[TotesNotReptilian]

Of course, none of this matters since:





Unless, of course, you're suggesting that a 352-feet wall of water is not a problem here...

First of all, your calculation doesn't take into account the height of the telescope or refraction. A better estimate is about 100 220 feet.

Second of all, I addressed Tom Bishop's experiment a week ago, in a thread you commented in. So I'll just copy it here since you seemed to miss it:

A bit more information about the Bishop experiment:

Right off the bat, Tom Bishop has his facts wrong. The actual distance across the bay is about 23 miles, not 33 miles as he claims. He has admitted to this elsewhere in the forums, but he seems to be in no hurry to correct his mistake. Redoing the math with this distance, and taking into account standard refraction, results in about 100 220 feet obscured by the horizon, as opposed to 600 feet claimed by Bishop. This makes it much more likely that a temperature inversion could cause enough refraction to allow the people on the beach to be seen.

Still, Bishop claims that he is able to repeat this experiment regardless of weather. If true, it would indeed be a significant find. However, in my interactions with Bishop on this forum, he has shown an absolutely dismal ability to correctly interpret evidence, and there is no way I would trust just his word that he has conducted these experiments correctly. He needs to show well documented photographic evidence if he wants to be taken seriously. The 10 mile error in the reported distance should be a huge warning sign that his methods are sloppy, at best.

edit: 100 feet -> 220 feet. Unit conversions, ugh
edit edit: Conclusions on the effect of temperature inversion crossed out. I will look into it further when I have the time.

[Pete Svarrior]

edit: 100 feet -> 220 feet. Unit conversions, ugh

Well, at the very least you've provided a good example to support my suggestion that very significant mistakes happen, and I'm sure you wouldn't want for me to conclude from it that you are never to be trusted again, or that your entire train of thought must be invalid due to one mathematical error. Show the same courtesy to others.

Second of all, I addressed Tom Bishop's experiment a week ago, in a thread you commented in. So I'll just copy it here since you seemed to miss it

Yes, I and many others very quickly tune out of threads once the likes of Rounder jump in. If I wanted to read the smug drivel of "redpilled" RE'ers, I'd go somewhere else than the Flat Earth Society. For example, /r/atheism

First of all, your calculation doesn't take into account the height of the telescope or refraction. A better estimate is about 100 220 feet.

Even then, that would still be a major obstacle. However, you should probably back your claim up. The thread you've linked me to only includes a blind statement of 100 220 feet.

[Rama Set]

edit: 100 feet -> 220 feet. Unit conversions, ugh

Well, at the very least you've provided a good example to support my suggestion that very significant mistakes happen, and I'm sure you wouldn't want for me to conclude from it that you are never to be trusted again, or that your entire train of thought must be invalid due to one mathematical error. Show the same courtesy to others.

The difference being that Totes corrected his mistake, without prompting and admitted to it. Whereas, this wiki page has been referenced time and again with full awareness of its error and no disclosure of that error. It is extremely careless Furthermore, as I showed the 33.4 mile distance is what the distance has always been and does not appear to be a clerical error, but rather the thoughtless continuation of Tom Bishop's poor scholarship.

[Pete Svarrior]

Right, so now you're using your personal disapproval of Tom as a means to somehow dismiss the Wiki as a worthwhile effort. The mental gymnastics here are truly astounding. You people really need a better outlet for your free time.

EDIT: I see I've missed a previous post of yours, so allow me to backtrack a little bit

How sure?  You are usually pretty speedy at providing sources, one would do well in this case.

I really don't feel like going back through the old forum to find one. I think you must be thinking of me back in the time when I wasn't working 12-hour days. I don't mind having a discussion, but I'm not going to let you drag me into endless search-fests.

An incident of sloppy editing in one case is not proof of sloppy editing elsewhere.  Considering the source of the entry, and that the entry in the wiki, continues the same error, it seems far more likely that there was no review of the experiment at all, and that it was take at face value for some reason.

Sorry, what? No one is hiding the fact that the Wiki is mostly based off forum threads. If a clerical error snuck its way into a forum thread (and it clearly wasn't challenged at the time of publication - thank you for documenting this!), it would have made its way into the Wiki. Tom seems to be fairly clear about that himself.

