*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2018, 11:11:52 PM »
I apprehend all that, but what i'm asking for is akin to the pure geometry of the earth curve calculator that doesn't included variables like atmospheric effects or surface irregularities (hills, ocean swells, structures. etc.)

Well you are using images, observations, and measurements which are affected by all of those things.  You can't compare Apples (calculations which outright ignore all of these variables) to oranges (observations which are heavily influenced by all of these variables)
The process I'm trying to encourage is looking at the Apples first to establish an agreed-upon baseline. Then we'll look at factors that can cause deviations from that baseline that make the case for the Oranges.

All (or many) of these observations are influenced by such variables you and Tom identified. Yet all too often, globe variables are rejected by flat proponents with the straight geometric calculator showing not to match up with what is observed.

But we can't reject them, as you are alluding to. These observations aren't geometric. They occur over an irregular surface and through an atmosphere. Optical equipment matters. Getting heights and distance correct matters.  Flat doesn't win by default. Both flat and sphere need to make their case for why the observation doesn't match with the geometric calculation.

Since FE advocates aren't stepping up to the plate, do you want to take a crack?  Can you make a case for why the observed heights from each observation point at the apparent horizon are actually lower than what I've depicted? Can you make a case for why, if the marks are right, that the indicated number of feet could be hidden on a flat earth?

No handwaves. Work out a reasoned argument for how much any given factor contributes to the hidden amount and what that amount is. I'll do the same for spherical earth.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 12:39:03 AM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2018, 04:49:56 PM »


Since FE advocates aren't stepping up to the plate, do you want to take a crack?  Can you make a case for why the observed heights from each observation point at the apparent horizon are actually lower than what I've depicted? Can you make a case for why, if the marks are right, that the indicated number of feet could be hidden on a flat earth?

No handwaves. Work out a reasoned argument for how much any given factor contributes to the hidden amount and what that amount is. I'll do the same for spherical earth.

Bobby,

         Normally I do pretty well pointing out ways that some of the flat earth models make sense. But when you come to a situation like this where observations and measurements appear to be directly conflicting with a majority of the flat earth models the arguments struggle. This is happening now with a series of pictures of a tall building over increased distances. I have experience with this with observed flight/shipping/driving times conflicting with distances/times predicted by many of the flat earth models.


The solution is to attack the data.



-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is. Flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.















if you want an interesting read about why FE predicted flight times here's the link:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0

-flight distances are calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances
-distances (such as New York and Paris) are unknown
-tools used to make these distance observations/measurements which conflict with the flat earth theory are inaccurate
-speed measurements on airplanes are not accurate because the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 08:02:01 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2018, 05:26:37 PM »

The solution is to attack the data.



-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is in flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

I've afforded folks that opportunity. The point is to do that first, and not after you see the results and then don't like them. That's why I tried to present this process in steps.

If these are criticisms of the data an FE advocate feels have merit, please raise them.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1240
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2018, 05:27:54 PM »

The solution is to attack the data.

-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is in flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

These are good starting point.

I think RE questions would consist of:

How is FE distance calculated? Given the RE distances, what would the FE distances actually be. Given FE recalculated distances are the deltas lessened/removed?

Is refraction ever a factor existent in the FE model? For F2 I had the refraction needed to close the FE delta at 0.90. RE needed 0.189. The standard is 0.17. What makes FE’s so extreme?

I've started to go through that thread - Need some time - It's a mere 24 pages.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1240
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2018, 05:39:33 PM »
I'm not trying to move into the debate aspect of this. But simply, to Bobby's point, create a baseline. If the FE distance calculations are different, then we need to know what they are to further the baseline.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline MCToon

  • *
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2018, 05:56:33 PM »


Since FE advocates aren't stepping up to the plate, do you want to take a crack?  Can you make a case for why the observed heights from each observation point at the apparent horizon are actually lower than what I've depicted? Can you make a case for why, if the marks are right, that the indicated number of feet could be hidden on a flat earth?

No handwaves. Work out a reasoned argument for how much any given factor contributes to the hidden amount and what that amount is. I'll do the same for spherical earth.

Bobby,

         Normally I do pretty well pointing out ways that some of the flat earth models make sense. But when you come to a situation like this where observations and measurements appear to be directly conflicting with a majority of the flat earth models. This is happening now with a series of pictures of a tall building over increased distances. I have experience with this with observed flight/shipping/driving times conflicting with distances/times predicted by many of the flat earth models.

The solution is to attack the data.

-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

Thank you for pointing this out, it's a valid concern.

Rather than attacking the data and dismissing the experiment, lets attempt to resolve these issues.  Agreed, the distances could have been gathered by using spherical lat/long.  This would potentially give the arc distance where a flat earth you would want the chord length.  In the image below the arc length is "L" and the chord length is "C".



