The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TotesNotReptilian on October 22, 2016, 01:01:34 AM
-
Experiment originally presented here by Tom Bishop. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=ak7jsth00qg7v0psski5u037j0&topic=16172.msg268864#msg268864)
I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.
On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away. I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible. Even with the unaided naked eye (http://i9.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg) one can see the beaches along the opposite coast.
IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.
Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
(http://imgur.com/hAGfy7i.png)
Panoramic picture overlooking Lovers Point Beach (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6262,-121.9160583,3a,75y,342.93h,86.84t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s--6DqEOa-Y4A%2FV4MjxGXhUKI%2FAAAAAAAACgs%2Fl6VPLkrd_ckz-zyoOIRhAd7fcKeR_PwWgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F--6DqEOa-Y4A%2FV4MjxGXhUKI%2FAAAAAAAACgs%2Fl6VPLkrd_ckz-zyoOIRhAd7fcKeR_PwWgCLIB%2Fw203-h101-n-k-no%2F!7i8704!8i4352)
1. The view of the Santa Cruz beach from Lovers Point Beach is obstructed by a seawall and a rock outcropping. Perhaps he climbed over some rocks to the north side of Lovers Point, however...
2. The image he provides to back up his claim (http://i9.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg) was also taken from the south side of Lovers Point, above the beaches. It also does not show the Santa Cruz beach. It shows a beach only 4 miles away looking east from Lovers Point Beach.
3. Others have questioned the physical possibility of seeing that far with a telescope (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5366.msg104819#msg104819). I have yet to see Tom Bishop reveal what telescope he used, despite requests on multiple occasions.
4. The correct distance to the Santa Cruz beach is 23 miles, not 33 miles as he states in the text. (Perhaps just an innocent "typo")
5. Generally sloppy math (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5366.40).
6. He provides no other photographic evidence, data, or witnesses to back up his claim. All we have to go on is his word.
Since it is clear that the Bishop Experiment will remain listed on the wiki, it is probable that someone will bring it up again at some time in the future. Therefore, I decided to list the problems with the experiment as clearly as I could for easy future reference and your viewing pleasure.
Cheers.
Edit: got my east/west mixed up
-
Nicely done. I would say at the very least Tom Bishop botched this experiment and probably needs to run it again.
Whatever happened to Tom Bishop by the way?
-
Nicely done. I would say at the very least Tom Bishop botched this experiment and probably needs to run it again.
Whatever happened to Tom Bishop by the way?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To be clear, I am not accusing Tom Bishop of any intentional deception. It is entirely possible that it was an honest mistake. Or several honest mistakes "over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions."
-
To help move along the conversation here is stuff from the topic I started on the subject.
(http://i.imgur.com/HpBKUHw.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/gFfkAoD.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/t2OE9sk.png)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.msg88149#msg88149
Yes, we are aware. The Wiki does not entirely follow the progression of the threads the content is based on. A corrected addendum was provided after the experiment was posted. It was found that ~23 miles should produce noticeable curvature as well.
An additional test was made in the same area, over a smaller portion of the bay, showing that the Monterey Bay is flat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uersWDp-3c
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.msg88796#msg88796
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 saw somewhere where Tom asked for access to edit the wiki and the reply was they would give him access. Not sure if they did or not.
Does bring up the question why Tom feels comfortable with his experiment offered as evidence in the wiki and not pester someone to change it. If he is asking for it to be edited the same question can be asked why who ever he is asking is not changing it.
On the other site the only answer I got is even if the distances are wrong it is still evidence the Earth is flat.
-
Another very important distance is the height of the telescope above the water.
He claimed the telescope was 20 inches above the water. As the picture in the OP shows on the north side of the park has a steep drop off of at least 3 feet.
Very very sloppy work if it was not intentional.
-
(Edit: Removed since Sirius_Gulf201 removed his spam)
-
Took me a few days, but figured out they are using bent physics to their advantage
-
If you didn't start 5 threads on the same subject, you wouldn't have to ask the same questions over and over.
I saw somewhere where Tom asked for access to edit the wiki and the reply was they would give him access. Not sure if they did or not.
Yes, "they" did.
Does bring up the question why Tom feels comfortable with his experiment offered as evidence in the wiki and not pester someone to change it. If he is asking for it to be edited the same question can be asked why who ever he is asking is not changing it.
He never asked, but it's on my to-do list anyway. The simple answer is that people have lives and have more important things to do than correct the repercussions of a couple of inconsequential typos online. We'll fix it when we fix it, complaining about it over and over again will not change that.
Another very important distance is the height of the telescope above the water.
He claimed the telescope was 20 inches above the water. As the picture in the OP shows on the north side of the park has a steep drop off of at least 3 feet.
Very very sloppy work if it was not intentional.
Have you considered walking down the extremely visible set of stairs to overcome the steep drop? How are you people so bad at this?
-
The simple answer is that people have lives and have more important things to do than correct the repercussions of a couple of inconsequential typos online. We'll fix it when we fix it, complaining about it over and over again will not change that.
More important things to do than correcting a thorn-in-the-side mistake that people bring up over and over? If you're tired of hearing about it, maybe just fix it? If time is the issue, you could have saved more than enough time by NOT posting the comment above.
I have concluded that you enjoy the complaining of the rounders, and actually have no intention of fixing it. Somebody is probably keeping score, "Another rounder brought up the Bishop Typo, how many is that this year?" You and I discussed this issue back in August. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4887.msg102170#msg102170) You've ignored the issue ever since.
-
More important things to do than correcting a thorn-in-the-side mistake that people bring up over and over?
Absolutely. As I said, people have lives. Jobs. Families. A tiny typo they doesn't affect the final result of the experiment is rather unimportant to those of us who have things to do.
If time is the issue, you could have saved more than enough time by NOT posting the comment above.
I've already explained this to you. I can write a simple post on my phone. Editing an article (and doing it well, without introducing new errors) requires me to put aside some of my workstation time - be it work time or entertainment time. I'll do it when I'm able to. Not sooner, not later.
You've ignored the issue ever since.
I haven't ignored it. Back in August, I worked 12 hours a day with a 1.5-hour break in between two jobs. That changed at the end of September. Now I'm a doctoral student who also works part-time. I know it annoys you, but I simply have more important things to do than pander to your whims. Especially when they concern something of so little consequence.
-
I guess it's your story, tell it how you like.
-
Shameless bump of justice, since Tom Bishop seems to be back.
-
If you didn't start 5 threads on the same subject, you wouldn't have to ask the same questions over and over.
I saw somewhere where Tom asked for access to edit the wiki and the reply was they would give him access. Not sure if they did or not.
Yes, "they" did.
Does bring up the question why Tom feels comfortable with his experiment offered as evidence in the wiki and not pester someone to change it. If he is asking for it to be edited the same question can be asked why who ever he is asking is not changing it.
He never asked, but it's on my to-do list anyway. The simple answer is that people have lives and have more important things to do than correct the repercussions of a couple of inconsequential typos online. We'll fix it when we fix it, complaining about it over and over again will not change that.
Another very important distance is the height of the telescope above the water.
He claimed the telescope was 20 inches above the water. As the picture in the OP shows on the north side of the park has a steep drop off of at least 3 feet.
Very very sloppy work if it was not intentional.
Have you considered walking down the extremely visible set of stairs to overcome the steep drop? How are you people so bad at this?
Where are these highly visible stairs?
(http://i.imgur.com/v4AfgcH.jpg)
Also there is the optics he used. They were really, really impressive. I served in the military in long range surveillance. Optics were a very important part of that job. We did not have access to as good as optics as Tom had. He saw an amazing amount of detail at a 23 mile distance. He avoids answering the optics he used. There is probably a good reason for that.
The distances are very important in this experiment. Both the height of the observer and the distance to the target determine what can be seen. If those are wrong then the conclusion can be considered wrong.
I will also bring up the amount of time it took you to respond to me the wiki could have been edited. You then will no longer need to respond or see post about the distances. Then it will just be the incredible optics he used.
I think you may know what the truth is. At best he was mistaken and observed from the beach on the east of Lover's Point facing the shore only about 3 miles away.
If your group/organization is interested in truth correcting the wiki should be a high priority. If your group is willing to spread disinformation and willing to accept anything without question that supports your belief then of course leave it as is.
-
Where are these highly visible stairs?
They're quite visible even in your intentionally zoomed-out screenshot. But let's just cut your deception short. Here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6251909,-121.917275,152a,20y,45.04t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en), here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6273982,-121.9170239,94a,20y,180h,45.09t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en), and here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6264065,-121.9171353,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZS6i1nOb2n59dmaAwhZmlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en). I repeat, and I will not continue this conversation until you answer: How are you people so bad at this?
I will also bring up the amount of time it took you to respond to me the wiki could have been edited.
Ah, yes, because a 60-second post typed in on a mobile phone is equivalent to sense-checking and editorialising an Wiki article, both in terms of effort and time. Perhaps you've forgotten who I am and how much free time I have, even though I explained it countless times to you whiners. I have already explained this to you, by the way (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.msg106158#msg106158).
In short: No, thanks, I'll do what I want when I want, because I have a better understanding of the constraints which affect my time management.
I think you may know what the truth is.
I do. The truth is that I'm dealing with a group of worthless whiners who have nothing better to do than whinge about a single typo and pretend that it's somehow an issue. Don't worry, your complaints are being treated with exactly as much attention as they deserve.
If your group/organization is interested in truth correcting the wiki should be a high priority. If your group is willing to spread disinformation and willing to accept anything without question that supports your belief then of course leave it as is.
Clearly you have never had to deal with the issue of limited resources. Unfortunately, between my managerial job (in which - surprise! - I also have to work around a resources shortage) and my doctoral research, I rarely have time for even things of high priority. I still disagree with you that fixing an insignificant typo is a high-priority task, but I've already explained that to you, and you're just pretending to be stupid in an attempt to get a rise out of me, so I'll carry on ignoring that.
-
...I'm dealing with a group of worthless whiners who have nothing better to do than whinge about a single typo...
Once again, I'll point out that the "single typo" was a very minor part of the overall problem with the experiment. The entire experiment is invalid. There is good reason to believe he was looking at the wrong beach, as I demonstrated in the original post.
Perhaps you would have to deal with less whining if you acknowledged that the experiment has more holes than a block of swiss cheese used as a pincushion by a seamstress with anger issues and a hand tremor.
-
...I'm dealing with a group of worthless whiners who have nothing better to do than whinge about a single typo...
Once again, I'll point out that the "single typo" was a very minor part of the overall problem with the experiment. The entire experiment is invalid. There is good reason to believe he was looking at the wrong beach, as I demonstrated in the original post.
Perhaps you would have to deal less whining if you acknowledged that the experiment has more holes than a block of swiss cheese used as a pincussion by a seamstress with anger issues and a hand tremor.
*I believe it was "whinge-ing" that we were accused of.*
-
Perhaps you've forgotten who I am and how much free time I have, even though I explained it countless times to you whiners.
Oh Mr precious! Don't forget to mention your doctorate.
Clearly you have never had to deal with the issue of limited resources. Unfortunately, between my managerial job (in which - surprise! - I also have to work around a resources shortage) and my doctoral research,
Oh, there we go.
But seriously. your posted link with the stairs here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6264065,-121.9171353,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZS6i1nOb2n59dmaAwhZmlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en) underlines the problem, we are supposedly looking from above the beach that Tom was laying on, but looking out at the ark of view he would have had, there is no hint of the beach he purports to see through his futuristic binoculars, not just see but clearly watch people throwing Frisbee's. Now it's not the clearest of days when google did this and resolution isn't great but the horizon is visible clearly as a line no hint of land but Tom and his magical glasses on his belly amongst the rocks below was watching the children play, time to come clean Tom, you got the wrong beach.
-
...time to come clean Tom, you got the wrong beach.
Clearly he is choosing option number 2, hoping that it will go away without having to address it.
Ok, this is getting awkward, so I am going to help Tom out here a bit. Tom, you have 3 options:
1. Defend your position. (If you still think your experiment was done correctly, and I am totally off my rocker)
2. Ignore it and pretend nothing is wrong. (If you want to lose what little credibility you have left)
3. Admit the mistake and do what you can to fix it. This includes notifying whoever has edit access to the wiki to get it taken down. Optionally, redo the experiment correctly and report the results, whatever they may be. (I recommend this option if you want to retain some credibility)
-
Where are these highly visible stairs?
They're quite visible even in your intentionally zoomed-out screenshot. But let's just cut your deception short. Here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6251909,-121.917275,152a,20y,45.04t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en), here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6273982,-121.9170239,94a,20y,180h,45.09t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en), and here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6264065,-121.9171353,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZS6i1nOb2n59dmaAwhZmlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en). I repeat, and I will not continue this conversation until you answer: How are you people so bad at this?
I will also bring up the amount of time it took you to respond to me the wiki could have been edited.
Ah, yes, because a 60-second post typed in on a mobile phone is equivalent to sense-checking and editorialising an Wiki article, both in terms of effort and time. Perhaps you've forgotten who I am and how much free time I have, even though I explained it countless times to you whiners. I have already explained this to you, by the way (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.msg106158#msg106158).