Why it wasn't fixed yet is not something I can answer (apparently Tom didn't have edit access to the Wiki back in February, but I know for sure that's no longer the case). I can tell you why I didn't fix it: When I previously encountered it, I saw it as an obvious clerical error, chalked it down as "whatever, will deal with that later", and then proceeded to not deal with it since other things took priority.

What baffles me more than anything else is: if you're so annoyed by an inconsequential typo (and a number of equations relying on it, granted), why haven't you asked me for edit access to the Wiki yet so you can correct it yourself? I even did the math for you.

If you're not happy to wait for me to fix it when I have the time, that sounds like a perfectly sensible option, doesn't it? This site operates as well as it does (determining whether this is a compliment or an insult is left as an exercise for the reader) because it lets people do stuff rather than complain about stuff.

[Rama Set]

Right, so now you're using your personal disapproval of Tom as a means to somehow dismiss the Wiki as a worthwhile effort. The mental gymnastics here are truly astounding. You people really need a better outlet for your free time.

Nice try.

EDIT: I see I've missed a previous post of yours, so allow me to backtrack a little bit

How sure?  You are usually pretty speedy at providing sources, one would do well in this case.

I really don't feel like going back through the old forum to find one. I think you must be thinking of me back in the time when I wasn't working 12-hour days. I don't mind having a discussion, but I'm not going to let you drag me into endless search-fests.

Yet here we go...

An incident of sloppy editing in one case is not proof of sloppy editing elsewhere.  Considering the source of the entry, and that the entry in the wiki, continues the same error, it seems far more likely that there was no review of the experiment at all, and that it was take at face value for some reason.

Sorry, what? No one is hiding the fact that the Wiki is mostly based off forum threads. If a clerical error snuck its way into a forum thread (and it clearly wasn't challenged at the time of publication - thank you for documenting this!), it would have made its way into the Wiki. Tom seems to be fairly clear about that himself.

How is this better?  Or even relevant?

Why it wasn't fixed yet is not something I can answer (apparently Tom didn't have edit access to the Wiki back in February, but I know for sure that's no longer the case). I can tell you why I didn't fix it: When I previously encountered it, I saw it as an obvious clerical error, chalked it down as "whatever, will deal with that later", and then proceeded to not deal with it since other things took priority.

No one apparently has time.

What baffles me more than anything else is: if you're so annoyed by an inconsequential typo (and a number of equations relying on it, granted), why haven't you asked me for edit access to the Wiki yet so you can correct it yourself? I even did the math for you.

I'm annoyed?  Oh cool. What am I feeling now?

If you're not happy to wait for me to fix it when I have the time, that sounds like a perfectly sensible option, doesn't it?

You probably could have fixed it instead of writing this post.

This site operates as well as it does (determining whether this is a compliment or an insult is left as an exercise for the reader) because it lets people do stuff rather than complain about stuff.

I am not the person to edit the wiki because then I would have to, purely out of intellectual and academic honesty have to erase the entire "Experimental Evidence for a Flat Earth Section". The only reasonably ethical thing I can do is help FEers remain consistent with their information.

[Rounder]

...wait for me to fix it when I have the time...

Fix it, or don't fix it, makes no difference to me, as I believe the flaws in the Wik are much deeper than this one examle.  (In my opinion the Wiki abandoned all hope of even a small amount of credibility when it began including material from Intikam in April.)  I only brought it up at all in response to your bragging about the edit capability of the Wiki, which I show is not being used to good effect.  Indeed, in the 36 hours since I brought it up, you've found the time for eight forum responses, in this thread and elsewhere (including acknowledging that the mistake exists) but have not found the time to change a "3" into a "2".  You don't get credit for a capability if you don't exercise it; it's like a drunk telling me "I could quit any time I want to" while cracking open his next beer.

Yes, I and many others very quickly tune out of threads once the likes of Rounder jump in.

Wow!  And here I thought my RE Kung Fu only worked on Intikam!  (Well, my RE Kung Fu and Rabinoz's and Woody's and Gecko's and CableDawg's and....)

[Woody]

My 2 cents on the Bishop Experiment.

Not only was there a 10 mile error the distance the telescope was above the water is highly questionable.

Here is where he stated he made the observations from:



That is two really important distances that is in error.

He did claim to know about the error. It is in the thread I made addressing the errors.  His reply was he would not and could not change it.

Then this is going to be addressed and the wiki edited?  You have to admit leaving it as is and having under supporting evidence in both wikis can be misleading to people who read the distances and take it at face value.