These differences can be calculated.  I used this site: http://www.1728.org/circsect.htm and selected "Radius & Arc AB".  Filled in Radius 3958.75 and arc length 29.8, the longest distance where the error would be the largest.  The chord length is  29.8 to 3 significant digits and  29.799929640768 to 14 significant digits.  The values are the same to the degree of precision we have been provided.  The error will be less significant for all the other distances as they are shorter.

If you agree with this correction, there is no difference in the spherical or flat distances within the digits of precision provided.  This gives confidence that the distances are accurate enough for this experiment regardless of a flat or spherical model.  Thus, we know the distance between the camera and the tower regardless of a flat or spherical model.

Maybe you would disagree with this correction and prefer a different correction?  I'm open to other possible corrections.



I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is in flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

Reasonable.  What do you propose?
I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2018, 08:08:17 PM »
These are good starting point.

I think RE questions would consist of:

How is FE distance calculated? Given the RE distances, what would the FE distances actually be. Given FE recalculated distances are the deltas lessened/removed?


One mile is one mile on for both FE and RE calculations. It's only over longer globe earth distances that length of a mile differs. I have not been able to find out how much as it appears to depend on the direction you are traveling and how far away from the equator you are.



Is refraction ever a factor existent in the FE model? For F2 I had the refraction needed to close the FE delta at 0.90. RE needed 0.189. The standard is 0.17. What makes FE’s so extreme?

It must be to reconcile why FE predictions  differ from measured observations. It is so much more extreme because, according to some FE models, the atmosphere is more dense.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2018, 08:12:12 PM »

The solution is to attack the data.



-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is in flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

I've afforded folks that opportunity. The point is to do that first, and not after you see the results and then don't like them. That's why I tried to present this process in steps.

If these are criticisms of the data an FE advocate feels have merit, please raise them.



These observations we make don't match the FE predictions for these observations.
-Those are not the official FE predictions of the amount of the building that should be hidden. Official FE predictions don't exist.



Observed travel time and distances don't match the FE predictions on this map for these observations.
-That is not the official FE map. The official FE map does not exist.


Tom,

Your points i feel were valid. First had to do with the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope and the limitation of the human eye.

-In this situation pictures are being taken with a high zoom camera in which, zooming in further, is not restoring obscured portions of the building. So the eye limitations and restored visibility don't apply here.

The second argument is things like winds, tides, waves, etc can cause things like waves to obscure things.

-These pictures are all being taken at a similar time of day with similar water conditions and similar wind speeds. Under similar conditions (time, weather, wind speed, wave swells) what do you agree that it appears to appear that the further away you go from something the more of it is obscured?
« Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 08:22:43 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2018, 08:26:56 PM »
Is refraction ever a factor existent in the FE model? For F2 I had the refraction needed to close the FE delta at 0.90. RE needed 0.189. The standard is 0.17. What makes FE’s so extreme?

It must be to reconcile why FE predictions  differ from measured observations. It is so much more extreme because, according to some FE models, the atmosphere is more dense.

From the standpoint of an observation, standard atmospheric refraction has the effect of "flattening," which is how it is explained that less can be hidden from view than would otherwise be expected on an atmosphere-less, geometric sphere. Refraction is reducing the amount hidden.

This is opposite of the challenge for the flat earth topography. It must explain why more is hidden than what is expected. If a flat earth model has a denser atmosphere, but one that follows the same gradient of less dense at high elevations to densest at the surface, then refraction should be enhancing the flatness, not creating the appearance of convexity. For refraction over a flat surface to be contributing to hiding lower heights of distant objects, the atmosphere would have to be bending light upwards, meaning lower elevations are less dense than at higher elevations. So the explanation couldn't simply be "more dense." It would have to be that the density gradient is inverted as well. 

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1240
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2018, 02:19:13 AM »
Is the baseline sound? Should it be adjusted and why? I think there's plenty of a jumping off point to warrant exploration. Starting off with:

How does FE pull in their deltas?
How does RE pull in their deltas?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1078
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2018, 01:47:08 PM »
One mile is one mile on for both FE and RE calculations. It's only over longer globe earth distances that length of a mile differs. I have not been able to find out how much as it appears to depend on the direction you are traveling and how far away from the equator you are.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by '[the] length of a mile differs'? We can measure a mile using a surveyor's chain. Are you saying that the length of the chain differs at different locations?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2018, 09:22:58 PM »
Is the baseline sound? Should it be adjusted and why? I think there's plenty of a jumping off point to warrant exploration. Starting off with:

How does FE pull in their deltas?
How does RE pull in their deltas?
I'm ready to argue for standard atmospheric refraction adjustments to the RE baseline that will explain a large portion of the RE delta. I don't see any evidence of a temperature inversion. The images of the tower seem to be in proportion, with no or little distortion. No mirage or "convergence zone" at the boundary between sea and land/building.