In short: No, thanks, I'll do what I want when I want, because I have a better understanding of the constraints which affect my time management.
I think you may know what the truth is.
I do. The truth is that I'm dealing with a group of worthless whiners who have nothing better to do than whinge about a single typo and pretend that it's somehow an issue. Don't worry, your complaints are being treated with exactly as much attention as they deserve.
If your group/organization is interested in truth correcting the wiki should be a high priority. If your group is willing to spread disinformation and willing to accept anything without question that supports your belief then of course leave it as is.
Clearly you have never had to deal with the issue of limited resources. Unfortunately, between my managerial job (in which - surprise! - I also have to work around a resources shortage) and my doctoral research, I rarely have time for even things of high priority. I still disagree with you that fixing an insignificant typo is a high-priority task, but I've already explained that to you, and you're just pretending to be stupid in an attempt to get a rise out of me, so I'll carry on ignoring that.
Never did a street view, my bad. Way to assume to worst and thinking I am trying to actively deceive people. I have done my best to make sure things I post are correct. Sometimes I have to be corrected or something pointed out to me.
If you think the distances are a minor thing I would rethink that. Even for FE the height of the observer and distance of what is being seen is a very important part of an experiment like this.
If I recall This issue with the incorrect distances has been known for years now. That suggest FES is willing to distort the truth. Tom said he provided an addendum and asked for the distance to be corrected. Unless everyone over the years with the ability to edit the wiki only access the site with phones there is really no excuse. A day absolutely, week sure, month or two maybe, over a year not so much.
Then of course there is those amazing optics. Research why astronomers usually do not make observations when what they want to look at is near the horizon. Then research why telescopes designated as spotting scopes are designed with less magnification then ones designed to observe the heavens.
I posted examples you can do it yourself if you have a telescope. Go out and see if disturbances in the atmosphere hinder what you can see if the magnification is too great. Tom needed a lot of magnification to see what he claimed to see.
The FES is claiming to be spreading the truth. It hurts your cause to have something that is easily verified as being wrong in your wiki. Whether you believe the Earth is flat or round if all the distances are wrong in this type of experiment it surely should not be offered as conclusive proof. I think we can all agree a mile is a mile regardless of the shape of the Earth.
-
Keep it civil or I will have to lock the thread.
-
Once again, I'll point out that the "single typo" was a very minor part of the overall problem with the experiment.
Agreed. It's just that you didn't have any other problems that stood up to basic scrutiny. But I appreciate, at least, that you've finally caved and accepted that the typo was a tiny issue.
-
Once again, I'll point out that the "single typo" was a very minor part of the overall problem with the experiment.
Agreed. It's just that you didn't have any other problems that stood up to basic scrutiny. But I appreciate, at least, that you've finally caved and accepted that the typo was a tiny issue.
Perhaps you could give a specific reason why the other evidence I presented doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Hiding behind blanket statements bespeaks bias.
Edit:
Here, I'll sum up the evidence for you. For clarity, you can address a specific piece of evidence by number.
1. The beach Tom claims to be able to see is 23 miles to the North.
2. The beach he provided a picture of is 4 miles to the West.
3. The beach 4 miles to the West is the only beach visible from his specified location, due to a rock outcropping obstructing the view.
4. Even if you circumvent the rock outcropping, the beach 4 miles to the West is the only beach visible in all the user-uploaded panoramas of that location. Remember, Tom claimed he could see the beach with the naked eye.
5. It is doubtful that a telescope can provide the details that Tom claims to see over a distance of 23 miles. Tom avoids providing any details of the telescope he uses.
-
And why argue about which beach?
Tom! Were you lying on the sandy or rocky beach?
-
Perhaps you could give a specific reason why the other evidence I presented doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Hiding behind blanket statements bespeaks bias.
Yes, let's pretend that I haven't already done that multiple times in multiple threads (Seriously, you guys would benefit greatly from organising yourselves. Frankly, I'd benefit too. Perhaps that's why you're avoiding it?). That sounds like fun.
*sigh* All right, one last time.
1. The beach Tom claims to be able to see is 23 miles to the North.
2. The beach he provided a picture of is 4 miles to the West.
We've already talked through that one. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5424.msg105519#msg105519) That image is not (and never was) part of the Wiki article for a reason. It was sloppy of Tom to grab random images from the Internet, but it really doesn't matter as much as you'd like it to.
3. The beach 4 miles to the West is the only beach visible from his specified location, due to a rock outcropping obstructing the view.
Irrelevant given the above. You insist on assuming the wrong beach as "the specified location".
4. Even if you circumvent the rock outcropping, the beach 4 miles to the West is the only beach visible in all the user-uploaded panoramas of that location. Remember, Tom claimed he could see the beach with the naked eye.
I'm sorry, you'll have to provide some evidence to the claim that the beach can't be seen with the naked eye on a clear day. Given that your claim about panoramas is demonstrably (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,13.63h,90.48t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en) false (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6268562,-121.9153258,3a,75y,5.79h,100.19t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-dNWOP_cgJq8%2FVaQD4T4_giI%2FAAAAAAAAeKc%2FxY83WGqB3-U2r1u35ceWLWV1C0CyQhxkwCJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2F-dNWOP_cgJq8%2FVaQD4T4_giI%2FAAAAAAAAeKc%2FxY83WGqB3-U2r1u35ceWLWV1C0CyQhxkwCJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya345.84894-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i10240!8i5120!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682!6m1!1e1?hl=en), this will be a considerable challenge. Thanks for handing me the answer to that one on a silver platter, I might not have thought to check the panoramas before you mentioned them.
I'll refrain from calling you a liar for just one moment and give you a chance to explain yourself... or will I?
5. It is doubtful that a telescope can provide the details that Tom claims to see over a distance of 23 miles. Tom avoids providing any details of the telescope he uses.
Unfortunately, "I doubt it!!!" is not a convincing piece of evidence.
As I said, I've addressed all your concerns and resolved ones that were in any way significant. You've now hit the level of desperation of just restating your claims over and over, hoping that my answer will somehow change.
The answer will not change unless new factors come into play. As mentioned in your S&C thread, it is blindingly obvious to me that you're trying to get the article removed because you don't want people to see it, and not because of any actual issues with the article. That, in and of itself, is quite possibly the best endorsement of the article I could imagine.
-
You claimed my evidence doesn't "stand up to scrutiny", but you haven't actually shown how any of the evidence is invalid (except #4, which I will address specifically). Your objection to my evidence seems to be based on a desire to give Tom Bishop the benefit of the doubt. This goes against the spirit of a scientific experiment. If there are inconsistencies in the report of the experiment, then the results of said experiment need to be called into question. The worst thing you can do is ignore the inconsistencies, and just assume that it was done correctly.
4. Even if you circumvent the rock outcropping, the beach 4 miles to the West is the only beach visible in all the user-uploaded panoramas of that location. Remember, Tom claimed he could see the beach with the naked eye.
I'm sorry, you'll have to provide some evidence to the claim that the beach can't be seen with the naked eye on a clear day. Given that your claim about panoramas is demonstrably (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,13.63h,90.48t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en) false (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6268562,-121.9153258,3a,75y,5.79h,100.19t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-dNWOP_cgJq8%2FVaQD4T4_giI%2FAAAAAAAAeKc%2FxY83WGqB3-U2r1u35ceWLWV1C0CyQhxkwCJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2F-dNWOP_cgJq8%2FVaQD4T4_giI%2FAAAAAAAAeKc%2FxY83WGqB3-U2r1u35ceWLWV1C0CyQhxkwCJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya345.84894-ro-0-fo100%2F!7i10240!8i5120!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682!6m1!1e1?hl=en), this will be a considerable challenge. Thanks for handing me the answer to that one on a silver platter, I might not have thought to check the panoramas before you mentioned them.
I'll refrain from calling you a liar for just one moment and give you a chance to explain yourself... or will I?
Your graciousness is overwhelming. 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.
That being said, my point still stands. The BEACH is certainly not visible in those images, as Tom states. Compare that with this image (http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6bmicgg&s=1#.WFINzWdk9hE) that Tom provided where the beach IS clearly visible. 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.
5. It is doubtful that a telescope can provide the details that Tom claims to see over a distance of 23 miles. Tom avoids providing any details of the telescope he uses.
Unfortunately, "I doubt it!!!" is not a convincing piece of evidence.
Woody went into more detail elsewhere. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5366.msg104819#msg104819) 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.
...The answer will not change unless new factors come into play...
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 made this thread for general visibility of the issue, not to convince you specifically. At this point, it would be most helpful to hear from Tom Bishop himself, but he has been conspicuously silent on the issue.
-
IMHO continuing to ask for more to be edited in the wiki is a waste of time. We could argue the entire wiki should be deleted. The "100 Proofs" like the reason why a geodetic survey is not needed when building rail lines, roads and canals is a good example. The reason is very simple. These things are not being constructed and then set into place. When you construct these things they follow the curvature of the Earth as you go. Which means you only need to conduct plane surveys to ensure the relative elevations or what the designs call for.
They changed something that I think no matter your belief in the shape of the Earth could be agreed upon. A mile is a mile in both models.
I do not see coming to an agreement how far and the amount of details someone should see using optics currently available. From my point of view during my service in the military and experience sailing Tom has access to some really great optics that are far superior to any I have ever used or aware of. Somehow he got hold of a telescope that allows clear views and show amazing details at magnifications above 60x despite atmospheric interference. There is a reason astronomers like to avoid making observations near the horizon.
My personal recommendations is keep things vague in the wiki in the future like most already there and these issue will not arise. The reason myself and others can bring up these issues is Tom gave us too many details. If you notice other mentions of similar things in the wiki omit at least one or more important detail. Like height of the observer or general location the observer was at. So if Tom would have left out where he made the observations from there would have be no way to verify the distances to see if they were correct. No way for anyone to question where and how he was able lay down and place the telescope only 20 inches above the water. Like the make and specs of the telescope another question he has failed to answer.
Before I hear the claim stuff in the wiki is not meant to mislead people and/or the stuff included is fact checked/scrutinized look at this which is also in the wiki under evidence:
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
Someone understanding the methodology used would understand the professor had to use math to flatten out Kansas because the assumption it is located on a globe.
"Barring the acquisition of either a Kansas-sized pancake or a pancake-sized Kansas, mathematical techniques are needed to do a proper comparison"
"One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio."
"...earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation"
To keep this shorter I just list some words used in the article:
ellipse, arc, semi-major axis, semi-minor axis, global, ellipsoid, polynomial line, polynomial equations.
So when you look at the methodology the conclusion is the topography of Kansas is flatter than a pancake not that Kansas is sitting on a flat Earth.
That article was either posted as evidence to intentionally mislead people or the person linking it did not understand the methodology used and just saw the word flat in the title.
If we hold the FES to too high of standard for evidence that is allowed in the wiki they would have no wiki.
-
Just an aside on railroad tracks.
An old magazine article (1900's) describing the Texas Electric Railroad (Interurban) describes the tracks as being "on tangent."
-
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 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4887.msg102093#msg102093), 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 (http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6bmicgg&s=1#.WFINzWdk9hE) 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. (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5366.msg104819#msg104819) 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".
-
I'm not going to bother addressing each of your statements individually. It would get tedious. Suffice it to say that I performed numerous impressive eye-rolls as I read them. I will address one statement though:
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.
I'm sorry, but this is just false. From the panorama that you provided (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,13.63h,90.48t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en), here is the "beach" in the direction that Tom claimed he was looking. Notice that the beach is definitely not visible. It certainly is not "extremely visible". All you can make out is a vague outline of the hill against the sky. (unfortunately it is located almost exactly on the image seam)
(http://i.imgur.com/R5iKcMP.png)
Compare that to the beach that is only ~4 miles away. (unfortunately the rock outcropping blocks much of it from this angle)
(http://i.imgur.com/BYojq22.png)
And the image Tom provided, again, only ~4 miles away:
(http://oi7.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg)
Notice how the beaches ARE clearly visible in the bottom 2 images, as Tom stated. If he really had been looking at the beach from the top image during his experiment, it seems extremely unlikely that he would have confused it with the beaches from the bottom images.
Again, I don't really expect to change your mind, nor is that my goal. At this point, it would be most helpful if Tom himself would address the issues.
-
I'm sorry, but this is just false. From the panorama that you provided (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,13.63h,90.48t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en), here is the "beach" in the direction that Tom claimed he was looking. Notice that the beach is definitely not visible. It certainly is not "extremely visible". All you can make out is a vague outline of the hill against the sky. (unfortunately it is located almost exactly on the image seam)
Clearly we disagree about what the word "visible" means. We're both seeing a thing, that much we've confirmed. We are both able to perceive it with our vision. But to you, it's not visible. There is very little I can do to help you with that.
Again, I don't really expect to change your mind, nor is that my goal.
Neither is it mine to change your mind. At this stage I'm just exposing your "concerns" for what they are.
