You claimed my evidence doesn't "stand up to scrutiny", but you haven't actually shown how any of the evidence is invalid
Your evidence is not invalid, merely inconclusive. As such, it does not stand up to scrutiny, and you, as the claimant, have to step up your game.
Your objection to my evidence seems to be based on a desire to give Tom Bishop the benefit of the doubt.
Incorrect. It's based on the
lack of desire to give
you the benefit of the doubt. Your posts are riddled with "errors" along the lines of "I didn't see that thing that's extremely visible, while conveniently claiming that said thing can't possibly be seen" or "there is only one beach he could be looking at. What's that? There's another beach that fits the story much, much better? Ha, what a silly mistake I've made!" I'm sort of omitting your
alleged unit conversion mishap, since you've corrected yourself before anyone had a chance to even call you out.
I'm only giving you enough benefit of the doubt to openly accuse you of gross incompetence. Unsurprisingly, my actual feelings on the matter paint you in a much worse light.
This goes against the spirit of a scientific experiment.
Surely you understand by now that FET is a thoroughly unscientific discipline. We're zeteticists, not scientists.
If there are inconsistencies in the report of the experiment, then the results of said experiment need to be called into question.
No disagreement there.
The worst thing you can do is ignore the inconsistencies, and just assume that it was done correctly.
Indeed. It's a good thing that the experiment is so easily reproducible with good results.
Good for you for double checking me though. In my defense, I was using a rather old LCD monitor with bad color reproduction, and the silhouette of the landscape wasn't distinguishable from the sky. I will concede that on clear days, it is possible to distinguish a vague silhouette of the landscape.
Well... at least you've admitted it now. It's something.
That being said, my point still stands. The BEACH is certainly not visible in those images, as Tom states.
I disagree. It's quite clearly visible.
Compare that with this image that Tom provided where the beach IS clearly visible.
Ah, yes, let's talk about the image again. That's always fun, saying the same thing over and over again.
The image was randomly grabbed off the Internet. It was a stupid thing of Tom to do. It was never part of the original experiment description, but you insist on pretending that it was. We will not reach common ground on this, and I will strive to copy-paste this exact string of text if you ask me about the picture again.
If Tom really was looking in the correct direction, it seems doubtful that he would mistake those two beaches. It seems much more likely that he was simply looking at the wrong beach the entire time.
I disagree. Sandy beaches in the Monterey Bay area are fairly similar. It's mostly sand and seagulls.
Woody went into more detail elsewhere. I'm not an expert on spotting scopes, but Woody made a fairly convincing argument, and Tom has continued to avoid providing details of the telescope he used.
A wordy statement of disagreement is still just that - a statement of disagreement. Restoration of obscured objects with telescopes is a trope within FET experimentation, and again, it's one that's very easily reproducible. If you doubt it (wordily or not), I'd suggest you have a go. Why take it from us?
I am well aware that we had this discussion already, and I was not expecting a different result from you. You want to give Tom the benefit of the doubt. Good for you. Normally, I am all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but in this case, the evidence is way to strong.
I will continue to invite you to present your evidence. To date, that simply hasn't happened.
I made this thread for general visibility of the issue, not to convince you specifically.
Ah, yes, because the other five threads where we've had the
exact same discussions and where your lot have made the
exact same errors weren't enough public exposure of "the issue".