*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #60 on: August 31, 2018, 08:34:45 AM »

This is direct evidence that the sinking ship effect changes over time, and is not caused by the curvature of the earth.

Seeing now how the sinking ship effect works, what evidence is there showing that the Turning Torso shots is actually of curvature of the earth? As there is evidence that the effect is variable, the internet pictures of obscured bodies are insufficient. The first video above from 9/7/12 is high resolution, and shows that the sinking ship effect can cause the body to appear right next to the water's surface, as if it were obscured. At other times the body is not obscured.

You guys showed us pictures of water with various refraction effects on the surface. Proof? Not at all. The collected evidence shows that these effects are known phenomena and should be expected. The fact that the phenomena changes over time shows that it is not because of the curvature of the earth.

I don't know where to start, so I'll start here.

You've chosen to address this challenge by refuting the claim that atmospheric refraction is the reason for the difference between the earth curve calculator output and the observation. By doing so, you are not defending the flat earth.

The task for your is to explain the missing floors/elevation of the Turning Torso. You're showing me (us) examples of how atmospheric distortions (which are also based on the same refraction principles used by spherical earth), but unlike the spherical earth argument (which you refute) you aren't able to perform any calculations or predictions whatsoever. Where's the flat earth calculator?

All I see is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning; meaning whatever it is we observe, you claim refraction but without describing what, how or even trying to quantify it to relate to the amount of tower that's disappeared from view.  At the same time, you reject the refraction explanation for why more is visible even though it is accompanied with a reasoned explanation and quantified values.

I reject the RE refraction for the simple reason that we have no demonstration or evidence that refraction can cause one body to jump over another body. We do have evidence that refraction can simulate the obscuring of bodies into the water, however, and see that it can do so for long periods of time.

Lack of evidence for one idea, direct evidence for another.

Quote
You apparently don't understand the challenge. I get why you want to refute the spherical earth defense, but you don't "win" the challenge by thinking that flat earth is so by default.

What challenge was that? How about applying the "what is the closer delta" challenge to the JTolan image? You will shout "refraction." Would it then turn into a competition on who can find more Flat Earth and Round Earth sinking ship effect images?

The lack of strength of the globe earth explanation for this has forced you into position of insisting on "deltas" and also insisting on "no, on this one picture only!"

Quote
I don't want to condescend, but I don't think you are grasping the whole refraction picture. Yes, refraction causes mirages (inferior, superior, mock, complex). Yes, refraction causes things to squat (stoop) and loom, or --and the effect you seem to want to use to compete with the earth curvature claim -- sink or rise up. You aren't getting any opposition to any of that. You aren't telling anyone anything they don't know. You can post Skunk Bay time lapse video all day until Kingdom Come. But you need to relate it to the missing lower sections of the tower to make it germane. What refractive phenomenon is at play with the Turning Torso? How can we tell? Can it account for the amount of tower height that appears missing? Can you work out a relationship between the amount of elevation that is missing with the passage of time? With viewing distance and elevation? With the clues in the images about what sort of refractive effects are in play?

How would one give a complete and accurate model and account of precisely how this phenomenon works, if it is indeed refraction, based on a few pictures? What is being asked is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

The sinking ship effect has been attributed to waves, tidal effects, refraction, and even lack of angular resolution. We have no way to determine what exactly is occurring, or in what combination, especially not based on a few pictures. What we do know is that the effect is inconsistent. Ignoring the inconsistency and counter examples to focus on "deltas" on "this one specific picture" is not a sincere assessment of the sinking ship effect.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 10:43:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #61 on: August 31, 2018, 08:52:29 AM »
We have many scenes which contradicts the Round Earth curvature entirely.

Your argument is quite weak. Desperate, in my opinion. We have documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect over 150 years ago. It is one of the basis for this very movement.

RE has documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect for over 2000 years. So what's your point? If you want to toss about 'legacy', I would have to say, your argument is quite weak.