-
I'm sorry, but this is just false. From the panorama that you provided (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,13.63h,90.48t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en), here is the "beach" in the direction that Tom claimed he was looking. Notice that the beach is definitely not visible. It certainly is not "extremely visible". All you can make out is a vague outline of the hill against the sky. (unfortunately it is located almost exactly on the image seam)
Clearly we disagree about what the word "visible" means. We're both seeing a thing, that much we've confirmed. We are both able to perceive it with our vision. But to you, it's not visible. There is very little I can do to help you with that.
Alright, I'm sure you have a cleverly thought out reason as to why this technically isn't a straight up lie. Is this going to be like that other thread, where you argued that we are all temporarily immune to being hit by a bus, since there is no bus hitting us in this exact moment? Instead of derailing the thread with a long, drawn-out argument full of tedious equivocations around the definition of the word "visible", how 'bout you just tell us your clever rationalization? Impress me.
-
There's no rationalisation. The coastline is visible. You admitted it. You provided images to support it. But simultaneously you're claiming you can't see it, originally blaming a crappy monitor.
In short, your argument boils down to something like:
(http://www.eastcottvets.co.uk/uploads/Animals/gingerkitten.jpg)
I admit that I can see a kitten here, but there are no visible, let alone "extremely visible" kittens in this photo!!!
-
There's no rationalisation. The coastline is visible. You admitted it. You provided images to support it. But simultaneously you're claiming you can't see it, originally blaming a crappy monitor.
I was fairly clear that I could see the silhouette of the landscape, but could not see the beach.
I will concede that on clear days, it is possible to distinguish a vague silhouette of the landscape... That being said, my point still stands. The BEACH is certainly not visible...
Unless you have any other equivocations to get out of your system, this is pretty straight forward lying. Not impressive at all. 2/10
-
It is a clear sign of desperation that your arguments are so quickly moving away from your flawed logic, and towards my person.
I will now withdraw my benefit of the doubt. You're trying to lie to us because you want the article down. It's not happening, and the record of your attempts is public for anyone to view.
-
It is a clear sign of desperation that your arguments are so quickly moving away from your flawed logic, and towards my person.
I will now withdraw my benefit of the doubt. You're trying to lie to us because you want the article down. It's not happening, and the record of your attempts is public for anyone to view.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ktf.gif)
Edit to make it not low-content:
I appreciate your input SexWarrior, but at this point, I can find no basis in reality for your accusations of lying or flawed logic. I was hoping for a more clever tactic from you than just repeated baseless accusations. As such, I see no point in continuing to argue. Hence my original response: "K".
-
It is a clear sign of desperation that your arguments are so quickly moving away from your flawed logic, and towards my person.
I will now withdraw my benefit of the doubt. You're trying to lie to us because you want the article down. It's not happening, and the record of your attempts is public for anyone to view.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ktf.gif)
Please refrain from making low-content posts in the upper fora.
-
Tom could clear this up easily. All he has to do is post what to clarify what he was able to see with the naked eye.
One reason I knew right away the distances were wrong when I read the experiment is I sailed to Monterey Bay. I was no further than about a 1/4 n.m. away from where he claimed to lay down and make his observations in my dingy during that trip.
The 3 days I was there the visibility was good and I could see the shore that Tom claims was visible. I could not see the waters edge but the higher ground behind it.
I carry a very good pair of binoculars and spotting scope on my boat. I find them very useful for navigation and consider them very important safety equipment. I have high standards for the optics I buy.
What I use:
Steiner 7x50 commander binos
Leupold 4 12-40X60Mm Spotting Scope
Every time I anchor I note landmarks and get bearings. Which allows me to determine if my anchor is dragging more easily and not entirely rely on my GPS.
Using either of those optics I could not see the beach(water's edge) Tom claimed to see so clearly. I only used the binos as I entered the bay to anchor about 1 n.m. north of Lover's Point. Both when I anchored East of Wharf II.
Of course I was not actively trying to see the beach nor did I expect to be able to at that distance.
-
I appreciate your input SexWarrior, but at this point, I can find no basis in reality for your accusations of lying or flawed logic. I was hoping for a more clever tactic from you than just repeated baseless accusations. As such, I see no point in continuing to argue. Hence my original response: "K".
Yes, yes, pointing out simple facts is so unreasonable, I should be ashamed for pointing out your contradictions and "errors". I'd take your point on board (and ascribe it to previously documented incompetence) if not for the fact that you don't need to try and find anything. It's been all spelled out for you multiple times, and your best response is "I totally can't see your point!".
I'll continue to document your dishonesty and desperation for as long as you keep adding to the pile of evidence. I'm sure a thorough record will come in handy in the future (as your original complaint argued, one's track record impacts on their credibility). Please, do go on.
-
So did the problem get resolved?
-
So did the problem get resolved?
Tom is still conspicuously ignoring this thread, and the experiment is still in the wiki, so... no.
Nice stealth bump
-
So did the problem get resolved?
Yes. Genuine concerns were isolated from thinly-veiled attempts at sabotaging the Flat Earth Theory and resolved.
the experiment is still in the wiki
Case in point.
-
So did the problem get resolved?
Yes. Genuine concerns were isolated from thinly-veiled attempts at sabotaging the Flat Earth Theory and resolved.
I appreciate your input, but your support for Tom Bishop isn't particularly relevant, since you didn't actually participate in the experiment. It would be most helpful if Tom himself would comment, since he is the only one with knowledge of the details of the experiment. The fact that he is avoiding this thread doesn't help his case.
-
There are other small beaches in that area that point towards Santa Cruz.
I believe I used a reflecting telescope of about 500x. Everything was upside down.
What else would you like to know?
-
There are other small beaches in that area that point towards Santa Cruz.
I believe I used a reflecting telescope of about 500x. Everything was upside down.
What else would you like to know?
500x? What was aperture? All telescopes have inverted images unless a erecting prism is used.
-
There are other small beaches in that area that point towards Santa Cruz.
I believe I used a reflecting telescope of about 500x. Everything was upside down.
What else would you like to know?
I think we all, Flat and Round, would like to know: Which of those "other small beaches" were you using?
-
There are other small beaches in that area that point towards Santa Cruz.
I believe I used a reflecting telescope of about 500x. Everything was upside down.
What else would you like to know?
I think we all, Flat and Round, would like to know: Which of those "other small beaches" were you using?
^ This is the most important question, I think.
Also:
2. Do you still stand by this statement (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=ak7jsth00qg7v0psski5u037j0&topic=16172.msg268864#msg268864): "Even with the unaided naked eye (http://i9.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg) one can see the beaches along the opposite coast."
3. Are you aware that the image linked to in your above statement is not an image of the Santa Cruz beach you were referencing?
-
500x? What was aperture? All telescopes have inverted images unless a erecting prism is used.
I don't have the telescope anymore, couldn't say. It was done 10 years ago.
I don't think that refracting telescopes are inverted.
There are other small beaches in that area that point towards Santa Cruz.
I believe I used a reflecting telescope of about 500x. Everything was upside down.
What else would you like to know?
I think we all, Flat and Round, would like to know: Which of those "other small beaches" were you using?
There is an area nearby with a cement stairwell that leads down to a small beachy area. That whole area at the end of the peninsula is generally referred to as Lover's Point.
Also:
2. Do you still stand by this statement (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=ak7jsth00qg7v0psski5u037j0&topic=16172.msg268864#msg268864): "Even with the unaided naked eye (http://i9.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg) one can see the beaches along the opposite coast."
3. Are you aware that the image linked to in your above statement is not an image of the Santa Cruz beach you were referencing?
My statement is correct. Its a picture of beaches along the opposite coast. I didn't say it was Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz would be at the leftmost tip, which that picture does not show.
-
There are other small beaches in that area that point towards Santa Cruz.
I believe I used a reflecting telescope of about 500x. Everything was upside down.
What else would you like to know?
I think we all, Flat and Round, would like to know: Which of those "other small beaches" were you using?
There is an area nearby with a cement stairwell that leads down to a small beachy area. That whole area at the end of the peninsula is generally referred to as Lover's Point.
That could refer to almost any of the "beachy" areas around there. Could you be specific please?
Also:
2. Do you still stand by this statement (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=ak7jsth00qg7v0psski5u037j0&topic=16172.msg268864#msg268864): "Even with the unaided naked eye (http://i9.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg) one can see the beaches along the opposite coast."
3. Are you aware that the image linked to in your above statement is not an image of the Santa Cruz beach you were referencing?
My statement is correct. Its a picture of beaches along the opposite coast. I didn't say it was Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz would be at the leftmost tip, which that picture does not show.
Interesting. That entire paragraph you are describing what you can see on the Santa Cruz beach. Why did you suddenly start talking about a completely different beach, in a completely different direction, in the very last sentence of that paragraph, without giving any indication that you were referring to a different beach?
On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away. I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible. Even with the unaided naked eye one can see the beaches along the opposite coast.
-
Here, I'll make it easy for you. Is this the "small beachy area" that you are referring to, yes or no? (circled in blue)
(http://imgur.com/upkTCec.gif)
-
The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.
Here is my picture again:
(http://oi7.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg)
Here is the picture of Santa Cruz posted earlier in this thread:
(http://i.imgur.com/R5iKcMP.png)
It might not pop out at you right away, but the pixels just above the water's surface in the Santa Cruz picture are lighter than the dark hills above it. If you look closely there is a light tan line in there, it is not dark on dark.
If you were looking at the whole scene in person starting from the closer coastline (the first image) and followed it into the distance to Santa Cruz (the second image), it would be easier to follow the light line of the beach.
-
The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.
Lol, ok. If that's the narrative you want to maintain, have at it.
I noticed that you still won't say what specific beach you were on. I framed it as a simple yes or no question. This will be my last question.
-
I noticed that you still won't say what specific beach you were on.
I noticed that too. I would still like to know: Which exact beach were you laying on, and which exact beach were you looking at? An experiment of this importance deserves the attention to detail that we request, and such detail should be easy to obtain. After all, according to a quote attributed to you (http://over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions" so you sh), you have performed this test "over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions" You should have no trouble locating the spot where you spent so much time, since you can "simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test."
-
How bizarre, so far everything Tom has said is congruent with a common-sense interpretation of the article. It's almost as if this was a non-problem to begin with.
Who'd a thunk it?
-
Here, I'll make it easy for you. Is this the "small beachy area" that you are referring to, yes or no? (circled in blue)
(http://imgur.com/upkTCec.gif)
Still waiting on an answer for this very simple yes or no question.
-
I've already answered that query. One area I looked at had a cement stairwell, but I've looked from other areas on that peninsula as well.
-
I've already answered that query. One area I looked at had a cement stairwell, but I've looked from other areas on that peninsula as well.
There are a number of different cement stairwells in the area, but most of them don't lead to a beach with a view of the Santa Cruz beach. You could have just answered yes or no. Instead, you again chose to avoid giving a straight answer. Interesting.
Let me rephrase the question. Which beach were you on when you "lay[ed] down on the stomach at the edge of the shore... 20 inches above sea level" which allowed you to "see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 23 miles away"? Is this the beach (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6265244,-121.9171868,3a,75y,94.49h,65.69t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-_vcy6tUOqx4%2FVn4OrBiW-sI%2FAAAAAAAADDw%2F4HENX_SbReMboQXnX2whPGkHNpDSvw2nQCJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-_vcy6tUOqx4%2FVn4OrBiW-sI%2FAAAAAAAADDw%2F4HENX_SbReMboQXnX2whPGkHNpDSvw2nQCJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi7.927653-ya274.10434-ro-9.690177-fo100%2F!7i5376!8i2688)? (Yes or no)
-
Obviously the article isn't going anywhere. It's a cherished and revered cornerstone of FE experimentation. You can nitpick about the details as far as your imagination allows but isn't the more sensible and less stressful route to just admit defeat?
-
Obviously the article isn't going anywhere. It's a cherished and revered cornerstone of FE experimentation. You can nitpick about the details as far as your imagination allows but isn't the more sensible and less stressful route to just admit defeat?
Definitely not, it's a flawed experiment that proves nothing. Furthermore, it lacks the attention to detail that you yourself require from the round earth experiments.
-
Obviously the article isn't going anywhere. It's a cherished and revered cornerstone of FE experimentation.
If it even happened.
You can nitpick about the details as far as your imagination allows but isn't the more sensible and less stressful route to just admit defeat?
No details except a concrete staircase leading down to a beach (which happens to face an opposite shore about 5 miles away) and a 500x telescope (reflector type, but what size, eyepiece, etc). Even the stated distance doesn't match actual distance. Pictures would have been great. It's just not very believable.
-
Obviously the article isn't going anywhere. It's a cherished and revered cornerstone of FE experimentation. You can nitpick about the details as far as your imagination allows but isn't the more sensible and less stressful route to just admit defeat?
It's just basic fact checking. I would assume that an honest truth seeker such as Tom would welcome critique and fact checking. Why is he avoiding giving a straightforward answer to this question?
