from another patient with the same affliction, "just to see what will happen". The doctor knows what will happen, and that doctor knew that those people with chronic pain would continue to be in pain. It is the physician's prerogative to give their patients the best treatment option available.

"Controlled studies" are very often conducted by referring to the historic medical data of untreated patients with the same disease to compare to.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 18, 2019, 03:18:00 PM »
Cured nerve pain. That is what they said. I did read it. I read even beyond what you snipped out. They did not say it cured cholera. It cured the pain. It alleviated symptoms. There is a difference.

It clearly says that some people were cured, relieved, benefited, or agitated.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 18, 2019, 02:57:39 PM »
Where are the evidence-based studies showing phosphorus to be effective? All you've done is given us a list of 35 patients who were treated by phosphorus in the year 1875. That is a tiny sample size to base the efficacy of phosphorus on. We don't even know whether they got the same treatment.

You have given us zero case studies on phosphorous. The fact that the issues were resolved for those people in a very short amount of time upon taking phosphorous is evidence enough. Where is your evidence that it is faked, the doctors were slipping in opium or whatever, and that these doctors, and Rowbotham, are shams?

Tom, your evidence isn't perfect, it doesn't even approach a controlled, rigorous study. There could have been a placebo effect at play. Some lurking variables like lifestyle, age, etc. could have also had an effect. Indeed, if you actually looked at the tables, only 16 patients reported a cure, 1 a partial cure, 9 relief, 1 improvement, 2 temporary improvement, 5 no improvement, and one case actually worsened with the phosphorus! Even better, take a look at this table, from your own source:

That's a lot of diseases reported from the patients, some patients having multiple nervous ailments, are you now going to claim phosphorus as some neuralgia panacea? How do you interpret the results now? Just because a majority of the patients reported an improvement or cure doesn't make it good evidence. There are too many loose ends in the evidence you've provided to make a conclusion without more data, which you haven't provided. I'm not calling the doctors liars, it's just disingenuous of you to present a list as a study , and call it evidence.

Evidence-based medical studies? Maybe if you looked at your own evidence you'd find it's just a list of cases where phosphorus was used. Don't know how you get a medical study out of that. Was there a randomization of the experimental units (i.e. the patients). Was there a control group? Was a placebo used? Was the same treatment even used for all the patients in your list? Phosphorus treatment is a rather vague and general term. What levels of dosage were tested with the treatments? And most importantly, has your "evidence-based medical study" ever been replicated? Don't just throw around words without knowing what they mean.

Dosage is discussed in the texts.

If you can't contradict the claims of the doctors with evidence of equal or greater power, then you have no evidence. Your speculation is not evidence. I would suggest learning what evidence is. It is not speculation. It's nice that you are skeptical. But you have no evidence to base your accusations on. No evidence. None. Once you can show evidence, you may suggest that all of these doctors are liars.

Speculation? You claimed your data was an evidence-based medical study. I said your data was merely a list of patients and I gave you the criteria of what a study is and isn't. Out of that barrage of questions, you were only able to address one, so here they are a little more clearer.

How were the experimental units organized in the experiment, by randomization, blocking, or matched pairs?

Was there a control group?

Was a placebo used?

Was the same treatment even used for all the patients given the variation of treatments from your own sources, from solutions of phosphoric acid to a mixture of phosphoric acid and tea, to pills.

Was your "evidence-based medical study" ever replicated?

Bonus Question: Was any form of blinding used?

If you can't answer those questions, then it's not a medical study. In fact, if you read the title of the page of of your "evidence-based medical study," it says
"Tabulated List of cases Treated with Free Phosphorus," nowhere do I see the word study.

I never claimed my questions based on the definition of a study, or what you call speculation was evidence, I'm merely questioning your evidence, and frankly, your evidence is rather weak to support your claims. You're claiming phosphorus has curative properties towards neuralgia. Now, a general rule of thumb in writing research is finding sources relative to your claims, for example, if you write an art paper about cubism, a lot of your sources might be art critics in the 20's. What you're saying is phosphorus can cure people of nerve ailments, medicine is a very dynamic field, yet your source is 124 years old, is not even a study, and does not have any studies corroborating its claims, not then, nor now, nor any time in between. Your source is not proportional to your claims.

A controlled study is mainly needed when you don't know about the disease. Do you think the doctors involved didn't know anything about the diseases they were treating, and that it was perfectly normal for those diseases to cure rapidly on its own own after taking a new prescription, or that deliberating pain just goes away on its own with anything prescribed to the patient? That's ludicrous.

Evidence was provided, and you were not able to contradict it.

Ok, Tom, after reviewing the first several pieces of evidence you presented on the use of phosphorus, I am calling bullshit on its curative properties.

First, the authors of the articles make statements to efficacy in pain relief. Mainly nerve pain. Using phosphorus to relieve nerve pain is not a cure for a disease. It is equivalent to using tylenol to "cure" a headache. It doesnt cure it. It alleviates the pain. Go back and reread what the authors say in your so called evidence.

I read the material, you didn't. They do say that phosphorous cured.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon
« on: January 18, 2019, 01:24:29 AM »
Sure, we can go with balance. But it will still be a balance of things I can verify, not things the nice man on TV told me to believe.