And I care not for the basis of your movement. That is for you and your movement. If your argument is that of simply 150 years ago and it's core to your belief system, that certainly doesn't hold up under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Numbers? Where are your numbers? Argue the point at hand. This, as the OP stated, is a Flat v Sphere challenge. You've been given the data and have been a part of the process of developing the data for the challenge. Yet you choose to circumvent and discard the data when the numbers roll in as unfavorable to FET. Why? Simply apply your calculations based upon your reasoning to pull your raw numbers in to what they should be. That was and is the challenge. Man up and do the work.

You and others are expressing the sentiment of "I expect to see zero hidden at all times!"

You've been asked many times for input as to what the FE hidden value should be as a part of the baseline data set. You seemingly have had no qualms about the values presented until FE raw calculations came back as craptastic. Curious as to why you are moving the goalposts now.


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #62 on: August 31, 2018, 09:03:07 AM »
Closeup:

Refraction is affecting that body of water.
ROTFL... sorry, but this is quite obvious to me:
I've seen this many, many times on Adriatic Sea. That 2 black dots, you see another white dot below them, is a fisherman's buoy.
That's quite typical, two black quadratic vanes on top of a small white buoy.
Ask anyone who sailed Adriatic Sea...
The back-bottom of the boat has sky under it and the front-bottom of the boat does not line up with the rest of the boat. What ever are you talking about?
A. It's an oil tanker and you'll see "sky" under the stern, below the aft deck housing/superstructure on such ships when not laden. The fact that the bulbous nose is prominently above the water line is another clue.
B. Looking at the nautical charts in that area, that appears to be a navigation cardinal marker, not something being mirrored.



If it's the western marker (which I believe it is) then those two black dots are triangles pointing toward each other, and the shuttle tanker is southbound, probably about 4-6 miles away from videographer's final shot location and the Turning Torso would be 23-25 miles further in the distance.



I'm not seeing any of the refractive effects at that nearby range that Tom is trying to see.  Certainly nothing that's going to contribute to hiding or compressing the lower 371 ft the tower into a thin line and leaving the upper 252' only marginally stooped.

Minutes later, by merely increasing the vantage point ~50' in elevation 166' of tower is restored to sight while leaving 205' still drastically squashed somewhere on that boundary between the earth below and the rest of the nearly undistorted upper tower above.

I wonder what that would that extreme and rapid rising and falling of such a phallic structure would look like in a time lapse video. (Bet it would go viral.)

I can find stills of a lighthouse appearing to squat, loom and tower, but only over the course of different days. And instead of the dramatic demarcation between compressed/distorted bottom and nearly un-distorted and visible top (giving the illusion of being cut-off by the horizon), the whole lighthouse is distorted, with squashed or stretched. It's just seems improbably coincidental that such refractive phenomenon should follow changes in observation distance and elevation.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #63 on: August 31, 2018, 09:05:01 AM »
RE has documented the inconsistent and changing sinking ship effect for over 2000 years. So what's your point? If you want to toss about 'legacy', I would have to say, your argument is quite weak.

And I care not for the basis of your movement. That is for you and your movement. If your argument is that of simply 150 years ago and it's core to your belief system, that certainly doesn't hold up under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

ENAG forms the basis of the Flat Earth movement. If you want to attack Flat Earth, you need to assess Earth Not a Globe to see what the actual assertions are.

Running around shouting "I expect to see zero amount hidden at ALL times" is disingenuous . This is not what Rowbotham describes or expected to see at all. You should read and understand what the theory is based on if you are to attack it.

Quote
You've been asked many times for input as to what the FE hidden value should be as a part of the baseline data set. You seemingly have had no qualms about the values presented until FE raw calculations came back as craptastic. Curious as to why you are moving the goalposts now.

The goalposts were never moved. Our study of the sinking ship effect is written in black and white, published over 150 years ago. Rowbotham described it as highly variable, and obviously due to local and special causes since the effect goes away over time. Rowbotham relates the effect to the weather moreso than any concrete pattern, and suggests that the water convexity experiment is done on a calm day and preferably  on a standing body of water.