But frankly, even before that adjustment, RE is alreader closer to the observed value than FE is. So I think the ball's in FE's court.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 02:45:12 AM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1240
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2018, 12:28:12 AM »
I went ahead an plugged in the refraction levels needed to get the RE deltas super close to 0.

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline MCToon

  • *
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2018, 02:56:28 PM »
It's a shame there aren't any FE proponents on this thread.  So far it is great support for the round earth model.  I have added this thread to my signature.  A big thank you to the people responsible for maintaining this forum.

To further the discussion, I will do my best to objectively describe what I would predict on a flat earth.  I welcome input into these predictions from a true FE proponent.

Attempting to view the bottom of a distant object over calm water, viewer on the ground:
The destiny of the air will be nominally constant as the viewer and object are at the same elevation and they are both near the water's shore.  We should expect very little refraction since the light will pass through little or no density gradient.  Therefore, the bottom of the object should be visible and neither squished nor expanded.

Attempting to view the top of a distant object over calm water, viewer on the ground:
The viewer will be in denser air than the top of the object.  The light will be passing through density gradient for the entire path from less dense to more dense.  This will cause the top of the object to appear lower than it actually is.  This may not be visible without an external reference.

I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 640
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2018, 05:19:27 AM »
One mile is one mile on for both FE and RE calculations. It's only over longer globe earth distances that length of a mile differs. I have not been able to find out how much as it appears to depend on the direction you are traveling and how far away from the equator you are.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by '[the] length of a mile differs'? We can measure a mile using a surveyor's chain. Are you saying that the length of the chain differs at different locations?

Can a surveyors chain measure from New York to Paris?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2018, 05:05:34 PM »
It's a shame there aren't any FE proponents on this thread. 

This topic is a week old now and yes, it is a shame. I appreciate Tom giving it a try, but it's a tough challenge for Flat Earth Theory to answer.

It's easy to declare that the globe earth curve calculators don't match with observation and dismiss (or outright ignore) atmospheric refraction as the reason for that discrepancy. It's tough to come up with empirical, measurable and testable reasons for why any portion of distant objects appear hidden, bottom up. The rationales given in Earth Not a Globe don't stand up to scrutiny and are not quantifiable. It's incongruent to call standard refraction (which is quantifiable) a "magic wand" in globe earth explanations for any discrepancy between curved earth geometric predictions and actual observations, but then cite Rowbotham's explanations for the sinking ship phenomenon (which are not quantifiable) as if they are not "magic wands."

I think the final word on this is that without any "magic wands," the curved earth calculator provides a prediction closer to what is observed than does flat earth. The earth isn't flat just because we can see further than the curved earth geometric calculation predicts.

But this topic will fade and be forgotten, and folks will still go on proclaiming a flat earth when they see the tops of things that a no-atmosphere calculation says shouldn't be seen.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2018, 08:43:57 PM »
I took a schematic of the turning torso and determined how high each of the cube sections were.



I then applied the results to the collage with the multiple views. The figures in red is the scale, as determined by the above image. The figures in blue at the bottom is the amount hidden by the Round Earth model. The only one which is close to matching is the first one, to the far left.



What is the explanation? Refraction hovering the tower into the air? Since there is only one which appears to line up, we may as well say that none of them line up.

All we know is that there is a phenomenon that is occurring which obscures or reveals buildings, and that whatever it is, it does not match the Round Earth calculator.

There are numerous accounts of bodies being sometimes obscured, and sometimes visible. In other threads we have seen timelapse scenes, in which bodies are obscured or revealed over time. If bodies are obscured or revealed over time, and if this phenomenon changes, then we cannot say that is due to the "curvature" of the earth.

The argument that "the delta" on this particular scene is closer to the Round Earth model is, in my opinion, not a strong enough argument, considering that these scenes of obscured bodies change over time, sometimes showing more or much less of bodies, in contradiction to the Round Earth Theory. The sinking ship is already a known variable in our literature, and has  been a known phenomenon for hundreds of years.

Pointing at a half-sunken body and proclaiming that the earth is round, and that any error is because of a refraction effect because you must be correct, is quite insufficient in the face of the many observations showing that this phenomenon changes over time. Samuel Birley Rowbotham documents a number of observations where the bodies are sometimes visible or sometime entirely invisible. That alone discounts this effect as a demonstration of curvature.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2018, 10:49:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2018, 09:50:25 PM »
Let's assume, Tom, for the sake of a thought experiment, that you are unhappy with the proofs from ANY observation at ground level, such as the one you discussed immediately prior. 