Tom:
Which beach were you on when you "lay[ed] down on the stomach at the edge of the shore... 20 inches above sea level" which allowed you to "see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 23 miles away"? Is this the beach (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6265244,-121.9171868,3a,75y,94.49h,65.69t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-_vcy6tUOqx4%2FVn4OrBiW-sI%2FAAAAAAAADDw%2F4HENX_SbReMboQXnX2whPGkHNpDSvw2nQCJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-_vcy6tUOqx4%2FVn4OrBiW-sI%2FAAAAAAAADDw%2F4HENX_SbReMboQXnX2whPGkHNpDSvw2nQCJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi7.927653-ya274.10434-ro-9.690177-fo100%2F!7i5376!8i2688)? (Yes or no)
-
I already said that I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula, in different areas, 10 years ago. I don't know beach names.
-
I already said that I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula. I don't know beach names.
You don't need to know the name. Is this the beach (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6265244,-121.9171868,3a,75y,94.49h,65.69t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-_vcy6tUOqx4%2FVn4OrBiW-sI%2FAAAAAAAADDw%2F4HENX_SbReMboQXnX2whPGkHNpDSvw2nQCJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-_vcy6tUOqx4%2FVn4OrBiW-sI%2FAAAAAAAADDw%2F4HENX_SbReMboQXnX2whPGkHNpDSvw2nQCJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi7.927653-ya274.10434-ro-9.690177-fo100%2F!7i5376!8i2688)? (Yes or no)
-
I already said that I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula, in different areas, 10 years ago. I don't know beach names.
Finally.
1. "I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula, in different areas." -- Tom Bishop
2. There is only one beach in that area that has line of sight to the Santa Cruz beach that you claimed to be able to see.
Therefore, you had to have been looking at the wrong beach in at least some of those experiments, indicating that you were unable to correctly identify the beach you claimed to be looking at. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the experiment was performed correctly.
Your honor, I rest my case.
Panorama of relevant beach. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6265244,-121.9171868,3a,75y,94.49h,65.69t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-_vcy6tUOqx4%2FVn4OrBiW-sI%2FAAAAAAAADDw%2F4HENX_SbReMboQXnX2whPGkHNpDSvw2nQCJkC!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-_vcy6tUOqx4%2FVn4OrBiW-sI%2FAAAAAAAADDw%2F4HENX_SbReMboQXnX2whPGkHNpDSvw2nQCJkC%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi7.927653-ya274.10434-ro-9.690177-fo100%2F!7i5376!8i2688)
(http://imgur.com/upkTCec.gif)
-
No, that isn't the whole peninsula, there are several places pointing towards santa cruz.
-
No, that isn't the whole peninsula, there are several places pointing towards santa cruz.
That is Lovers Point, which you specifically referred to by name as the location of your experiment.
-
2. There is only one beach in that area that has line of sight to the Santa Cruz beach that you claimed to be able to see.
Why would you say something like that while simultaneously attaching a picture in which you, personally, circled several beaches that work within your blue oval?
-
No, that isn't the whole peninsula, there are several places pointing towards santa cruz.
That is Lovers Point, which you specifically referred to by name as the location of your experiment.
The whole area of the peninsula is generally referred as Lover's Point. There are several things called Lovers Point in that area, such as the Lover's Point Marine Reserve.
-
Was it a sandy beach, or was it gravel?
I take it there was not a lot of violent surf in that direction.
So a person hoping to re-create this experiment needs a fairly portable 500x telescope that can be set up 20 inches from the ground, and beach with a view in that direction that isn't looking through big waves/surf.
-
On a thread about Zetetic Method versus Scientific Method (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3849.0), Tom Bishop posted this:
"The Chemist can put his subject matter under controlled experimental conditions to come to a truth. The Astronomer cannot. This is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.
Your argument about both "observing the results" is not a good one. The Chemist can clearly do a lot more testing on his subject matter than the Astronomer can. There is a huge difference. The Astronomer is not doing testing or experimentation at all before coming up with theories."
I replied:
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? The earth, whether flat or round, is definitely not a controlled experiment. Last time I checked, the earth does not fit into a test tube...or even inside a laboratory. Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations? How would the Zetetic Method get around this fatal flaw in all flat earth models?
For example, let's say...oh I don't know....that you conduct an experiment where you view a distant beach through a telescope? Here are the variables that cannot be controlled or at least that should be factored into and well documented in any results reported:
1-Air temperature all along the line of sight (which affects the refractive properties of air)
2-Humidity
3-Angle of the sun (unless you repeat the experiment once a year at the exact same time)
4-Human error or miscalculation.....like maybe looking at the wrong beach?
5-Pollution levels
6-Wave size and direction, along with any spray being thrown up by the wind
7-Amount of cloud cover or fog
8-Acuity of eyesight of the observer
9-Condition of the telescope
10-Exact location and height and compass direction of the telescope
11- Height of the tides at both locations, and more variable effects like unusually high or low tides caused by wind and storm surges
12- Wind or other factors affecting the steadiness of the telescope
13- Acuity of any photographic equipment used to document the results (if someone actually thought to document their results with a camera)
14- Editing or photoshopping done to any of the resulting photographic or video-graphic evidence collected
15-Fudging of the data collected or reported to support a preconception of what should have been observed
Maybe you could start adjusting for some of these variables by carefully documenting your experiments (including with photographs) and convincing others to repeat it and carefully check your experimental method and results....or you could just post about such an experiment on a forum somewhere and claim it is proof of something without actually having even controlled or documented what you could, or asked anyone else to repeat it and report back to you first.
Would you consider that experiment an example of the Zetetic method in action without any effort at controls, documentation, or independent repetition of the experiment?
And what about all of the factors that are mentioned above that cannot be controlled? Doesn't that make this experiment subject to the inherent flaws you claim for Astronomy?
I also added this:
And how are the observations on the beach an experiment anyways under your definition (further up in the thread): "To experiment is to isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence. It is entirely different than a mere observation."
All you did was look through a telescope. What did you isolate, prepare or manipulate on the beach during your observations?
-
It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.
-
It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.
I thought "appeals to authority" weren't allowed in these arguments. Rowbotham asserted that he had been to the ice wall, beside the fact that he stated this wasn't possible - he hasn't been able to give any accurate figures for the size of the earth, the wall, weather, atmospheric pressure the motion of the sun or moon or any other planets, the existence of a second pole star or the nature of eclipses with any evidence that remotely resembles observable fact.
My proof? Your bible - Earth: Not a Globe.
None of his experiments can be repeated with his results - whenever attempted, even when he was still alive, he would jump up and down and proclaim that telescopes are the instruments of the devil.
Now, since your results can't be replicated on any other landmass that should support your claims (i. e. anywhere else) with your results, I suggest you do what any sensible scientist would do and concede that your method was insufficient to demonstrate any kind of scientific rigour and repeat it somewhere else - anywhere else! I suggest starting with Australia since, given the models proposed by your own society, the Ice wall should be visible from there - since this is a fixed point in your cosmology and you should be able to see its entirety from anywhere on the Australian continent, your results should be easily replicatable.
No cue the list of inconsequential and unrelated questions, dismissal of fact and a possible ban from the moderators - we call this the Bishop method.
Go ahead: I'll wait.
-
It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.
So when simply validating someone else's experiment from two centuries ago, is it no longer necessary to "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence"? And how did Robotham "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence" (again your own words from above) when he made some simple observations at the Bedford Canal? And does repeating someone else's experiment absolve you of any need to actually document the experiment in a way that still others could reproduce it, and thereby discover if it was indeed correct or if there were errors in the methodology?
How was your experiment or Rowbotham's any different from the mere observations recorded by Astronomers? Again, by your own definition, neither your "experiments" nor Robotham's actually qualify as experiments. Or maybe it is OK to just observe as long as you are doing it in service to your own pet theory?
For that matter, can you site any flat earth evidence that is actually the result of isolating, preparing, and manipulating things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence, or is it all based on simple observations that do not meet your own stated criteria to qualify as an experiment? It seems to me we can replace the word Astronomer in your earlier statement with the words Flat Earther as follows: The Flat Earther is not doing testing or experimentation at all before coming up with theories.
-
It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.
I thought "appeals to authority" weren't allowed in these arguments. Rowbotham asserted that he had been to the ice wall, beside the fact that he stated this wasn't possible
It was James Clark Ross who went to the Ice Wall, not Rowbotham.
- he hasn't been able to give any accurate figures for the size of the earth, the wall, weather, atmospheric pressure the motion of the sun or moon or any other planets, the existence of a second pole star or the nature of eclipses with any evidence that remotely resembles observable fact.
Rowbotham doesn't suggest figures for much of that.
None of his experiments can be repeated with his results - whenever attempted, even when he was still alive, he would jump up and down and proclaim that telescopes are the instruments of the devil.
This is not true at all.
Now, since your results can't be replicated on any other landmass that should support your claims (i. e. anywhere else) with your results, I suggest you do what any sensible scientist would do and concede that your method was insufficient to demonstrate any kind of scientific rigour and repeat it somewhere else - anywhere else!
I did claim that I repeated it.
I suggest starting with Australia since, given the models proposed by your own society, the Ice wall should be visible from there - since this is a fixed point in your cosmology and you should be able to see its entirety from anywhere on the Australian continent, your results should be easily replicatable.
The Ice Wall is only 150 feet high in the monopole model and the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
-
So when simply validating someone else's experiment from two centuries ago, it is no longer necessary to "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence"? And how did Robotham "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence" (again your own words from above)? And does repeating someone else's experiment absolve you of any need to actually document the experiment in a way that still others could reproduce it, and thereby discover if it was indeed correct or if there were errors in the methodology
The water convexity experiment has been conducted by multiple people under different atmospheric conditions and water conditions. This constituted rigorous repetition. My experiment was just one more to the pile.
How was your experiment or Rowbotham's any different from the mere observations recorded by Astronomers
Rowbotham brought tools like barometers between the start and ends of the experiment to determine air pressure. When has an Astronomer ever gone to a star to keep his experiment controlled?
-
So are you saying measuring barometric pressure before and after an experiment qualifies as isolating, preparing, and manipulating things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence? Sounds like just one more observation to me. And astronomers may not use a barometer, but they can make several different "observations" in the course of their work using lots of different instruments like different kinds of telescopes that measure different spectrums of electromagnetic radiation. How was Robotham's use of a barometer different than an astronomer's use of a radio telescope in addition to a light telescope?
And if an experiment has been repeated a lot of times, does that mean that it absolves anyone reporting their own results from accurately documenting their methods and results? Especially if they publish their results, shouldn't they observe the bare minimums of documentation and rigor that any form of science requires? But of course that assumes that this is actually a serious scientific forum, and your experiment does nothing to support that conclusion.
I will ask again: Can you site any flat earth evidence that is actually the result of isolating, preparing, and manipulating things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence (similar to what a chemist does), or is it all based on simple observations that do not meet your own stated criteria to qualify as an experiment?
-
1-Air temperature all along the line of sight (which affects the refractive properties of air)
2-Humidity
3-Angle of the sun (unless you repeat the experiment once a year at the exact same time)
4-Human error or miscalculation.....like maybe looking at the wrong beach?
5-Pollution levels
6-Wave size and direction, along with any spray being thrown up by the wind
7-Amount of cloud cover or fog
8-Acuity of eyesight of the observer
9-Condition of the telescope
10-Exact location and height and compass direction of the telescope
11- Height of the tides at both locations, and more variable effects like unusually high or low tides caused by wind and storm surges
12- Wind or other factors affecting the steadiness of the telescope
Are you claiming that adjusting any or all of the above 12 factors would make it possible for one to see across all of Monterey Bay with a telescope on a hypothetical Round Earth? If so, congratulations - you've just diverged from mainstream RE'ers so much that you pretty much can't be considered an RE'er - you're closer to one of us! If not, let us discard these and continue:
13- Acuity of any photographic equipment used to document the results (if someone actually thought to document their results with a camera)
14- Editing or photoshopping done to any of the resulting photographic or video-graphic evidence collected
We're not interested in photographic "evidence". So much of it is fabricated that it's not worth anyone's time. Reproducing Tom's experiment is trivial, and experiencing it is much more convincing that looking at totally-real pictures of Tatooine.
15-Fudging of the data collected or reported to support a preconception of what should have been observed
It would be a shame if the experiment were repeated a number of times with consistent results by different people...
-
I claimed nothing about what is possible on a round earth. I was merely pointing out that Tom's experiment does not qualify as an experiment by his own stated criteria.
Have you repeated his experiment? If so, what is your evidence? And how did you know when and where to place the telescope and what direction to point it, when that data has not been shared with enough specificity to repeat his experiment correctly?
-
Now, since your results can't be replicated on any other landmass that should support your claims (i. e. anywhere else) with your results, I suggest you do what any sensible scientist would do and concede that your method was insufficient to demonstrate any kind of scientific rigour and repeat it somewhere else - anywhere else!
I did claim that I repeated it.
"other landmass" - try leaving the country and repeating this from, say, Patagonia or Indonesia or Australia. Your examination of one tiny section of the earth is not enough to make grand statements about its entirety.