If you are looking at one sunken scene and jumping up and down screaming "I win," you are doing it wrong. You need to read the literature to see what you actually need to debunk.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 09:23:32 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #64 on: August 31, 2018, 09:41:15 AM »
ENAG forms the basis of the Flat Earth movement. If you want to attack Flat Earth, you need to assess Earth Not a Globe to see what the actual assertions are.

Running around shouting "I expect to see zero amount hidden at ALL times" is disingenuous . This is not what Rowbotham describes or expected to see at all. You should read and understand what the theory is based on if you are to attack it.
No one has been "Running around shouting "I expect to see zero amount hidden at ALL times". Like I wrote, you've been asked many times for input as to what the FE hidden value should be as a part of the baseline data set. Where was your concern for the baseline 3 pages ago?

The goalposts were never moved. Our study of the sinking ship effect is written in black and white, published over 150 years ago. Rowbotham described it as highly variable, and obviously due to local and special causes since the effect goes away over time. Rowbotham relates the effect to the weather moreso than any concrete pattern, and suggests that the water convexity experiment is done on a calm day and preferably  on a standing body of water.
Great, one book, by one guy of dubious reputation. 

If you are looking at one sunken scene and jumping up and down screaming "I win," you are doing it wrong. You need to read the literature to see what you actually need to debunk.
And no one is screaming "I win". Simply do the math and show the numbers that explain FE deltas for this challenge.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #65 on: August 31, 2018, 09:50:59 AM »
And no one is screaming "I win". Simply do the math and show the numbers that explain FE deltas for this challenge.

Like I said in the third post of this thread: "Rowbotham generally recommends that the experiment is conducted on calm days, on the most calm body of water that can be found. I would say that the amount hidden has more to do with that than than 'this is how much is hidden at this distance.'"

We have no idea what the weather conditions was like on that day at those times. There is no way to quantify this based on Rowbotham's identification of weather as the correlating criteria without knowing more about the scene.

You may as well ask me to predict when the next time it will rain and say that I should be able to predict it based on a few pictures of the sky that you took.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #66 on: August 31, 2018, 10:53:17 AM »
How about applying the "what is the closer delta" challenge to the JTolan image? You will shout "refraction." Would it then turn into a competition on who can find more Flat Earth and Round Earth sinking ship effect images?

I don't know. What JTolan image are you talking about?

Whatever it is, I'll accept the challenge. Will you? Or will you back down and rely on the sharp shooters fallacy of drawing your refraction bullseye after seeing where the arrow lands?

Point me to it.

Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #67 on: August 31, 2018, 01:02:26 PM »
How about applying the "what is the closer delta" challenge to the JTolan image? You will shout "refraction." Would it then turn into a competition on who can find more Flat Earth and Round Earth sinking ship effect images?

I don't know. What JTolan image are you talking about?

Whatever it is, I'll accept the challenge. Will you? Or will you back down and rely on the sharp shooters fallacy of drawing your refraction bullseye after seeing where the arrow lands?

Point me to it.
I believe he is referring to the image in this post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.msg165008#msg165008

It's a much more difficult image to assess the same information on, and it's the only image of this object from this source it would seem, although the original source of it could be useful it Tom has it.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #68 on: August 31, 2018, 03:03:33 PM »
I don't know. What JTolan image are you talking about?

Whatever it is, I'll accept the challenge. Will you? Or will you back down and rely on the sharp shooters fallacy of drawing your refraction bullseye after seeing where the arrow lands?

Point me to it.
I believe he is referring to the image in this post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.msg165008#msg165008

It's a much more difficult image to assess the same information on, and it's the only image of this object from this source it would seem, although the original source of it could be useful it Tom has it.

Thanks.


There is evidence that the sinking ship effect changes. Yet you only want to look at the obscured images?