Let's also assume that you have never heard of Rowbotham and his work.


What experimental method would you then employ to determine whether or not the world is a globe?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2018, 10:34:11 PM »
I then applied the results to the collage with the multiple views. The figures in red is the scale, as determined by the above image. The figures in blue at the bottom is the amount hidden by the Round Earth model. The only one which is close to matching is the first one, to the far left.
You didn't provide an estimate of observed amount hidden. Shall I, based on your gauging of the tower section heights?




I've also added the Flat Earth hidden predictions underneath the no-refraction globe earth calculator prediction. As off as GE numbers may be, they are closer than the FE numbers (and that's even after factoring in Rowbotham's 1/60 of a degree acuity, even though these are telephoto images and not naked eye images.)

« Last Edit: August 28, 2018, 10:50:09 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Reply #39 on: August 28, 2018, 11:17:41 PM »

What is the explanation? Refraction hovering the tower into the air?

That would be a mirage. There's no evidence of mirage here. No distortion. No "convergence zone" obscuring or mirroring near water line. There's always standard refraction. Sometimes it's more. Sometimes it's less. Sometimes there's an inversion. There is no inversion evident here. But the geometric calculation is not correct. GE calculation must account for the atmosphere, even if it's just a rule of thumb standard factor. You can always expect the atmosphere to contribute some amount of extra distance, as long as there is not a distorting effect.

Since there is only one which appears to line up, we may as well say that none of them line up.
They definitely don't all line up with the geometric prediction. Only "globebusters" expect them to.

But however they align, they definitely don't align with flat earth prediction, assuming FE is even willing to make a prediction.

All we know is that there is a phenomenon that is occurring which obscures or reveals buildings, and that whatever it is, it does not match the Round Earth calculator.
I can adjust the radius of the earth to estimate a larger sphere. Then it will match. There's a long way to go before it can be declared flat.

There are numerous accounts of bodies being sometimes obscured, and sometimes visible. In other threads we have seen timelapse scenes, in which bodies are obscured or revealed over time. If bodies are obscured or revealed over time, and if this phenomenon changes, then we cannot say that is due to the "curvature" of the earth.
We're looking at this specific set of observations: all on a cold day over a cold sea, with no evidence of sea swells or waves or atmospheric distortion of the sort that you and Rowbotham claim can account for the variances of hidden bottoms of distant things. If you want to make an argument for how those are being exhibited in this set of images, by all means, do so. But don't hand wave to me and tell me that hundreds of feet disappeared in the course of a few hours as the observer coincidentally extended his distance, only to reappear minutes later when he increased his elevation. You can't anecdote your way out of an empirical challenge. The Twisting Torso is disappearing bottom up. If it's not earth curvature, then what is it? Explain it. If there are waves, calculate how high those waves must be. If it's a mirage or squashing of the image like in the Skunk Bay video, where is that evident in the image? It's not there.

The argument that "the delta" on this particular scene is closer to the Round Earth model is, in my opinion, not a strong enough argument, considering that these scenes of obscured bodies change over time, sometimes showing more or much less of bodies, in contradiction to the Round Earth Theory. The sinking ship is already a known variable in our literature, and has  been a known phenomenon for hundreds of years.
You have to play by the same rules. If you're going to hold globe earth to a geometric calculation and not allow for atmospheric variances, then you don't get to make excuses for flat earth. The curve of the earth as the reason for ships disappearing over the horizon has been known phenomenon for thousands of years.

Straight geometric calculation is the parameter you and many of these FE videos are demanding of the globe earth. Well, if that's the case, then head-to-head, GE trounces FE in that category. If you want to start applying "magic wands" (as you called refraction), then let's do so systematically and with some foundation, and not just by anecdote.

Pointing at a half-sunken body and proclaiming that the earth is round, and that any error is because of a refraction effect because you must be correct, is quite insufficient in the face of the many observations showing that this phenomenon changes over time. Samuel Birley Rowbotham documents a number of observations where the bodies are sometimes visible or sometime entirely invisible. That alone discounts this effect as a demonstration of curvature.
That's the point of this challenge: to pit your Rowbotham flat earth explanations against the standard atmospheric explanations of round earth. I can get close with an empirical, quantitative approach of a globe earth with standard atmospheric refraction, which isn't a magic wand. I don't see you doing the same thing to explain the discrepancy for what should be visible if the earth were flat.


Straight geometric, no excuses or "magic wands" scoreboard:


Spherical earth, though not hitting the targets on the nose, "wins" every round.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 12:21:10 AM by Bobby Shafto »