I suggest starting with Australia since, given the models proposed by your own society, the Ice wall should be visible from there - since this is a fixed point in your cosmology and you should be able to see its entirety from anywhere on the Australian continent, your results should be easily replicatable.
The Ice Wall is only 150 feet high in the monopole model and the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
[/quote]
The Atmospheric Transparency defense is bunk - even on the clearest of days we should see the horizon fade slowly to a vanishing point at eye level. What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it like - you guessed it - objects going over a curve. There is no amount of perspective jiggerypokery or claims of atmospheric transparency that can refute this.
Also can I point out your continued use of the word atmosphere?
And yes, I concede that the original conductors of the Bedford experiment didn't "jump up and down" - that was facetious of me, and I'm sorry.
Though one of the main proponents of the experiment, a man named Hampden, threatened to murder the man who proved the experiment wrong, Alfred Russel Wallace.
Wallace's version of the experiment, which showed Rowbotham's experiment returned a false result, was replicated for nearly a century as an illustration of the curvature of the Earth and, by the end of the ensuing legal battle, Hampden was left disgraced and bankrupt.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm
You need better equipment, more precise measurement and a far larger sample size to make any assertions about the Earth - concluding the Earth is flat because of your observations of one part of the Earth is like saying that my entire sock drawer is filled with stripy blue toesie socks because that happens to be what I pull out when I reach into exactly the same place every time.
-
"other landmass" - try leaving the country and repeating this from, say, Patagonia or Indonesia or Australia. Your examination of one tiny section of the earth is not enough to make grand statements about its entirety.
According to Round Earth Theory gravity is pulling water into a sphere, and every section of water must exhibit curvature. The experiment has been conducted in multiple locations, but really only one is needed to contradict the model which is claimed.
Are you claiming that gravity works differently as claimed in the Round Earth model in that multiple locations are needed?
The Atmospheric Transparency defense is bunk - even on the clearest of days we should see the horizon fade slowly to a vanishing point at eye level. What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it like - you guessed it - objects going over a curve. There is no amount of perspective jiggerypokery or claims of atmospheric transparency that can refute this.
The atmosphere has things like atoms and molecules in it which build up over distance. It should not be expected that one can see forever through it.
Though one of the main proponents of the experiment, a man named Hampden, threatened to murder the man who proved the experiment wrong, Alfred Russel Wallace.
Wallace's version of the experiment, which showed Rowbotham's experiment returned a false result, was replicated for nearly a century as an illustration of the curvature of the Earth and, by the end of the ensuing legal battle, Hampden was left disgraced and bankrupt.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm
This three pole experiment was subject to some flaws. There is a chapter on that in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
Also, this experiment was actually a wager between two men for a years worth of pay and both men walked away from it claiming that they had won.
-
"other landmass" - try leaving the country and repeating this from, say, Patagonia or Indonesia or Australia. Your examination of one tiny section of the earth is not enough to make grand statements about its entirety.
According to Round Earth Theory gravity is pulling water into a sphere, and every section of water must exhibit curvature. The experiment has been conducted in multiple locations, but really only one is needed to contradict the model which is claimed.
Are you claiming that gravity works differently as claimed in the Round Earth model in that multiple locations are needed?
An assertion made many times by Flat Earth Theorists trying to explain the discrepancy of map projections with observed facts. The encouragement to leave the country was more a general one to get you to see that your assertions do not apply to the part of the world ignored by most Flat Earth theorists: the Southern Hemisphere.
And while we are at it, yes the curvature of bodies of water is different at different latitudes - and geophysicist will tell you that the curvature of the earth is different at the equator than nearer the poles. The fact remains that you need a larger sample size and a larger scale experiment to verify your claims.
The Atmospheric Transparency defense is bunk - even on the clearest of days we should see the horizon fade slowly to a vanishing point at eye level. What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it like - you guessed it - objects going over a curve. There is no amount of perspective jiggerypokery or claims of atmospheric transparency that can refute this.
The atmosphere has things like atoms and molecules in it which build up over distance. It should not be expected that one can see forever through it.
That doesn't answer the fact that the distance of the horizon doesn't fade out like it would if its disappearance were attributable to the atmosphere's opacity. You haven't answered the questions - just restated your original assertion with more words.
And before you start saying this isn't relevant, it very much is because for your experiment to be true, it should be able to be scaled up to any size and you will receive the exact same result.
Though one of the main proponents of the experiment, a man named Hampden, threatened to murder the man who proved the experiment wrong, Alfred Russel Wallace.
Wallace's version of the experiment, which showed Rowbotham's experiment returned a false result, was replicated for nearly a century as an illustration of the curvature of the Earth and, by the end of the ensuing legal battle, Hampden was left disgraced and bankrupt.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm
This three pole experiment was subject to some flaws. There is a chapter on that in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
Also, this experiment was actually a wager between two men for a years worth of pay and both men walked away from it claiming that they had won.
One walked away with definitive proof of the earth's curvature which was presented to scholars at Cambridge and subsequently used as a model for explaining the Earth's curvature for nearly a century, adhering to mathematical and empirical proof, and the other walked away with a sore ego and battered reputation which motivated him to threaten the successful scientist with murder.
As has been demonstrated by any real scientist who has ever deigned to address this topic, the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society stands on an incredibly shaky ground of flawed mathematics and physical theories that do not stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation. Any argument made in said book is performed from a preconception that the Earth must be flat and a blatant disregard for objectivity.
Thumping Earth: Not a Globe and invoking Rowbotham and then denying the ability of anyone else to call on Principia Mathematica and Newton is about as strong a stance as saying Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce hold the real paradigm for how English should be used and that the Dictionary is a pack of lies.
-
An assertion made many times by Flat Earth Theorists trying to explain the discrepancy of map projections with observed facts. The encouragement to leave the country was more a general one to get you to see that your assertions do not apply to the part of the world ignored by most Flat Earth theorists: the Southern Hemisphere.
Does this look like a Southern Hemisphere thread?
And while we are at it, yes the curvature of bodies of water is different at different latitudes - and geophysicist will tell you that the curvature of the earth is different at the equator than nearer the poles. The fact remains that you need a larger sample size and a larger scale experiment to verify your claims.
It doesn't matter what shape the land is. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.
That doesn't answer the fact that the distance of the horizon doesn't fade out like it would if its disappearance were attributable to the atmosphere's opacity. You haven't answered the questions - just restated your original assertion with more words.
And before you start saying this isn't relevant, it very much is because for your experiment to be true, it should be able to be scaled up to any size and you will receive the exact same result.
Does the atmosphere have molecules in it or not?
One walked away with definitive proof of the earth's curvature which was presented to scholars at Cambridge and subsequently used as a model for explaining the Earth's curvature for nearly a century, adhering to mathematical and empirical proof, and the other walked away with a sore ego and battered reputation which motivated him to threaten the successful scientist with murder.
As has been demonstrated by any real scientist who has ever deigned to address this topic, the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society stands on an incredibly shaky ground of flawed mathematics and physical theories that do not stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation. Any argument made in said book is performed from a preconception that the Earth must be flat and a blatant disregard for objectivity.
It was not a legitimate experiment. It was a WAGER for a year's worth of pay. Don't you see the issue with that? Yet despite it being clearly a totally invalid experiment on grounds that significant sums of money was involved, and that both men claimed that they had won, it somehow supports your side.
-
An assertion made many times by Flat Earth Theorists trying to explain the discrepancy of map projections with observed facts. The encouragement to leave the country was more a general one to get you to see that your assertions do not apply to the part of the world ignored by most Flat Earth theorists: the Southern Hemisphere.
Does this look like a Southern Hemisphere thread?
No, what it looks like is a sorry attempt to pass off a few jaunts down to the same minuscule area of the world to use an instrument that doesn't measure curvature to measure the curvature of a planet that is far, far vaster than you are capable of understanding. If you repeated your experiments in more locations on a larger scale - something that would be so very simple if the Earth were flat - then we might take you seriously. So far, though, you have attempted to summarize the entirety of a mountain by examining a grain of sand.
And while we are at it, yes the curvature of bodies of water is different at different latitudes - and geophysicist will tell you that the curvature of the earth is different at the equator than nearer the poles. The fact remains that you need a larger sample size and a larger scale experiment to verify your claims.
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.
This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.
That doesn't answer the fact that the distance of the horizon doesn't fade out like it would if its disappearance were attributable to the atmosphere's opacity. You haven't answered the questions - just restated your original assertion with more words.
And before you start saying this isn't relevant, it very much is because for your experiment to be true, it should be able to be scaled up to any size and you will receive the exact same result.
Does the atmosphere have molecules in it or not?
Yes it does - but the gradual thickening of the atmosphere towards the horizon does not account for what we actually observe - once again, if that were the case then we would see the land/ocean fade out slowly like a gradient towards its vanishing point at the 'horizon' even in the clearest of conditions - this is clearly not the case. What we do see is the earth curves away at an appreciable point, causing the hard line of the horizon that any observer can see.
Your experiment should be able to scale up indefinitely, returning exactly the same result at every distance, but it simply doesn't. If you want to prove that it does, go conduct it in a space that is twice the size - then five times the size - then ten times the size. This is called scientific rigour and, as it stands, your experiment just doesn't have it. Defend your claim with more hard evidence than "I did a thing and that means I'm right and I never have to do it again."
One walked away with definitive proof of the earth's curvature which was presented to scholars at Cambridge and subsequently used as a model for explaining the Earth's curvature for nearly a century, adhering to mathematical and empirical proof, and the other walked away with a sore ego and battered reputation which motivated him to threaten the successful scientist with murder.
As has been demonstrated by any real scientist who has ever deigned to address this topic, the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society stands on an incredibly shaky ground of flawed mathematics and physical theories that do not stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation. Any argument made in said book is performed from a preconception that the Earth must be flat and a blatant disregard for objectivity.
It was not a legitimate experiment. It was a WAGER for a year's worth of pay. Don't you see the issue with that? Yet despite it being clearly a totally invalid experiment on grounds that significant sums of money was involved, and that both men claimed that they had won, it somehow supports your side.
[/quote]
Now address the hundreds of other geophysicists who had replicated the experiment as part of their basic curriculum at Cambridge. The original may not have been particularly savoury to your sensibilities, but nevertheless it began a trend that didn't involve money or vindication, one that had the experiment repeated time and time again but different people at different times with different instruments all returning the same result.
That, my dear Tom, is what scientific experimentation actually is.
Now, if you wouldn't mind popping back down to the beach and trying again with the proper equipment, proper documentation and the proper motivation to observe the Earth rather than your own personal satisfaction, then maybe you can talk about objectivity. Otherwise, I'd suggest you stop making a fool of yourself and your society - it's really rather unbecoming.
-
I claimed nothing about what is possible on a round earth.
Do you agree that none of the factors you've listed would magically allow for Tom's results to be repeatedly observed on a hypothetical round Earth?
What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it
This is simply incorrect. The gradient varies (unsurprisingly), but it's always there.
This, by the way, is true regardless of the shape of the Earth.
-
I claimed nothing about what is possible on a round earth.
Do you agree that none of the factors you've listed would magically allow for Tom's results to be repeatedly observed on a hypothetical round Earth?
What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it
This is simply incorrect. The gradient varies (unsurprisingly), but it's always there.
This, by the way, is true regardless of the shape of the Earth.
If the horizon were due to atmospheric opacity, there would be no definite line - it would fade like a gradient. That's how a build up of obscurity would work.
It also precludes the "sinking" of ships behind the horizon as well as the sun and the moon not fading and shrinking into the distance behind this supposed atmospheric haze.
The gradient does vary, yes, but it varies from not being able to see the line of the horizon at all behind fog and rain and, in clear conditions, being able to appreciably detect a line between the land/sea and sky.
This is relevant because , with the correct equipment and in the right conditions, Tom should be able scale up his experiment and to see the west coast of Africa from the east coast of Brazil on a flat Earth. Either that or you should see a hazy blending of horizon and sky at the limit of perception which should be appreciably measurable from a distance and be directly related to the density of the atmosphere.
If you want to make the atmospheric opacity argument, get some numbers to back it up. How far away does the horizon become invisible? How slowly does the atmosphere block it out? How is this related to the refractive qualities of the atmosphere?
And why hasn't Tom Bishop done this to defend his claim already?
The main issue of the experiment not being repeatable on a round earth is that his experiment should be able to be scaled up indefinitely. You could achieve the same result over one mile or ten miles or a hundred or a thousand on a Flag Earth. This is the rigorous proof that needs to be shown if the assertions made by Tom Bishop are true.
-
I claimed nothing about what is possible on a round earth.
Do you agree that none of the factors you've listed would magically allow for Tom's results to be repeatedly observed on a hypothetical round Earth?
I do not agree with that statement at all. Especially air temperature affects the refractive qualities of the air, which is why the Chicago skyline sometimes appears across Lake Michigan in the winter....and also probably why in his original report of the experiment, Tom Bishop says that it is especially easy to see the far shore on a clear cool day, when the air would have the greatest degree of refraction.
