Bobby has shown some images suggesting that the atmosphere affects the horizon. Rowbotham never said that the atmosphere could not affect the horizon. ENAG doesn't really speak much about it. The error is that the Wiki doesn't speak of the atmosphere. Going onto a plane and seeing a foggy horizon, it is pretty obvious what is happening.
And this is where you invoke a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.
Rowbotham's claim is that the horizon stays at eye level. His evidence for that is that it looks like it's at eye level.
Ridiculously, one of the experiments he cites as evidence is viewings from a hotel in Brighton, a building nowhere near tall enough to sensibly test the claim.
Bobby did some more controlled experiments at an altitude where the result of horizon dip can be seen clearly.
So now you are laughably claiming that the true horizon IS still at eye level, it's just that the sharp line in Bobby's photo isn't the true horizon. One of his photos was taken at sunset so it's pretty clear where the horizon is and it's clearly below eye level.
Even your own page quotes someone at an altitude saying it's "practically" at eye level, so your own page admits horizon dip.
Your argument basically boils down to:
"The horizon remains at eye level - the evidence for that is our observations which show it is at eye level"
And when you're shown observations which show the reverse then you just claim the observation is wrong and it isn't really the horizon.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
I don't know if you've heard about "black swans". It's the idea of an unexpected event. So to Europeans all swans are white. But not in Australia, there they have black swans. So if you have a theory that "all swans are white" and then you go to Australia and find that they have black swans then you have to amend your theory. That is the rational thing to do. You have new information which shows your original theory to be wrong. What you do is the equivalent of just saying those black swans aren't really swans so you can stick to your original theory. You need to learn a bit about cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
If you're going to claim to believe things based on observation then it's a bit rich to only admit observations which match your existing view.
And what university courses do you know Rowbotham participated in? What books did he read? What makes you think he knew nothing of astronomy?
I'm sure he had some scientific knowledge. I'm not a scientist by education (apart from school) or profession but I've learned enough and read enough to have a decent grasp of some things. But I'm not qualified to write a book claiming that all science is bunk. If I did and tried to get it published then I would be quite rightly laughed out of the room.
Someone who worked as a medical doctor does not shout "scientific revolutionary" at me.
Rowbotham sources his knowledge in Earth Not a Globe. The majority of the book is nothing but references to credible sources of the era.
If he's anything like you then he probably misrepresents or misunderstands them, but why is he using sources? I thought your and his approach was to question everything and do your own observations? And if these sources are so credible and he is representing them accurately then why have none of Rowbotham's ideas been taken seriously by anyone in the scientific community and why has he been basically forgotten by history?
If Flat Earth were demonstrated wrong, no one would be here. All the world tries, but none successful.
Not successful by your criteria, but that is only because you are so invested in FE. Pretty much everyone else is convinced.
I don't know if you've noticed, but most of the people here are globe earthers shaking their collective head in incredulity at some of the FE ideas posted on here. There are some flat earthers in the same way there are people who believe all kinds of crazy ideas. With the wonder of the internet it makes it easier for fringe views to be publicised. Just because some people believe something that doesn't mean that thing is right. As I've said before, you're just a person who doesn't believe in kangaroos
Tom: "Kangaroos don't exist"
Me: "What? Of course they do. A heard about someone who went to Australia and saw some"
Tom: "He's a liar, he's part of the great kangaroo conspiracy"
Me: "Right. Look, here's a photo of one"
Tom: "That's fake, have you not heard of Photoshop?"
Me: "OK. Here's a documentary with some film of one"
Tom: "Have you not seen Jurassic Park? You'll be telling me dinosaurs are real next"
Me: "Look. We're at the zoo. There's a kangaroo..."
Tom: "Looks like an animatronic."
Then on forum.kangaroosarefake.org you'd be posting things like
"If Kangaroos were demonstrated to exist, no one would be here. All the world tries, but none successful"
Now, obviously this is me being silly but it demonstrates a point. If you operate in the sceptical context then you can always cast doubt on something.
The problem is that the Round Earth Theory has not been demonstrated to be correct.
Well, there are photos of the globe earth taken by space agencies from multiple countries, hundreds of people have been to space and seen the globe earth, so it has.
Google Maps clearly uses a globe model and clearly works.
The global transport industry gets people and goods around using a globe model - I related my experience on a recent work trip above.
The globe model demonstrably works.
Demonstrate. This is key. Until the matter can be demonstrated to conclusiveness the logical and philosophical arguments against are empirically weak.
What have you demonstrated about flat earth?
Bobby demonstrated that the horizon dips below eye level (as predicted on the globe model). The photos are pretty conclusive. This is a good example of something which has been demonstrated and you just dismiss that demonstration because it doesn't fit your model. You demand demonstration but dismiss it when it is provided and provide no demonstrations of anything yourself.
Show Posts
