*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #60 on: May 28, 2019, 10:03:07 PM »
I've yet to see "as far as we should" if the earth was flat.

I can't reproduce what is claimed in the Bishop Antecdote even at half the distance. And yet you, Tom, say you did it often; anytime you had your doubts.

Every level alignment observation I've made suggests a convex surface. As impressive as a 17-mile mirror flash was, it's still not proving flat. I've done a 800' to 400' mirror test through thick haze over a 20 mile span with a small 3"×5" mirror. But the surface level record, on a clear day, with a 12"x48" mirror is only 17.5 miles. Is that "farther than it should" on a 3959 mile radius globe with an atmosphere? Maybe. But there are ways it could happen. Or maybe the globe is larger and the convexity less.

Do the mirror test across Monterey Bay from Santa Cruz. If you can play the "shouldn't be able to see" game then I'll play the "should be able to see" counter game. If there are atmospheric reasons why you can't see forever on a flat earth, there are atmospheric reasons why we can, sometimes, see farther than on a globe with no atmosphere.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #61 on: May 28, 2019, 10:13:46 PM »
I've yet to see "as far as we should" if the earth was flat.

I can't reproduce what is claimed in the Bishop Antecdote even at half the distance.

Yes you did. Here you are claiming to see the details on antennas and trees which were over 44 miles away, which is about twice the distance being discussed:




View point: ~25' @ 32.847335, -117.278439

End point: 840-900' @ 32.847335, -117.278439

None of that hill should be above the surface of the water in a geometric RET prediction.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2019, 10:20:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5607
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #62 on: May 28, 2019, 10:21:29 PM »
Tom, seeing further than predicted by geodesy, provided you have eliminated all possible sources of error, is not evidence for a FE.  That’s just wishful thinking by you.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

tellytubby

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #63 on: May 28, 2019, 10:25:37 PM »
This 'Bishop Experiment' covers a distance of only just over 40 miles.  That proves nothing in terms of the Earth being flat.  Atmospheric refraction of light near the surface, and particularly over water can make distant objects or landmarks visible over potentially much longer distances.  Over 100km have been recorded under the right conditions.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #64 on: May 28, 2019, 10:31:01 PM »
The distance is about 23 miles, not 40 miles. "Over 100km has been recorded in the right conditions..." It sounds like the sinking ship proof that you guys have used for thousands of years is pretty fallacious then, if it is inconsistent and people can often see further than they should.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5607
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #65 on: May 28, 2019, 10:32:13 PM »
Good thing we have direct observations from orbit! 
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #66 on: May 28, 2019, 10:40:05 PM »
I've yet to see "as far as we should" if the earth was flat.

Yes you did.
You then proceed to show me an example of when I DIDN'T see as far as I should if the earth was flat.

Do you see the beach in San Onofre in that imagery? I dont. If the earth was flat, I should  be able to see the coastline, and not just a hill higher up and farther away.

(That sighting, btw, maps to a globe earth with atmosphere. I don't live on a geometric spheroid with no air density gradient. But that's not the point. Maybe I do. Maybe the globe has a radius of 10,000 miles and that hill SHOULD be visible geometrically. The point is it isnt flat because I'm not seeing all that I should if the earth is truly flat. This is your argument turned around. Do you see that? Showing that something can be seen that supposedly shouldn't be seen if a globe doesn't logically mean the earth is flat. That sighting suggests convexity, not flatness.)

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #67 on: May 28, 2019, 10:55:17 PM »
Another example of not seeing what should be seen if earth is flat:

In JTolan's now famous image of Mt San Jacinto taken from 120-ish miles away in Malibu, I can't see the Chino Hills at around 55-60 miles that should be visible if earth is flat. The elevation of the Del Rey bluffs just east of Santa Monica about 20 miles away from Malibu aren't tall enough to obscure the Chino Hills 55-60 miles away if earth's surface is a plane. Can't call it "dirty air" or "convergence zone" or "compression."

The foothills and shoulder of San Jacinto mountain are missing too. It's summit appears at a declined angle from where it should be if earth is flat.

You can do the "we can sometimes see farther than we should if earth is a globe" but I can more often say we can't see what we should if earth is flat.

tellytubby

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #68 on: May 28, 2019, 11:14:10 PM »
Quote
The distance is about 23 miles, not 40 miles.