In addition, without knowing for certain where his telescope was located, how high exactly it was above the water and exactly what direction the telescope was pointed, we cannot even be sure that he was looking at the correct beach, or that his calculations regarding the curve of the earth are the correct ones.
Several other factors mentioned would still affect how far you can see regardless of the shape of the earth, and so they could mess with the results no matter what the documented results showed. But since we have no documented or independently verified results of this particular experiment, we cannot make any conclusions based on the rather incomplete report of his observations.
-
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.
This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.
Do you disagree that if we sliced 1/5th of the Round Earth earth away like a tomato, that the water, if there were enough of it, would fill in the gap and create the rest of the sphere?
That is a huge flat area on the earth, much flatter than what is said to be at the pole, and the water just recreated the sphere.
It doesn't matter if the earth is not perfectly round. The water will be.
-
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.
This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.
Do you disagree that if we sliced 1/5th of the Round Earth earth away like a tomato, that the water, if there were enough of it, would fill in the gap and create the rest of the sphere?
There is a huge flat area, much flatter than what is said to be at the pole, and unless you disagree with this, the water just recreated the sphere.
It doesn't matter if the earth is not perfectly round. The water will be.
On a static sphere, sure - on a spinning one it will bulge at the equator.
This was the single defensible part of your argument and you leapt on it - what about where the rest of it disintegrates entirely under the force of scientific reason and applied physics?
-
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.
This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.
Do you disagree that if we sliced 1/5th of the Round Earth earth away like a tomato, that the water, if there were enough of it, would fill in the gap and create the rest of the sphere?
There is a huge flat area, much flatter than what is said to be at the pole, and unless you disagree with this, the water just recreated the sphere.
It doesn't matter if the earth is not perfectly round. The water will be.
On a static sphere, sure - on a spinning one it will bulge at the equator.
This was the single defensible part of your argument and you leapt on it - what about where the rest of it disintegrates entirely under the force of scientific reason and applied physics?
On a globe earth spinning about its axis, a point on the equator experience would a centripetal acceleration of 0.0337 m/s2 (extremely small), whereas a point at the poles experiences no centripetal acceleration.
So tell me, how is a water world experiencing no centripetal acceleration at the poles supposed to have flattened poles?
-
It doesn't matter what shape the land is underneath the water. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.
This has literally nothing to do with the matter at hand - the shape of the land under the water is not the issue, it is the curvature of the body being examined in its entirety - i. e. the Earth. The equatorial bulge is an integral part of the geophysical model of the Earth as accepted by the spherical model - if you don't understand it then trying to disprove it is like trying to correct an essay in a language you don't speak.
Do you disagree that if we sliced 1/5th of the Round Earth earth away like a tomato, that the water, if there were enough of it, would fill in the gap and create the rest of the sphere?
There is a huge flat area, much flatter than what is said to be at the pole, and unless you disagree with this, the water just recreated the sphere.
It doesn't matter if the earth is not perfectly round. The water will be.
On a static sphere, sure - on a spinning one it will bulge at the equator.
This was the single defensible part of your argument and you leapt on it - what about where the rest of it disintegrates entirely under the force of scientific reason and applied physics?
On a globe earth spinning about its axis, a point on the equator experience would a centripetal acceleration of 0.0337 m/s2 (extremely small), whereas a point at the poles experiences no centripetal acceleration.
So tell me, how is a water world experiencing no centripetal acceleration at the poles supposed to have flattened poles?
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z
Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.
-
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z
Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.
So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat? ??? Why not just stay round?
-
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z
Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.
So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat? ??? Why not just stay round?
This is not a logical conclusion to draw - remember the scale of the problem you are trying to tackle, and that the direction of rotation is in line with the equator. The poles are also curved, but to a lesser degree - hence the use "flattened" in relative sense.
"Relative" is not a word that enters flat earth theorists' vocabulary much.
Your parochial perspective means nothing - think big, Bishop.
Now, can we please return to your justification of why your experiment won't work on a larger scale?
Or, if it does, your results and documentation from said scaled-up experiment?
We are still waiting.
-
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z
Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.
So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat? ??? Why not just stay round?
This is not a logical conclusion to draw - remember the scale of the problem you are trying to tackle, and that the direction of rotation is in line with the equator. The poles are also curved, but to a lesser degree - hence the use "flattened" in relative sense.
"Relative" is not a word that enters flat earth theorists' vocabulary much.
The logical conclusion is that the North Pole is regular round and the water at the equator is pulled by the tiny amount of force to be a little extra rounder than what regular Round Earth Theory normally states.
Now, can we please return to your justification of why your experiment won't work on a larger scale?
Or, if it does, your results and documentation from said scaled-up experiment?
We are still waiting.
As previously discussed, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
-
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z
Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.
So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat? ??? Why not just stay round?
This is not a logical conclusion to draw - remember the scale of the problem you are trying to tackle, and that the direction of rotation is in line with the equator. The poles are also curved, but to a lesser degree - hence the use "flattened" in relative sense.
"Relative" is not a word that enters flat earth theorists' vocabulary much.
The logical conclusion is that the North Pole is regular round and the water at the equator is pulled by the tiny amount of force to be a little extra rounder than what regular Round Earth Theory normally states.
Yes. That doesn't help you.
Now, can we please return to your justification of why your experiment won't work on a larger scale?
Or, if it does, your results and documentation from said scaled-up experiment?
We are still waiting.
As previously discussed, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Plenty of room for you to work, though.
Even on smaller scales than that you can prove your point. And even at the edge of visibility you could use equipment that can get around that.
Excuses - you coild at least try to sound like you are willing to scale up your experiment to meet the requirements of scientific rigour.
If you're going to keep posting, you should concentrate on refuting arguments that you still have no explanation for.
Step up, Bishop - you have work to do.
-
So was that beach with the concrete stairway sand or gravel/rocky?
-
I tried this in a previous thread, Tom, but I'll reiterate over this piece of evidence as it fits this particular topic. This experiment is done by an acquaintance of mine. It clearly shows the position of testing throughout the video.
Explain, please.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk
-
The fact that they experience no acceleration is the very reason they would be flattened. You both asked and answered your own question.
Also, if you want to discuss this in a spherical context, you have to remember gravity.z
Now stop deflecting and explain why your experiment doesn't hold up to rigour.
Alternatively, go do some actual science by scaling your experiment up like a good scientist.
We can wait.
So because there is no extra force pulling the water at the north pole upwards like there is at the equator, the curvature of the water at the north pole would go flat? ??? Why not just stay round?
This is not a logical conclusion to draw - remember the scale of the problem you are trying to tackle, and that the direction of rotation is in line with the equator. The poles are also curved, but to a lesser degree - hence the use "flattened" in relative sense.
"Relative" is not a word that enters flat earth theorists' vocabulary much.
The logical conclusion is that the North Pole is regular round and the water at tjhe equator is pulled by the tiny amount of force to be a little extra rounder than what regular Round Earth Theory normally states.
Yes. That doesn't help you.
Now, can we please return to your justification of why your experiment won't work on a larger scale?
Or, if it does, your results and documentation from said scaled-up experiment?
We are still waiting.
As previously discussed, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Plenty of room for you to work, though.
Even on smaller scales than that you can prove your point. And even at the edge of visibility you could use equipment that can get around that.
Excuses - you coild at least try to sound like you are willing to scale up your experiment to meet the requirements of scientific rigour.
If you're going to keep posting, you should concentrate on refuting arguments that you still have no explanation for.
Step up, Bishop - you have work to do.
Not naming names, but IMHO it seems certain persons (plural that is and not singular) are a constant source of embarrassment to TFES. They seem to just dig a deeper and deeper hole that they get into.
-
The question of horizon as some sort of vanishing point seems to be one of the most glaring fallacies of flat earth.
This is most evident when on board a ship in the middle of the ocean. The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days. The horizon appears to be only about 3 miles from the water line of the ship and about 12 miles from a person in the crow's nest 100 feet above the water line. Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
It is a moot point anyway. The earth is not a flat disc. The earth is the globe that it is.
-
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.
Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.
-
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.
Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.
I was speaking of the relatively short distances to the horizon as viewed from the decks or crow's nest on the ship.
There are very little atmospheric effects. The horizon is usually seen very clearly .
I took some pictures from the beach at Santa Monica, California, USA. Standing on the beach, the distance at which the horizon appears is about 3 miles. There was a very distinct line where the dark blue of the ocean appeared to meet the lighter blue of the sky. This was about Noon on a clear, sunny, calm, cloudless day.
-
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.
Of the horizon is a vanishing point at which the atmosphere becomes too dense to see through, we should never be able to see anything recede behind it. We would never see buildings or ships disappear from the bottom up, like the sun as it sun is below it at sunset.
It's not a lie - it is a fact observed by billions of people every day.
Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.
Then verify it.
The horizon is a sharp line between earth/sea and sky obscuring the lower halves of objects that recede behind it, down the curve of the Earth.
If atmospheric density were the cause for it, it would fade out in a measurable way, eventually blurring indistinctly at the limits of perception. Objects approaching this limit would fade like it were moving into a fog bank even in the clearest of conditions.
This is not the case.
If you'd like, I can show you how the phenomenon we are referring to is observable from any point on the ocean looking towards a city with skyscrapers.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html?m=1
In fact, even a cursory Google search will bring up plenty of examples of this - plus the testimony of anyone who has ever stood on a ship watching a city or even another ship.
Yknow, the kind of people you would have met if you'd actually been to sea.
Or maybe you'd like to do this experiment for yourself in a larger scale. Show us all how it's done, Warrior. Bring us some pictures of a city skyline in its entirety, from the top of its tallest tower to the waves lapping at it's lowest docks, from a distance greater than, say, the width of Lake Michigan?
Especially if you can get a series of them showing the city at exactly the same height but fading slowly being the increasing density of the atmosphere.
I think that will suffice to prove your point.
It's either that or admit that the Bishop experiment isn't able to be replicated on sufficiently large scales to prove anything and its results are effectively meaningless.
-
There is a link in the video of the Turning Torso that has the data in a chart along with the still pictures:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/138443523@N08/32177485004/
Interesting how at the last location he was able to climb up to a higher vantage point and see more of the building again....kind of like what you might see going from the deck to the crow's nest on a ship :)
-
The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.
It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.
Of the horizon is a vanishing point at which the atmosphere becomes too dense to see through, we should never be able to see anything recede behind it. We would never see buildings or ships disappear from the bottom up, like the sun as it sun is below it at sunset.
It's not a lie - it is a fact observed by billions of people every day.
Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.
I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.
Then verify it.
The horizon is a sharp line between earth/sea and sky obscuring the lower halves of objects that recede behind it, down the curve of the Earth.
If atmospheric density were the cause for it, it would fade out in a measurable way, eventually blurring indistinctly at the limits of perception. Objects approaching this limit would fade like it were moving into a fog bank even in the clearest of conditions.
This is not the case.
If you'd like, I can show you how the phenomenon we are referring to is observable from any point on the ocean looking towards a city with skyscrapers.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html?m=1
In fact, even a cursory Google search will bring up plenty of examples of this - plus the testimony of anyone who has ever stood on a ship watching a city or even another ship.
Yknow, the kind of people you would have met if you'd actually been to sea.
Or maybe you'd like to do this experiment for yourself in a larger scale. Show us all how it's done, Warrior. Bring us some pictures of a city skyline in its entirety, from the top of its tallest tower to the waves lapping at it's lowest docks, from a distance greater than, say, the width of Lake Michigan?
Especially if you can get a series of them showing the city at exactly the same height but fading slowly being the increasing density of the atmosphere.
I think that will suffice to prove your point.
It's either that or admit that the Bishop experiment isn't able to be replicated on sufficiently large scales to prove anything and its results are effectively meaningless.
Novarus makes quite a few good points.
I am in agreement, with most, if not all of them.
I don't know what kind of ship SexWarrior was on, but the horizon could be clearly seen from all the ships on which I sailed.
I will admit that my experiences were few in comparison with more seasoned veterans.
They only included three trips from California to Japan return and return via Hawaii and Guam.
They were on ships of medium size :
A troop transport passenger type ship- USNS General Daniel I. Sultan (TAP-120) - to Japan
An Escort type Aircraft Carrier USS Sicily (CVE-118) - return
Two cruises on a Seaplane Tender USS Kenneth Whiting (AV-14) - to Japan and return
The atmosphere is not so dense as to make land before, on and over or beyond the horizon not visible to the naked eye. This is noticeable as a ship sails out to sea from a seaport such as San Diego or San Francisco.
The beaches are the first to pass from view, and finally the tops of hills or mountains such as Point Loma.
When nearing Honolulu, the peak of Diamond Head is first sighted, and finally the shore when the ship is within a few miles from land.
The ship passing over the horizon is another flat earth fallacy.
Ships gradually pass out of view, hull first.
After the ship has passed over and beyond the horizon, the last parts of the ship to be seen are the tops of the tallest masts on that ship.
And once a ship has passed over the horizon and completely out of view there is no way that it "can be restored to view with a telescope."