No, I will not be editing the Wiki. I do not even have write access to it. If I ever get access, I'll fix it.

When I first reviewed the experiment I took the stated 33.4 mile as what the actual distance was into consideration while reading your conclusions.  It was only when I looked at the linked map that it clicked for me that I was in the area before charted a course in that bay and realized the distance given maybe an error.

If it remains up as evidence in the wiki without at least noting the distance of about 23 miles then how can people trust the information in the wiki?  It is being offered as evidence of the truth. 

How is this different then NASA trying to mislead people by releasing fake images of the Earth?

Mistake != Lie

I beleive he now has access to the wiki.  Not to mention it seems he made no real effort to contact someone who did to make the correction when he could not.

So it is no longer a mistake.  It is an attempt to deceive people. 

I also find it telling how many FE's responded in that thread. Tom and Junker. Junker's post was not addressing the topic of the thread, but to warn someone.

Then there is this link in the wiki as evidence:

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

Seems another attempt to mislead people.  If someone is not familiar with math they may not understand the methodology used by the professor.  The conclusion certainly was not Kansas is flat like I believe the person who put it in the wiki want people to believe.

[Pete Svarrior]

Nice try.

10/10 response. I'll take that as a concession and move on. You're welcome to amend your statement if that's not the outcome you were hoping for.

Yet here we go...

Please try to be coherent.

How is this better?  Or even relevant?

I didn't claim for it to be "better" (and I don't know what it would be better than). What I said is that you're needlessly belligerent. You accuse people of malice where incompetence suffices.

No one apparently has time.

Unsurprising, it's an extremely insignificant issue.

I'm annoyed?  Oh cool. What am I feeling now?

I don't know, but once you tell me, I'll be able to repeat it at you. So far, you've expressed annoyance and impatience throughout the thread. If you didn't mean to let us know, perhaps you shouldn't have said it.

You probably could have fixed it instead of writing this post.

No, I couldn't. I can easily write a post from my phone while at work. I can't feasibly proofread a Wiki article that way without inevitably introducing more errors.

I am not the person to edit the wiki because then I would have to, purely out of intellectual and academic honesty have to erase the entire "Experimental Evidence for a Flat Earth Section". The only reasonably ethical thing I can do is help FEers remain consistent with their information.

Then that's your prerogative, but if you're not going to be the change you want to see, don't be surprise if you end up not seeing it, or seeing it much later than you want.

So it is no longer a mistake.  It is an attempt to deceive people. 

How is it deceiving? The evidence remains pretty much exactly as strong with the math corrected.

[Rama Set]

Nice try.

10/10 response. I'll take that as a concession and move on. You're welcome to amend your statement if that's not the outcome you were hoping for.

Nice try again.

Yet here we go...

Please try to be coherent.

Sorry, my comment went over your head. You claimed you wouldn't get in to posting links and then proceeded to do exactly that.

How is this better?  Or even relevant?

I didn't claim for it to be "better" (and I don't know what it would be better than). What I said is that you're needlessly belligerent. You accuse people of malice where incompetence suffices.

Malice?  Nope.  Laziness and incompetence.

No one apparently has time.

Unsurprising, it's an extremely insignificant issue.

Indeed, why would a society devoted to the truth of the shape of the Earth want the wiki they direct people to for evidence of said truth to be truthful? 

I'm annoyed?  Oh cool. What am I feeling now?

I don't know, but once you tell me, I'll be able to repeat it at you. So far, you've expressed annoyance and impatience throughout the thread. If you didn't mean to let us know, perhaps you shouldn't have said it.

I've done nothing of the sort, but please break out your next issue of Psychology Today and tell me more about me. It matters, it really does.

You probably could have fixed it instead of writing this post.

No, I couldn't. I can easily write a post from my phone while at work. I can't feasibly proofread a Wiki article that way without inevitably introducing more errors.

It would take you how long to change 33.4 to 23.4?

I am not the person to edit the wiki because then I would have to, purely out of intellectual and academic honesty have to erase the entire "Experimental Evidence for a Flat Earth Section". The only reasonably ethical thing I can do is help FEers remain consistent with their information.

Then that's your prerogative, but if you're not going to be the change you want to see, don't be surprise if you end up not seeing it, or seeing it much later than you want.

I actually do wish people to start being intellectually honest and responsible for correcting their own errors so...

