[Frocious]

Dr Rowbotham did provide proof.

Which has been summarily debunked by modern (and ancient) science.

[Devils Advocate]

Starting to think this is simply Tom's troll account rather than a standard troll.

I thought Tom's account was a troll account.........

Rowbotham's book is full of anecdotal 'evidence', it relies on us believing second hand accounts when Rowbotham assures us that "a person of good standing assured him that......" and other such like.

[Parallax]

Dr Rowbotham did provide proof.

Which has been summarily debunked by modern (and ancient) science.

Except it hasn't though.

[inquisitive]

Dr Rowbotham did provide proof.

Which has been summarily debunked by modern (and ancient) science.

Except it hasn't though.

Please describe measurements that prove a flat earth.

[Tontogary]

Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.

Then please explain where i am going, and how i am deluded into thinking i went around the globe. I would be fascinated to hear how you are able to know this better than i am, one person among thousands, if not millions who have.

[Tontogary]

Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.

Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.

Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?

Are you talking about this?

https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf

Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.

That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.

Yes the link does explain how the tables are calculated, the mathematics involved, so you can do your own calculations.

I have used the calculations, and tables, and they work, and have told you that they work. Please can you do some experiments, and observations to prove i am a liar, and i will look at your “experiment” and see what you have to say. Calling me a liar does not cut it with me. I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.
As part of my job i also teach apprentices in navigation, and where we pass suitable landmark this is one of the methods that we teach, and i verify the observations by radar. How do you do verify your distances when you do the experiment? Oh thats right you have never done it yourself have you?

[Westprog]

Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.

And yet, somehow, he ends up where he intends to go. lf he is able to direct his ship across the Earth, using the methods he's described in some detail, then how come it gets to where it's headed.

Here are some possibilities:

• He's just a big ol' liar. He's never been on a ship, even. He's never done any navigation. He's a shill for the whole round Earth conspiracy.
• He is a real navigator, but he doesn't calculate things the way he says he does. Part of his training is to learn the fake techniques, and then how to do real navigation on the real maps.
• He does all the things he says and somehow, due to some weird coincidence, the round Earth model happens to work for navigating on a flat Earth.
• The Earth is a globe, Tontogary navigates using the techniques he's shown, and Parallax knows this very well, and he's testing just how absurd he can get without us copping on. (My own preferred theory). The stuff about Australia being upside down was a bit much.

As a navigator, Tontogary will be able to confirm that the distances in the Southern Hemisphere (so-called) are twice as great as would be expected on a globe, and correspond to the distances we'd expect from a North Pole centred flat Earth. (That's just about the point where I thought "No, Parallax couldn't really be meaning this stuff, there's something else going on.")

[Frocious]

"No, Parallax couldn't really be meaning this stuff, there's something else going on."

Much like the original Parallax 

[Tom Bishop]

I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.

That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.

I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.

That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to answer all "prove me wrong" queries we get; and it is not really our responsibility to do that. It is the claimant's responsibility to demonstrate his own claims.

"Ghosts exist, prove me wrong" is an invalid argument. No one is obligated to disprove someone's wild claims of the existence of ghosts. But "Here is some evidence that ghosts exist" is a slightly more valid, although perhaps ultimately faulty, argument. Understand?

[Frocious]

I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.

That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.

I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.

That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to answer all "prove me wrong" queries we get; and it is not really our responsibility to do that. It is the claimant's responsibility to demonstrate his own claims.

"Ghosts exist, prove me wrong" is an invalid argument. No one is obligated to disprove someone's wild claims of the existence of ghosts. "Here is some evidence that ghosts exist" is a slightly more valid, although perhaps ultimately faulty, argument. Understand?

You being able to post this is proof of his claims.

[Tontogary]

I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.

That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.

I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.

That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to address everything. Asking others to prove a negative is not a valid form of debate.

Ok the next time we are passing a suitable piece of land i will do so, however i am sure that you will claim my photos are fake, or it was false.

Surely the burden too debunk my experiences are on you. You say they are false, therefore prove it. I have done the practical measurements, and have made the calculations, that is my evidence, you need to prove i am lying, and i have given you the tools to disprove me, therefore you should go out and prove i am wrong.