Also.If the horizon was obscured by the atmosphere, it would be useless as a reference point.
Lookouts are trained to estimate distances to ships and other objects in relation to their locations from reference to the distance to the horizon.
There is a simple equation to estimate the distance to the horizon based on the heights of the observer above the sea. The Navy Manual For Lookouts contains a table showing these distances for various heights.
All of these examples are simple evidence of the curvature of the earth which is proof of the earth being spheroid in shape, or a globe.
They are common examples of the way things are actually observed.
I have also observed them personally.
There are possibly those on this form who haven't had the opportunity to see them for themselves, so I am listing them as how things really are.
-
Novarus makes quite a few good points. I am in agreement, with most, if not all of them.
I don't know what kind of ship SexWarrior was on, but the horizon could be clearly seen from all the ships on which I sailed.
I will admit that my experiences were few in comparison with more seasoned veterans. They only included three trips from California to Japan return and return via Hawaii and Guam. They were on ships of medium size : A troop transport passenger type ship- USNS General Daniel I. Sultan (TAP-120) ; an Escort type Aircraft Carrier USS Sicily (CVE-118 ; and two cruises on a Seaplane Tender USS Kenneth Whiting (AV-14).
The atmosphere is not so dense as to make land before, on and over or beyond the horizon not visible to the naked eye. This is noticeable as a ship sails out to sea from a seaport such as San Diego or San Francisco. The beaches are the first to pass from view, and finally the tops of hills or mountains such as Point Loma. When nearing Honolulu, the peak of Diamond Head is first sighted.
The ship passing over the ship is another flat earth fallacy. Ships gradually pass out view, hull first. After the ship has passed over and beyond the horizon, the last parts of the ship to be seen are the tops of the tallest masts on that ship. And once a ship has passed over the horizon and completely out of view there is no way that it "can be restored to view with a telescope."
Also.If the horizon was obscured by the atmosphere, it would be useless as a reference point. Lookouts are trained to estimate distances to ships and other objects in relation to their locations from reference to the distance to the horizon. There is a simple equation to estimate the distance to the horizon based on the heights of the observer above the sea. The Navy Manual For Lookouts contains a table showing these distances for various heights.
All of these examples are simple evidence of the curvature of the earth which is proof of the earth being spheroid in shape, or a globe. They are common examples of the way things are actually observed. I have also observed them personally.
Everything you described about ships or cities passing out of view as you moved further away is exactly what is shown in the video and photos of the Turning Torso.
-
I posted a video, Tom. Nirmala even did you the favor of adding a link here for the charts related to that video.
You asked for proofs, could you explain what we see, if you would be so kind?
-
Still nothing, Tom? I know you're here, you're replying in other threads.
-
Still nothing, Tom? I know you're here, you're replying in other threads.
If he wants to reply, he will. Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora.
-
Related question post at Skeptic's site: Must the surface of all standing water have a certain degree of convexity (every part must be an arc of a circle)?
Link: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/42832/8014 (https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/42832/8014)
-
Any drop of water is subject to the sum of all the vector forces acting on it. Normally the biggest force vector is the earth's gravity that acts in the direction of the center of the spherical earth. Other forces can be the gravitational force exerted by the moon and the sun. Winds and waves caused by boats can also cause anomalies. In other words, water can be subject to many different force vectors and you have to know them all before you can say for sure what any given section of water will likely do.
-
Looking through this thread, it seems a lot of attention was given to Totes' first 5 points, but very little addressed point number 6.
6. He provides no other photographic evidence, data, or witnesses to back up his claim. All we have to go on is his word.
Yet this is probably one of the more important points, where is Tom Bishop's evidence? His "experiment" is listed as experimental evidence for a flat earth, yet there is nothing supporting it, does Tom get a free pass or something because he's a flat earther? If a someone tried to present an experiment with zero evidence backing it up on this forum, but it supported a round earth, they'd be scorched by Tom and others. So what gives?
These were the only flat earth responses I was able to find regarding evidence.
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. ...
Nice, would you mind telling us where we can find the replications of the Bishop experiment (they're not listed in the wiki) and do they have any documentation or are they spineless like Bishop's experiment?
13- Acuity of any photographic equipment used to document the results (if someone actually thought to document their results with a camera)
14- Editing or photoshopping done to any of the resulting photographic or video-graphic evidence collected
We're not interested in photographic "evidence". So much of it is fabricated that it's not worth anyone's time. Reproducing Tom's experiment is trivial, and experiencing it is much more convincing that looking at totally-real pictures of Tatooine.
Really Pete? What a lame cop-out. I thought this photo thing applied to only round pictures of the earth. So now it's every picture brought in as evidence? How ironic considering the wiki article about high altitude photographs says most of those photos aren't doctored. Or what about all the pictures of the ice wall touted around? Or the pictures of clouds lit up from the underside posted by people on this forum? And now you're suggesting that photos are inadmissible as evidence because there's a chance Tom could fake them? Then why don't you go around all over the place and call photos people have posted fake since obviously you're not interested in photographic evidence. You're just covering Tom's inability to take a photograph and back up his claims of seeing people playing on the beach 23 miles away with his magical telescope.
And now reproduction is trivial? You've said twice in this thread about how so many times people have reproduced the Bishop experiment (conveniently without providing any links to said reproductions) and now it doesn't matter because experiencing it is so much better? Experiencin it is better, but you can't throw that as a valid reply when pressed for documentation of the Bishop experiment. The burden of proof is on Tom here. If you're basically going to go "Do it yourself" then either list the Bishop experiment as an open challenge (not as evidence) or remove it entirely .
15-Fudging of the data collected or reported to support a preconception of what should have been observed
It would be a shame if the experiment were repeated a number of times with consistent results by different people...
Again, just telling us there are replications of Tom's experiment isn't very helpful, why don't you actually give us links to the results and their documentation?
Overall the acceptance of the Bishop experiment and it's being presented as evidence on the wiki just does more to highlight the confirmation bias of flat earthers, how else does something with zero evidence backing it up somehow become fact?
-
Really Pete? What a lame cop-out. I thought this photo thing applied to only round pictures of the earth. So now it's every picture brought in as evidence? How ironic considering the wiki article about high altitude photographs says most of those photos aren't doctored. Or what about all the pictures of the ice wall touted around? Or the pictures of clouds lit up from the underside posted by people on this forum? And now you're suggesting that photos are inadmissible as evidence because there's a chance Tom could fake them? Then why don't you go around all over the place and call photos people have posted fake since obviously you're not interested in photographic evidence. You're just covering Tom's inability to take a photograph and back up his claims of seeing people playing on the beach 23 miles away with his magical telescope.
It's even in the bloody FAQ. I don't know how to help you any more than that. Photographic evidence can be, and often is, manipulated by both sides of the debate. If you disagree with this simple statement, please explain your thoughts. If you agree, you're welcome to criticise others for their reliance on photographs.
And now reproduction is trivial? You've said twice in this thread about how so many times people have reproduced the Bishop experiment (conveniently without providing any links to said reproductions) and now it doesn't matter because experiencing it is so much better? Experiencin it is better, but you can't throw that as a valid reply when pressed for documentation of the Bishop experiment. The burden of proof is on Tom here. If you're basically going to go "Do it yourself" then either list the Bishop experiment as an open challenge (not as evidence) or remove it entirely.
Every Zetetic experiment is an "open challenge", as you put it. You don't have to like it, but it's not changing. If you want to experience the world the Zetetic way, you're gonna have to do some doin', and probably less demandin'. And if you don't, if you think the whole idea of inquiry for one's own betterment is bunk, that's fine. We're not forcing you. But rambling about how angry you are about it won't change our philosophy, nor will it change yours.
Again, just telling us there are replications of Tom's experiment isn't very helpful, why don't you actually give us links to the results and their documentation?
Because that's not how we do things. And much like I'm not gonna force you to start seeing the world my way, I won't let you force me to perform experiments your way.
Overall the acceptance of the Bishop experiment and it's being presented as evidence on the wiki just does more to highlight the confirmation bias of flat earthers, how else does something with zero evidence backing it up somehow become fact?
The evidence is in the inquiry. You're welcome to do it yourself and see what we did. Or you can cling to your anger over the fact that no one wrote an essay about it. I recommend the former, but ultimately your epistemology is your own.
-
Photographic evidence can be, and often is, manipulated by both sides of the debate. If you disagree with this simple statement, please explain your thoughts.
I disagree with this. Certainly with the "often". OK, you get fish-eye lens photos but even then I don't think the intention is usually to deceive. I don't think those photos are generally taken to add evidence to the round earth "theory". I don't think many people feel the need to. It isn't a theory any more, it has been proven. We have hundreds of witnesses who have seen it for themselves, loads and loads of photos and video. Any lingering doubt about the shape of the earth ended when we had the technology to see the earth as it really is and that has been the case for over 60 years now.
Now, as you've noted those fish eye lens photos can and have been used as "proof" of horizon curve and I agree they shouldn't be. But those photos haven't been faked or manipulated, they've just been taken with a lens which misrepresents reality and people have used them incorrectly. This doesn't help RE, but photos are generally taken with those lenses to widen the field of view, not to deceive anyone.
So while I agree that photographic evidence can be faked and manipulated, I completely disagree that it often is. I'd suggest the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that claim.
You're welcome to do it yourself and see what we did. Or you can cling to your anger over the fact that no one wrote an essay about it. I recommend the former, but ultimately your epistemology is your own.
Asking people to do their own tests is reasonable, but I see that as an "as well as" to documenting your own tests, not an instead of.
Even if you believe that photographic evidence isn't the be all and end all - which I agree with - where's the harm in saying "here's the test I did, here's my photos and evidence of my results, if you don't believe me then repeat the tests for yourself"? It's telling, for example, that when Bobby did a lot of experimentation about horizon dip not one FE person tried to repeat his tests or do their own.
Bobby also repeated Tom's tests - not at the same place, admittedly, but he doesn't live in the same place. They are logically equivalent tests. And he got very different results.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10869.80
He's provided photographic evidence of his findings. It's far more convincing than someone who is saying "this is what I saw" when regardless of the shape of the earth I am extremely dubious that he could have seen the detail he claims from that distance and he has provided zero evidence that he even did the experiment.
Tom's predictable response of dismissing his results caused him to ragequit which is a shame, he was the only person on here, FE or RE, who actually bothered to get off their backside and do any tests of anything. I've dabbled and drawn diagrams to explain things but he really put the hours in.
So now what? We have Tom claiming one thing which seems implausible and has provided no evidence that he even did the experiment - yet somehow it's on your Wiki as a piece of experimental evidence. Bobby has got very different results and clearly documented them. I could do my own tests, maybe I will one day but I don't really have the equipment to do so. The documented experiment looks a lot more convincing than the undocumented one.
-
Read Earth Not a Globe. The effect happens over the ocean, but less frequently over landlocked ocean inlets, lakes, and canals. Location does matter. Bobby's images verify what was seen and predicted by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
-
Read Earth Not a Globe. The effect happens over the ocean, but less frequently over landlocked ocean inlets, lakes, and canals. Location does matter. Bobby's images verify what was seen and predicted by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
And yet when you were shown the Turning Torso video - video taken over a channel far more protected from the effects of the open sea than the bay you claim to have used - you rejected it on other spurious grounds. I would suggest you repeat your experiment and document it. It would advance the discussion. Otherwise it's just you claiming something. As I believe you like to say "A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". You're making a claim. Now demonstrate it.
-
Claiming somebody did the "same tests," is just ridiculous when they did not do the same tests.
-
Claiming somebody did the "same tests," is just ridiculous when they did not do the same tests.
If you're going to go down that road, no-one can do the same tests.
Even everything else is the same on a different day the weather will be different, the waves and tides may be different.
I don't believe though that it has to be the exact same stretch of water in order to do similar tests and expect similar results.
If you want to repeat Tom's experiment and provide some evidence of your results then I look forward to seeing them. Otherwise, see my sig...
-
Bobby's images verify what was seen and predicted by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
So if the all wise all knowing Samuel Birley Rowbotham saw it and predicted it, then it must be true. Right? No further evidence or proof needed.
-
I could do my own tests, maybe I will one day but I don't really have the equipment to do so. The documented experiment looks a lot more convincing than the undocumented one.
That's entirely up to you. I'm not here to forcibly convert you, merely to encourage you to trust your own inquiry over loud announcements and promises of others. Including out own. If you prefer to sit here talking about your personal credulity, so be it - but you're missing out ;)
-
Bobby was seeing different amounts of bodies hidden every day he did the experiment. I agree, that is well documented.
Yet, the argument is that, even though what was seen was obviously and admittedly illusions, that they were the result of the curvature of the earth + illusions. This is a questionable leap of logic. An illusion is evidence of an illusion.
-
Weak trolling, Tom.
Please provide the evidence for the Bishop experiment even having taken place.
If you can’t then, well, see the wise words in my signature...
-
Weak trolling, Tom.
Please provide the evidence for the Bishop experiment even having taken place.
If you can’t then, well, see the wise words in my signature...