 

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm going to start stripping off personal attacks from your posts, just an FYI in case you were expecting more complete replies.

Sorry, my comment went over your head. You claimed you wouldn't get in to posting links and then proceeded to do exactly that.

No, I didn't.

I've done nothing of the sort, but [insults]

Yes, you have:

Can't wait, this error has been persistent for years.

Sometimes I think you lose track of the things you say [more of that to come further in my post!]. How this should be interpreted is left as an exercise for the reader.

It would take you how long to change 33.4 to 23.4?

Nice try xDDDDD

We already know that the resulting maths needs looking over, and that there are other errors in the article. We've talked about this, Rama. We've talked about it right in this thread.

I actually do wish people to start being intellectually honest and responsible for correcting their own errors so...

So you're focusing on bashing me becaaaaaaause...

[Rounder]

You accuse people of malice where incompetence suffices.

You said it, not us.

Unsurprising, it's an extremely insignificant issue.

Except it isn't, not really.  If the Wiki is meant to be credible, when factual errors are pointed out (and acknowledged), those errors should be corrected.  This is most especially true in a section about experimental evidence, in my opinion.

I can't feasibly proofread a Wiki article that way without inevitably introducing more errors.

Changing a single character is that risky?

[Rama Set]

I'm going to start stripping off personal attacks from your posts, just an FYI in case you were expecting more complete replies.

Good for you.

Sorry, my comment went over your head. You claimed you wouldn't get in to posting links and then proceeded to do exactly that.

No, I didn't.

Oh cool so when you linked to Tom's clarification, you weren't linking to it. I get how this works now.

I've done nothing of the sort, but [insults]

Yes, you have:

Can't wait, this error has been persistent for years.

Sometimes I think you lose track of the things you say [more of that to come further in my post!]. How this should be interpreted is left as an exercise for the reader.

I'm so glad you think that. You know this more of a personal attack that just about everything I have said?

It would take you how long to change 33.4 to 23.4?

Nice try xDDDDD

We already know that the resulting maths needs looking over, and that there are other errors in the article. We've talked about this, Rama. We've talked about it right in this thread.

I never asked for everything to be corrected. It should, but one step at a time. I mean the ten mile error has been there for years, so that would be progress.

I actually do wish people to start being intellectually honest and responsible for correcting their own errors so...

So you're focusing on bashing me becaaaaaaause...

I'm not bashing you. The only part you could remotely construe as bashing you is when I sarcastically point out how ridiculous it is to tell me how I'm feeling based on some text.

Anyway, this has grown tiresome. Fix it, don't fix it, it's up to you guys. The lack of commitment to accurate renderings of supposed experimental proof is a problem for FEers. Now please, have the last word.

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm not going to correct it one step at a time, or at least the steps won't be as small as you (and Rounder) suggest. If I do, someone will immediately jump the gun and cry about how the maths doesn't follow from the assumptions (and they'll be right).

Instead, I'll go through the article when I have an appropriate amount of time and correct it to the best of my ability. You still won't like it - you think the Earth is round, so any argument for a flat Earth will be invalid to you; but the 23mi/33mi error will be sorted out soon enough.

Oh cool so when you linked to Tom's clarification, you weren't linking to it. I get how this works now.

Just go back and read what I said already.

Telling you that you're losing track of what's been said isn't a personal attack, it's just an observation of fact. And you're doing a fantastic job at backing that up.

[Woody]

@SexyWarrior

Here is the problem as I see it.

The Bishop experiment is highly visible when someone goes to experimental evidence in the wiki.

The distance error has been known for years.

Tom said he provided an addendum to correct it, but it apparently did not seem important enough for who ever had access to the wiki to post it.

It would take very little effort to just put a visible note that the distances are in error.

It would take a little more to put the correct distances and remove the calculations.

It would require less than an hour for Tom to redo the calculations with the correct distances and amend his conclusions if he felt it changed them.

TFES claims to be seeking and revealing the truth.  It is the gist of the societies mission statement.  How can a society dedicated to seeking and revealing the truth not feel it very important that the information they release is the truth.

My personal belief is it was not changed because it supports the FE hypothesis.

The Bishop Experiment is a good example as why the scientific method includes peer review and having experiments repeated before something is accepted and presented as evidence. Maybe TFES should look at adopting peer review before something is accepted as evidence the Earth is flat.