There are numerous images with zero curvature. See this JTolan image:



What's that, maybe two feet of curvature, if any?

Surely, by this logic of "which is the closer delta," this is a clear demonstration against the Round Earth Theory, correct?


If most of a 130' is visible over a 17 mile stretch for an elevation of only 6'?  Yep, I would score that one for Flat Earth.  Would that suffice for you if I just showed a grainy image with an unverified claim of distance and heights?

But hey! I accepted so give me some time to examine it. I may need to get a reply from JT for more detail.


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #69 on: August 31, 2018, 05:35:32 PM »
After some hunting, I found the cell tower shown in the upper right. It's a T-mobile tower in Salton City on the west side of the inland sea.

I tried using Google Earth to match the background against the mountain profile to figure out where the shot might've been taken but wasn't finding a match. I'm leaning toward a vantage point around North Shore which is 17 miles away, but only JT can verify or pinpoint.

I'd like to know ground elevations. The tower is listed as 200' AGL but I can't remember the elevation it's standing on. I'm on my phone so can't look it up easily. But it would be important to get the relative elevation and heights right and verify the distance. The fact that the tower is listed as 200' and not 130' is reason enough to question. It may be 130' after subtracting a below sea level elevation. But where was the camera positioned 6' over?

Given the extraordinary claim of being able to see 130' of height 17 miles away from 6' I have to know more details because that does measure out to be quite flat.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 05:37:45 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #70 on: August 31, 2018, 07:42:03 PM »
We have no idea what the weather conditions was like on that day at those times. There is no way to quantify this based on Rowbotham's identification of weather as the correlating criteria without knowing more about the scene.

We do:


Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 832
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #71 on: August 31, 2018, 08:32:47 PM »
After some hunting, I found the cell tower shown in the upper right. It's a T-mobile tower in Salton City on the west side of the inland sea.

I tried using Google Earth to match the background against the mountain profile to figure out where the shot might've been taken but wasn't finding a match. I'm leaning toward a vantage point around North Shore which is 17 miles away, but only JT can verify or pinpoint.

I'd like to know ground elevations. The tower is listed as 200' AGL but I can't remember the elevation it's standing on. I'm on my phone so can't look it up easily. But it would be important to get the relative elevation and heights right and verify the distance. The fact that the tower is listed as 200' and not 130' is reason enough to question. It may be 130' after subtracting a below sea level elevation. But where was the camera positioned 6' over?

Given the extraordinary claim of being able to see 130' of height 17 miles away from 6' I have to know more details because that does measure out to be quite flat.

How extraordinary is it? Atmospheric refraction is a very powerful thing. In the RE model see see the sun rise every day even though it's totally obstructed by the curvature of the earth. The atmosphere literally makes millions of miles of difference.

The closer you get to the surface the more dense and varied the atmosphere becomes and the more pronounced refraction can get over a much shorter distance.




Something similar can happen to make observations suggest that the earth is flat.
Something similar can happen to make observations suggest that the earth is round.

All of these images are EXTREMELY situational.

What was the PPM of water molecules/dust/pollen/bacteria/CO2/soot in the air just above these large bodies of water when i see the horizon moving up and down in a matter of minutes?
A chunk of wind which much lower PPM of water molecules/dust/pollen/bacteria/CO2/soot blows through giving much greater visibility and suddenly the shape of the earth changes? I don't think so.

Tom can show images which show the earth is flat and you can show images the earth is round all day long. A functional stalemate. I think you are discounting the role that optics plays in these observations. Is it 80% optics 20% curve? 70/30? 50/50? Each time it's an individual case by case basis affected by dozens of variables (such as the PPM of water molecules just above the water) that we simply don't know.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #72 on: September 01, 2018, 12:26:59 AM »


I'd like to know ground elevations. The tower is listed as 200' AGL but I can't remember the elevation it's standing on. I'm on my phone so can't look it up easily. But it would be important to get the relative elevation and heights right and verify the distance. The fact that the tower is listed as 200' and not 130' is reason enough to question. It may be 130' after subtracting a below sea level elevation. But where was the camera positioned 6' over?