I performed the experiment and documented my results. That's called evidence. Samuel Birley Rowbotham's documented evidence in Earth Not a Globe is evidence. You want evidence that the evidence is not all faked, which is absurd. The evidence is there in the reports.
Please learn what evidence is:
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5275592/
(https://images.slideplayer.com/17/5275592/slides/slide_4.jpg)
Can you point out where it says "YouTube videos only"?
-
Weak trolling, Tom.
Please provide the evidence for the Bishop experiment even having taken place.
If you can’t then, well, see the wise words in my signature...
I performed the experiment and documented my results. That's called evidence. Samuel Birley Rowbotham's documented evidence in Earth Not a Globe is evidence. You want evidence that the evidence is not all faked, which is absurd. The evidence is there in the reports.
Please learn what evidence is:
https://slideplayer.com/slide/5275592/
(https://images.slideplayer.com/17/5275592/slides/slide_4.jpg)
Can you point out where it says "YouTube videos only"?
Link to your results please.
-
Link to your results please.
My guess is he's going to link us to the Wiki page where he says that the experiment definitely happened and those were definitely his results. Honest.
Strange, then, that he ignores this point in his own slide about evidence:
"It is important to have numerous pieces of evidence in order to prove your claim".
Maybe the response to that is that he claims to be able to repeat this "whenever he likes".
But that's just the equivalent of repeating the claim over and over again,
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true...
But I look forward to seeing his documentation.
-
You want evidence that the evidence is not all faked, which is absurd.
No, I want evidence that you even did the experiment at all.
You saying you did IS evidence, but in that case so is me saying that I flew to California last week, repeated your experiment and couldn't see the distant beach at all.
So now what do we do, we have both provided "evidence".
Is my evidence good enough for you?
Anyone can claim anything on the internet. This is not just a claim that you walked down the shops and bought some groceries. Even if the earth were flat I am sceptical that you could have seen what you claim to have seen from that distance. The implication is there were no waves over 20 inches high across a 23 mile span of water open to the Pacific Ocean.
And I'm sceptical that you have optics good enough to have seen the things you claim to have seen so clearly from that distance.
It's fairly reasonable to expect to see some evidence of your claim other than "this is what I definitely did and this is what I definitely saw, honest"
I look forward to seeing your "documentation" although suspect it will just be a link to the Wiki page...
-
You want evidence that the evidence is not all faked, which is absurd.
No, I want evidence that you even did the experiment at all.
You saying you did IS evidence, but in that case so is me saying that I flew to California last week, repeated your experiment and couldn't see the distant beach at all.
So now what do we do, we have both provided "evidence".
Is my evidence good enough for you?
Anyone can claim anything on the internet. This is not just a claim that you walked down the shops and bought some groceries. Even if the earth were flat I am sceptical that you could have seen what you claim to have seen from that distance. The implication is there were no waves over 20 inches high across a 23 mile span of water open to the Pacific Ocean.
And I'm sceptical that you have optics good enough to have seen the things you claim to have seen so clearly from that distance.
It's fairly reasonable to expect to see some evidence of your claim other than "this is what I definitely did and this is what I definitely saw, honest"
I look forward to seeing your "documentation" although suspect it will just be a link to the Wiki page...
To your point, if I 'flipped the script' and posted something here saying that I followed the bishop experiment to the letter and my results were that I couldn't see the beachgoers at all. In fact I couldn't see the beach at all and all that was obscured from my view fitted perfectly with RE calculations and out and out disproved the bishop experiment and FE. And claimed I did it many times at my leisure. All with the same result. And just left it at that. I would suspect there would be a tremendous pushback to provide times, dates, specific equipment used, still/video evidence, location coordinates, etc. Like is done/provided for every other claim except this one. The BEX seems to be exempt from the normal scrutiny.
-
You saying you did IS evidence
Great. Evidence was provided. I see nothing left to discuss then.
-
You saying you did IS evidence
Great. Evidence was provided. I see nothing left to discuss then.
But I provided evidence too.
I have repeated your experiment but got very different results. I couldn’t see the beach at all, much less people on it or playing right down the shoreline.
You don’t think we should discuss my evidence and try to understand why I got such different results?
-
You want evidence that the evidence is not all faked, which is absurd.
That's rich considering how you seem to think all evidence against FET is faked. And if you don't think it's faked then how would you explain all evidence that proves the earth as a spheroid planet? and the biggest visual evidence of all is photos from america, Japan and china of the earth and the moon from a distance/in space (not including all the photoshop composite images which NASA have openly talked about). My guess is you'd expect evidence this wasn't faked, otherwise you assume it's faked. You can see videos of the satellites from the moon that are officially claimed to be real.
If you don't want evidence of faked evidence then I can only assume you're biased and unwilling to learn truth over your want/need of the earth to be flat. Why do you so badly want it to be flat that you're willing to outright dismiss everything that goes against your belief? If the earth turned out to be proven flat I would be laughing (heck I'd even have to say well done to you guys for knowing all along, you did good), I don't personally need or want the world to be spheroid, it's just proven to be so by multitudes of evidence.
Anyway, we cannot verify your personal claims anymore than we can verify a scientific paper, let alone the claims from your favourite books that say the world is flat. All we can do is understand and make sense of the information we have been given. My understanding, from all of the overwhelming information that we have, seems to be different from yours. I'd like to think that I can understand and make sense of things though (and also very aware of what I do not understand) and one of us has to be wrong. The evidence of evidence being faked is that you and everyone else cannot make sense or use of the evidence given. People that have built all of the technology for space travel understand it to be real and I'd take their word for it over yours, given you have very little credentials in comparison. That's not meant as an insult but I wouldn't trust a 5 year old to present findings on these subjects as much as I would a nasa employee, don't you agree? They're intelligent and smart people who've proven their credentials through actions.
-
Tom says he did an experiment and it yielded flat earth results.
He wants people to have faith that he did it with no documentation. No videos, no photos, nothing.
Tom doesn't believe in the plethora of videos and images taken by various space agencies.
I think if I were to do an experiment, I would make sure that there isn't a shadow of a doubt for those I wish to convince. If I have something to hide on the other hand.....
-
You saying you did IS evidence
Great. Evidence was provided. I see nothing left to discuss then.
Link please.
If your evidence of a flat earth is so amazing why are you not publishing it for the world to see?
-
But I provided evidence too.
I have repeated your experiment but got very different results. I couldn’t see the beach at all, much less people on it or playing right down the shoreline.
You don’t think we should discuss my evidence and try to understand why I got such different results?
That is nice that you went to the effort to do that. It sounds like the circumstance of your evidence speaks for itself.
That's rich considering how you seem to think all evidence against FET is faked.
I consider NASA's photos of a globe to be evidence. I also consider the evidence that NASA is faking space footage to be evidence.
I see that you didn't even bring that up in your rant. It sounds like only one of us is ignoring evidence here.
-
You saying you did IS evidence
Great. Evidence was provided. I see nothing left to discuss then.
Link please.
If your evidence of a flat earth is so amazing why are you not publishing it for the world to see?
inquisitive there as been a lot of evidence published on this very forum. Some on youtube. Granted there are some flat earthers who believe that the earth is flat because elvis told them in the future but most of the people here are not like that. The problem for asking for evidence of a flat earth is that you are literally asking for evidence of conformation bias.
Here's a link where I outline a good amount of evidence that suggest that 1. there could be flaws/anomalies in the round earth system (such as how much of a building should be obscured by the curve of the earth) or 2. Observations which people say is evidence that suggest the shape of the earth is round could possibly be evidence of something else instead.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11815.msg179345#msg179345
The problem here is that round earthers and flat earthers alike (along with like 99% of the human race myself included) suffer some sort of conformation bias.
A round earther finds evidence which weakens a flat earth model and, because of conformation bias, claims the earth is round.
A round earther finds evidence which weakens a round earth model and, because of conformation bias, claims the earth is flat.
Something that will help you, and I know sure helped me is this:
As a round earther, to help avoid round earth conformation bias:
Don't think of it as evidence that the earth is flat. Think of it as evidence that suggests there very well could be some flaws/anomalies in the round earth system.
As a flat earther, to help avoid flat earth conformation bias:
Don't think of it as evidence that the earth is round. Think of it as evidence that suggests there very well could be some flaws/anomalies in the flat earth system.
-
But I provided evidence too.
I have repeated your experiment but got very different results. I couldn’t see the beach at all, much less people on it or playing right down the shoreline.
You don’t think we should discuss my evidence and try to understand why I got such different results?
That is nice that you went to the effort to do that. It sounds like the circumstance of your evidence speaks for itself.
That's rich considering how you seem to think all evidence against FET is faked.
I consider NASA's photos of a globe to be evidence. I also consider the evidence that NASA is faking space footage to be evidence.
I see that you didn't even bring that up in your rant. It sounds like only one of us is ignoring evidence here.
You misunderstand me, I'm not ranting and I don't appreciate you claiming as such to diminish my argument. Apologies for the slightly off topic tangent but NASA faking space footage isn't evidence, it's a claim and it's speculation. There are no witnesses, no whistle blowers. Just some people thinking it's not real with silly claims like "where were the stars?" or "shadows are all wrong" the latter being proven a false claim by Nvidia, professionals who analysed and recreated the moon landings using CG recently. A technology I happen to understand well, as I'm also a professional in CGI.
So then why should I believe you, a random person with no credentials making wild claims and speculative accusations based on a preconceived notion that the earth is 'definitely flat' and 'space travel doesn't exist' over professionals who've studied and proven themselves? Your 'evidence' is simply claims, it's not evidence. It's not unfounded, I know you've looked into things and I don't think you're trying to trick anyone, I don't think you're lying. I just think you're incorrect and don't seem realise. I assume you know the Dunning–Kruger effect, basically the less you know, the more you think you know and the more confident you are about your own knowledge. The more you know, the less you think you know and you aren't confident in your own knowledge. I became part of this forum because the more I saw people questioning spheroid earth, the more I realised I didn't know about it and so I set out for answers under the assumption that anything I know or think I know could be wrong. I am trying to learn and understand rather than trying to prove anything but I also find it important to call people out when they spout opinions and incorrect information as correct facts.
You seem extremely sure of yourself and yet time and time again you've shown to be wrong about a lot of things but refuse to acknowledge it. With such an obvious bias, with something to prove, I can't take your speculation as fact or evidence until you prove your findings and publish the data for everyone else to analyse and when you finally do that, you must be able to accept the constructive criticism and feedback you receive from other people who know what they're talking about which is the basic scientific way. Always assume you could be wrong, always try to correct your own bias. Always strive for all knowledge and not just the select information that helps your agenda.
So I say this, you have no proof that will hold up in a court as to whether the earth is flat or round, and you have no proof that NASA faked the moon landings or space travel in general. You have your speculative opinion on the matter which has no standing. On the other hand space agencies have their proof backed up with actual evidence, witnesses and photographic proof. If a fair and unbiased person was presented evidence from you and evidence from an astronaut, they'd win and you'd lose.
I want you to be able to prove yourself because I'm interested in the idea, I'll say again if the earth turned out to be flat, I would have no problem with that. So far though, all real evidence is saying otherwise. You can't just say "but nasa are liars" because that only proves your bias. And it doesn't prove anything against other space agencies, especially when theres footage from Japanese technology like this;
https://youtu.be/Z6DpPQ8QdLg
Anyway, again sorry for the off-topic tangent but you just don't seem see it from your perspective Tom. Please show us actual, flawless proof of the flat earth without trying to avoid or ignore everything that proves otherwise. I would like to see your evidence.
-
You saying you did IS evidence
Great. Evidence was provided. I see nothing left to discuss then.
Link please.
If your evidence of a flat earth is so amazing why are you not publishing it for the world to see?
inquisitive there as been a lot of evidence published on this very forum. Some on youtube. Granted there are some flat earthers who believe that the earth is flat because elvis told them in the future but most of the people here are not like that. The problem for asking for evidence of a flat earth is that you are literally asking for evidence of conformation bias.
Here's a link where I outline a good amount of evidence that suggest that 1. there could be flaws/anomalies in the round earth system (such as how much of a building should be obscured by the curve of the earth) or 2. Observations which people say is evidence that suggest the shape of the earth is round could possibly be evidence of something else instead.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11815.msg179345#msg179345
The problem here is that round earthers and flat earthers alike (along with like 99% of the human race myself included) suffer some sort of conformation bias.
A round earther finds evidence which weakens a flat earth model and, because of conformation bias, claims the earth is round.
A round earther finds evidence which weakens a round earth model and, because of conformation bias, claims the earth is flat.
Something that will help you, and I know sure helped me is this:
As a round earther, to help avoid round earth conformation bias:
Don't think of it as evidence that the earth is flat. Think of it as evidence that suggests there very well could be some flaws/anomalies in the round earth system.
As a flat earther, to help avoid flat earth conformation bias:
Don't think of it as evidence that the earth is round. Think of it as evidence that suggests there very well could be some flaws/anomalies in the flat earth system.
If you doubt the shape of the earth why do you not do some work to find out what the shape is?