I have no idea how you can function in the world on that basis. You have to take hundreds of things at face value, without verification, every day....

If I look at the weather forecast, ON THE TV, on Sunday night, and it says there'll be heavy snow on Monday morning, I look out my snow boots and make sure the car anti-freeze is topped up. What do you do? Build your own weather-monitoring system so that you can check for yourself?

If the geiger counter reads off the scale as I approach (say) Chernobyl, I stop and move away. What do you do? Build a geiger counter from scratch?

If the microwave instructions say don't put body parts into the oven whilst it's operating, do you take that at face value, or do you stick a finger in to verify it?

Science tells you most all of the above. If you believe science on the above, but you cherry-pick to disbelieve it on shape of the planet, space exploration and such ....

This forum isn't about questioning any of those topics. Pete is asking you for items that can be verified in regards to the subject of the website. It is apparent that you are at a lack of answers and are just asking people to blindly believe.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Newbie
« on: January 17, 2019, 11:54:54 PM »
What I always find puzzling is you simultaneously think space agencies have the budget to fake space travel and yet do it so badly that people with no training in image/video analysis can easily spot the errors.

And the evidence is in the video and others like it. When you have a better rebuttal than name calling let us know.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 17, 2019, 10:03:47 PM »
See the Coriolis Effect articles in the Wiki.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Newbie
« on: January 17, 2019, 10:01:05 PM »
Another misguided loon who uses the Bible as his basis for scientific fact. Solid evidence there.

Can you show us where you have debunked every point and clip used in the video?

Unless you've debunked all evidence it remains as evidence.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?
« on: January 17, 2019, 06:35:22 PM »
I have explained it. I haven’t done the maths for you. Are you not able to maths? If not I will have a go for you later.

If you can't understand it and the error levels, the difference between a 100 mile distant object and a 200 mile distant object, then you are in no position to tell us whether it is an accurate distance or not.

Here is what I believe the author of that video was trying to get at. Consider the following:

If you have a grasshopper that is ten feet away and that grasshopper jumps directly over you, it takes that grasshopper ten seconds to get to a position ten feet directly behind you.

Total distance (circle with a radius of 10 / 2) = 31.415 ft in 10 seconds

If that grasshopper is now one hundred feet away, and that grasshopper jumps directly over you, to get to a position 100 feet behind you at ten seconds, it would now be:

Total distance (circle with a radius of 100 / 2) = 314.1595 ft in 10 seconds

Now, clearly the second example is going much further through space. Yet, at the five second mark, both examples are going to be directly over the observer. At the 2.5 second mark and at the 7.5 second mark, both examples would also be in similar positions around the observer.

If the grasshopper were just a point in space, and it was ambiguous how far away it was from the observer, then the observer would not be able to tell the difference. The reason you wouldn't be able to tell a difference is because its a larger circle around the observer, and the positions would line up. Circles can behave in this way.

The author of the video is implying this, but on a horizontal circular basis instead of a perfectly vertical one.

As an aside, from what I've read, I actually do believe that the sun changes speed throughout the year somewhat, but it isn't extreme.

Take a look at this video:

Even though its faster, it's still only making one rotation per 24 hours.

If the opacity of atmosphere did not exist and the observer could see the sun at all times, it would make one circle per 24 hours for any observer.  If we cut it down to degrees per hour , for every 15 degrees the sun makes, one hour of time elapses.

For further analysis consider that the sun passes over more or less of the observer's sky between the seasons:

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?
« on: January 17, 2019, 02:59:28 AM »
If you are using a triangle, you are assuming that the earth is flat.

Go on, tell us how you reach that conclusion.

I took a look at the shape of a triangle.

I don't have any problem with adjusting for the arc (over the surface) and the chord (the straight line, or side of the triangle) under the arc.

Simple geometry, surely?

If you agreed that a triangle was a flat earth, why did you bother to even post at all?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 17, 2019, 01:28:31 AM »
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom.  Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?

Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.

At some point you have to be able to accept something as true. Jupiter's moons is something that has been discussed, analyzed, photographed, looked at, and calculated for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years.

We read the book and found that the methods were flawed. If you believe that the methods are accurate then defend the topic.

Much like the Pythagorean theorem. If you could disprove it you would get fame, fortune, and accolades as the greatest mathematician who ever walked the earth.

That is false. If you question, disprove, or criticize you are either mocked or ignored.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 17, 2019, 01:18:38 AM »
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.

How many astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and similar folk do you think there are in the world, Tom?

Certainly far more than the number of Flat Earthers. The number of amateur astronomers boasts in the hundreds of thousands to 1 million+, in fact  Yet none appear interested in discussion or validation of the claims of astronomy. Look at the dancing around of the issue that the methods of triangulation in astronomy are invalid in this thread, for example.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 17, 2019, 12:29:14 AM »
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 17, 2019, 12:20:47 AM »
What truth would that be then?

The continual validation and revalidation of astronomy. Astronomy is alleged to be a science. Yet you admit to astronomers being uninterested in  discussion, validation, and checks of basic knowledge.

That's a bit ironic considering how your flawless source of everything flat-earth is a book that's almost 140 years old.

The Flat Earth movement has been performing continuous validation and checks of Earth Not a Globe.

Where can we see similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 276  Next >