Forgot to add something I noticed after searching Google for, "Bishop Experiment" when I noticed this thread and checking to see if it was edited or the addendum added.

My thread on the other site about the errors is at the top.  Which does give me some solace someone researching FE and looking at the evidence provided has a better chance to learn of the distance errors.

[Pete Svarrior]

who ever had access to the wiki

Everyone here has access to the wiki, including you. The only step necessary is to ask me for an account, and that's only to prevent vandalism and spambots.

My personal belief is it was not changed because it supports the FE hypothesis.

And that's where your logic falls apart. I already demonstrated that the experiment supports FET after corrections.

[Woody]

who ever had access to the wiki

Everyone here has access to the wiki, including you. The only step necessary is to ask me for an account, and that's only to prevent vandalism and spambots.

My personal belief is it was not changed because it supports the FE hypothesis.

And that's where your logic falls apart. I already demonstrated that the experiment supports FET after corrections.

You mean all I have to do is ask for access to edit the wiki? 

My guess you misunderstood what I meant.

Tom claimed to have provided an addendum making corrections.  I assume even though he did not say to who it was someone who could edit or add a link to the wiki.

The evidence suggests Tom did not make an concerted effort to have a correction made or the people/person who could edit the wiki felt it not important.

Also I have been in that area and sailed very close to that park. It is one of the reasons I was pretty sure as I read his account that the distances were off.  That park is about 4-5 feet above the water. It has a steep drop off leading to the water.  Not sure how he had the telescope only 20 inches above the water unless he built a platform to place the telescope on.  This is another thing to points to possible dishonesty. Maybe in his eagerness to provide evidence of the Earth's flatness he allowed himself to fudge the numbers a bit. 

The distance from where he observed to what he was observing was 10 miles off.  The distance stated the telescope was above the water is highly questionable.  So the two things we can verify were either found wrong or highly questionable of being right. There is nothing else we can personally verify about his experiment.

The stuff I pointed out in this post is what invalidates the experiment. We have to question the validity of what he claimed he observed.  It is reasonable to do so. 

[Pete Svarrior]

You mean all I have to do is ask for access to edit the wiki?

Yes. Of course whether or not you'd be able to keep that access for long depends hugely on what edits you'd make.

[Rounder]

If you decide to get edit rights, Woody, here's another factual error that I have pointed out and nobody has done anything about (probably because I was pretty snarky about it, which might have been a mistake): there is a quote in the Wiki on the "Sun" page that is incorrectly attributed to Rowbotham.  The true source of the quote is the 1981 book "The Practical Astronomer", by Colin A Ronin, Roxby Press Ltd.  You will find the passage on page 16 of the text (page 15 of the pdf: they included the book's cover as page 1 and appear to have omitted some blank pages, resulting in non-matched page numbers).

Either you or an FE true believer might even want to remove the quote altogether, because it does not actually support the FE position.  Both RE and FE should be able to agree that atmospheric refraction is a thing that really exists, and it does cause objects to appear to be located where they are not.  The quote as given claims this effect can cause the apparent location of the sun to be higher in the sky than it truly is (or at least, the bottom of the sun moves higher).  However, on the same page atmospheric refraction is claimed to push the sun's apparent position lower in the sky (by a huge amount) in an effort to explain sunset.

[TotesNotReptilian]

First of all, your calculation doesn't take into account the height of the telescope or refraction. A better estimate is about 100 220 feet.

Even then, that would still be a major obstacle. However, you should probably back your claim up. The thread you've linked me to only includes a blind statement of 100 220 feet.

I'll actually revise this statement. I am not quite as confident that this statement is true after the correction, but I was in a hurry at the time. You are absolutely correct that a statement like this needs to be backed up with more than a hunch. I'll crunch some numbers when I have more time.

That being said, as Rama, Woody, and Rounder have pointed out, this just highlights the importance of repeating experiments, double checking, peer review, etc. My original point that we can not trust Bishop's account of his observations stands:

1. A history of poor interpretation of evidence. See the links I provided in my original post.
2. No photographic documentation. No duplication of the experiment. I wouldn't put much weight in such a poorly documented experiment done by anyone.

A single math/measurement error is not a big deal, especially if it is promptly corrected. However, he seems to put no priority on correcting his mistake, which just adds to the lack of trust that I have in his observations.

Likewise, there is a math error in Lady Blount's experiment. You should probably add a big asterisk next to that experiment as well.