Sitting there saying you are wrong does not cut it with me.

When real scientists, not charlatans, give their method, and results, (i clearly stated i had followed the method, and have achieved the results, i.e. replicated the experiment) then other REAL scientists follow the method to replicate the results. You are not a real scientist, as all you are saying is, i dont want to follow the experiment, i just claim its false, and you need to do more and more, however your past record shows whatever photos or other evidence is placed in front of you will be claimed as photoshopped, or fake.

Be a real man of science, i challenge you, and go and do this experiment yourself, if you can work a sextant and radar set i would be most surprised though.

[Tontogary]

Yes i can,

I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.

I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.

Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?

Attached are copies of my licence as a Master Mariner

[inquisitive]

I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.

That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.

I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.

That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to answer all "prove me wrong" queries we get; and it is not really our responsibility to do that. It is the claimant's responsibility to demonstrate his own claims.

"Ghosts exist, prove me wrong" is an invalid argument. No one is obligated to disprove someone's wild claims of the existence of ghosts. But "Here is some evidence that ghosts exist" is a slightly more valid, although perhaps ultimately faulty, argument. Understand?

Using professional equipment. 

Saying the horizon rises makes no sense.

[Tontogary]

Tin will be dismissed by tom or parallax as fake or photoshop!

[inquisitive]

It will be dismissed by tom or parallax as fake or photoshop!

Something he could easily measure himself.  Or someone else in the group he calls 'we'.

[AATW]

I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea.

Actually, your original claim was

The horizon is always at eye level.

Your video doesn't support that at all. You admitted yourself that the video is:

from an unstabilized drone which might tilt up or down when moving vertically.

And therefore useless for demonstrating that original claim.
You have been shown an experiment which clearly shows that the horizon is NOT always at eye level, an experiment you can easily repeat with minimal cost.
You're an empiricist (allegedly), why not repeat the experiment? Or devise your own if you think that experiment is not valid for some reason.
We await the results...although we know we won't get any, because you know we are correct. 

The stupidest thing about all this is the horizon would dip on a flat earth too, my diagram in the initial post shows this clearly.
But you're so unwilling to concede any ground in any debate that you won't admit this even though it doesn't actually debunk the idea of a flat earth.
Which just reinforces the idea that you're actually just trolling and enjoy trying to argue indefensible positions for the fun of it.

[Westprog]

I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea.

Actually, your original claim was

The horizon is always at eye level.

...

TBF the two claims are effectively equivalent.

It is funny how willing the FE community are to make assertions that are so easily disproved. This is not a measurement that's difficult to do. It shows how ad hoc and off the cuff the whole thing is, for all the wikis and books and YouTube videos. There's no body of flat Earth theory - it's whatever pops into someone's head at any time. This one will probably be abandoned now, here, but will resurface immediately somewhere else.

[Tumeni]

I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.

Did you read the posts immediately after, wherein I and others pointed out the flaws in your conclusion based on that video?

[AATW]

TBF the two claims are effectively equivalent.

They're similar but not equivalent. The FE claim is that the horizon is always at eye level.
It isn't, the dip to the horizon is measurable at different altitudes and changes with altitude.
The confusion here is that even at 10000 feet the angle of dip is less than 2 degrees because the earth is so big.
So it is hard to discern but it can be measured.
An experiment to do so has been shown, for people who claim to be empiricists they are amazingly reluctant to do any experimentation.

[Westprog]

TBF the two claims are effectively equivalent.

They're similar but not equivalent. The FE claim is that the horizon is always at eye level.
It isn't, the dip to the horizon is measurable at different altitudes and changes with altitude.
The confusion here is that even at 10000 feet the angle of dip is less than 2 degrees because the earth is so big.
So it is hard to discern but it can be measured.
An experiment to do so has been shown, for people who claim to be empiricists they are amazingly reluctant to do any experimentation.

Well, why use a quick, cheap and easy way to accurately measure something when you can just eyeball it and make an assertion?