No Tom I'm pretty sure that if you re-check the measurement distance to the right of Dana Point it says just over 44 miles.

Would I expect you to cast doubt on any claims about long distance effects of atmospheric refraction that in turn put the 'Bishop Experiment' into question about proving a flat surface?  No...  wouldn't dream of it?!?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #69 on: May 28, 2019, 11:20:18 PM »
The claimed Bishop Observation was 23 miles from Monterey to Santa Cruz.

My observation in that graphic was 44 miles from La Jolla to San Clemente.

Different.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1386
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #70 on: May 28, 2019, 11:28:55 PM »
It sounds like the sinking ship proof that you guys have used for thousands of years is pretty fallacious then, if it is inconsistent and people can often see further than they should.

If someone observes over land, sighting over two objects of known height to a third, also of known height, then it's no longer a "sinking ship proof", is it ... ?
==============================
==============================
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 stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #71 on: May 28, 2019, 11:29:07 PM »
I've yet to see "as far as we should" if the earth was flat.

I can't reproduce what is claimed in the Bishop Antecdote even at half the distance.

Yes you did. Here you are claiming to see the details on antennas and trees which were over 44 miles away, which is about twice the distance being discussed:

View point: ~25' @ 32.847335, -117.278439

End point: 840-900' @ 32.847335, -117.278439

"None of that hill should be above the surface of the water in a geometric RET prediction."

To Bobby's point:

"You can do the "we can sometimes see farther than we should if earth is a globe" but I can more often say we can't see what we should if earth is flat.": The crazy part is there's, in this example, about 50' we shouldn't see with geometric RET prediction. But there's 850' we should see with geometric FET prediction.

With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown. But I ask FET, where in the heck is the other 850' I should see on a flat earth?

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

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1386
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #72 on: May 28, 2019, 11:46:18 PM »


None of that hill should be above the surface of the water in a geometric RET prediction.

The Forth Bridge (the original rail bridge, the one seen in the thumbnail) is above the base of the mast.

None of that bridge should be above the base of the mast, in a geometric FET prediction. 

Camera at 226m, looking to the mast base 299m at Cocklaw, but the bridge, 110m above high water, 137m above foundations, intrudes on the sightline.

How could it do this, if the Earth is genuinely flat? 
==============================
==============================
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 Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #73 on: May 29, 2019, 12:02:14 AM »
Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. The amount of the Twisting Tower sinking scenes were not consistent with a globe, nor anything else we have looked at. You claim that observations of sinking prove a round earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions, none of which match your geometric model.

"There is an illusion there, but the underlying reality is Round Earth!!"
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 12:06:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #74 on: May 29, 2019, 12:06:55 AM »
Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. You claim that observations of sinking prove a flat earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions.

If the earth were flat, 850 feet seems to have gone missing. Now that is some kind of an illusion.

Tom, where did the 850' of that hill go on FLAT EARTH?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #75 on: May 29, 2019, 12:07:59 AM »
Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. You claim that observations of sinking prove a flat earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions.

If the earth were flat, 850 feet seems to have gone missing. Now that is some kind of an illusion.

Tom, where did the 850' of that hill go on FLAT EARTH?

You are arguing "Round Earth is right! An illusion did it!"

You just admitted it: Your argument is on basis of illusions. Whatever is missing on a FE is gone to the illusions you claim we are looking at.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #76 on: May 29, 2019, 12:11:31 AM »
Quote
With standard refraction added, I can pull back in the 50' of the top of the hill shown.

Interesting, so you need a "standard illusion" model to explain observations.

The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed. You claim that observations of sinking prove a flat earth and simultaneously claim that we are looking at illusions.

If the earth were flat, 850 feet seems to have gone missing. Now that is some kind of an illusion.

Tom, where did the 850' of that hill go on FLAT EARTH?

You are arguing "Round Earth is right! An illusion did it!"

You just admitted it: Your argument is on basis of illusions.

No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #77 on: May 29, 2019, 12:13:38 AM »
No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 12:16:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #78 on: May 29, 2019, 12:16:03 AM »
No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.

It's your model. You would know better than I. Why are you not supporting your model with an explanation? On flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #79 on: May 29, 2019, 12:19:16 AM »
No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.

It's your model. You would know better than I. Why are you not supporting your model with an explanation? On flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You said that an illusion did it and provided zero evidence for an illusion occurring, in which way, or in favor of which model. You already declared the issue.