The Salton Sea is 236 below sea level.

Using J Tolans screen shot, the tower, as Bobby stated, is owned by T Mobile. It is located here: 33.279167 / -115.962417

http://www.cellreception.com/towers/details.php?id=1240572

According to the above, the tower info:

Height:

Overall Height Above Ground: 60.7 meters or 199.1 feet
Overall Height Above Ground Without Appurtenances: 60.7 meters or 199.1 feet
Elevation of Site Above Mean Sea Level: -28.7 meters or -94.1 feet
Overall Height Above Mean Sea Level: 32.0 meters or 104.987 feet

Base of the tower is 141.9’ above the Salton Sea + the height of the tower (199.1) means that the top of the tower is 199.1 + 141.9 = 341’ above the Sea - 6’ equals a total tower height of 335’.  Now this is assuming the shot is from 6’ above the sea, which seems to be the case from J Tolen’s image.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #73 on: September 01, 2018, 04:20:58 AM »
According to this link below there are 14 or 15 towers around that sea. How would we know which one it is? Bobby said that he was unable to match the mountain in the background with the tower he found, and the one he found was of a different height to the tower JTolan is looking at.

Numerous towers around Salton Sea:

http://m.cellreception.com/towers/towers.php?city=salton%20sea&state_abr=ca

Zoom out to see the towers that are located around the Salton Sea.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2018, 04:23:25 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #74 on: September 01, 2018, 05:39:55 AM »
I did that, Tom. That Salton City T-Mobile tower picture matches the one on JT's slide. If it's wrong, then JT used the wrong picture.

What's still unknown is where he took the photo (or video from which the image was captured). I'm hoping he'll come back and let us know.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #75 on: September 01, 2018, 07:42:57 AM »
According to this link below there are 14 or 15 towers around that sea. How would we know which one it is? Bobby said that he was unable to match the mountain in the background with the tower he found, and the one he found was of a different height to the tower JTolan is looking at.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #76 on: September 01, 2018, 08:15:15 AM »
If you go to that location and turn around away from the sea, there are no hills or mountains in the background. We will have to wait and see that JTolan says. There are a whole bunch of towers that look like that in the area and around the sea.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #77 on: September 01, 2018, 08:22:52 AM »
According to Bilsin’s Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator, 6’ camera level at the Salton Sea shore from 17 miles, with the tower at 199.1 feet tall, with its base 141.9 feet above the Salton Sea level (Land + Tower = 335’ total), 130.7 feet are hidden. Subtracting the hidden height from 335’ you get 204.3’. Meaning you should see the entirety of the tower +5’ from the 17 mile distance. Which seems to check out perfectly from an RE perspective.



Now, the X factor is whether the camera was at the shore line, 6’ feet above. It looks like it’s at the shoreline from the original image, but I can’t say with all certainty. If it was, based upon the angle, I put the camera right about here:


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #78 on: September 01, 2018, 08:43:42 AM »
If you go to that location and turn around away from the sea, there are no hills or mountains in the background. We will have to wait and see that JTolan says. There are a whole bunch of towers that look like that in the area and around the sea.

It's definitely the correct tower, according to the image J Tolen showed as his target. The reference image matches exactly to the location image I provided, lone palm tree, white buildings and all. There are mountains back there looking the other way, but again, the x factor; where exactly did he shoot from 17 miles away?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #79 on: September 01, 2018, 08:55:22 AM »
As far as we know, JTolan just picked out a picture of one of those towers because a lot of those towers don't even have street view images. I checked. Street view is absent in the areas around many of those towers.

JTolan clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet. The tower you selected was not 130 feet. It was 200 feet. And there are no matching mountains or hills in the background. He clearly got that number of 130 feet from somewhere for the tower he is talking about.