*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #80 on: May 29, 2019, 12:20:19 AM »
You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions.

#72 is real observation, no illusion.

The same observer did another a few days ago;



177 metres with the camera, the Cocklaw mast tops out at 380m

The Forth Bridge, between the two, with the top of its structure above the top of the mast. The top of the bridge is 110m above high water, 137m above its foundations

Both these figures are smaller than both 177 and 380m.

If the Earth were flat, how could the top of the bridge appear higher than the direct sightline between 177 and 380m?

https://imgur.com/1Nm2VTd

There's another YouTuber with a series of observations from the region of the Cocklaw mast, looking toward the hills from which this YouTuber was photographing. They show the same, observations which would be impossible on a geometric FET prediction.





No refraction, no illusion, no sinking ships, no virtual/visual/apparent horizons, or any of the other hogwash the YT FE brigade come up with ....
==============================
==============================
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: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #81 on: May 29, 2019, 12:22:41 AM »
That video has no sound and no analysis.

Those observations need standard refraction illusions to even approach meeting an RE and there are multiple observations showing a Flat Earth. Multiple contradictory observations of this sinking ship proof = a farce proof for the globe.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 12:24:25 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #82 on: May 29, 2019, 12:24:20 AM »
That video has no sound and no analysis. Those observations need standard refraction to even approach meeting an RE and there are multiple observations showing a Flat Earth. Multiple contradictory observations of this sinking ship proof.

Are you referring to the video I posted at #80?

The one where I explicitly said there was no refraction, etc to be considered?
==============================
==============================
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: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #83 on: May 29, 2019, 12:24:28 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.

Tom, why is 850' missing on the flat earth? It's a simple question to you about your model. If the earth is flat where is the other 850' of that hill?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #84 on: May 29, 2019, 12:25:28 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.

Tom, why is 850' missing on the flat earth? It's a simple question to you about your model. If the earth is flat where is the other 850' of that hill?

You told us that illusions were occurring. We can take your word on that.

Illusions -- Needed to fix your model. Illusions that change regularly, and do not match the globe.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #85 on: May 29, 2019, 12:29:49 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.

Tom, why is 850' missing on the flat earth? It's a simple question to you about your model. If the earth is flat where is the other 850' of that hill?

You told us that illusions were occurring. We can take your word on that.

Illusions -- Needed to fix your model. Illusions that change every day an observation is made, and do not match the globe.

You're purposefully avoiding the question because I presume you have no clue how to answer it.

If the earth is flat, which I presume you think it was when the photo was taken, 850' of the hill is missing. According to your flat earth model, what is the explanation for that?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2019, 12:32:11 AM »
You're purposefully avoiding the question because I presume you have no clue how to answer it.

You answered it:

Quote from: stack
illusions

You self-admit that an illusion is occurring and think that this illusion proves your ball or something. RE is based on illusions. Illusions are there.

The sinking ship effect is an illusion in FET. Sometimes its flat, and sometimes there is sinking.

The sunken scenes constantly change in timelapses, falsifying your curvature due to earth sinking:

« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 12:35:33 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #87 on: May 29, 2019, 12:46:21 AM »
You're purposefully avoiding the question because I presume you have no clue how to answer it.

You answered it:

Quote from: stack
illusions

You self-admit that an illusion is occurring and think that this illusion proves your ball or something. RE is based on illusions. Illusions are there.

The sinking ship effect is an illusion in FET. Sometimes its flat, and sometimes there is sinking.

The sunken scenes constantly change in timelapses, falsifying your curvature due to earth sinking:

So you're admitting that some sort of flat earth illusion is causing the 850' of the hill to disappear when we should see all of it on a flat earth?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #88 on: May 29, 2019, 12:47:41 AM »
Looks to me like a bunch of sinking illusions are occurring here:



Where are the timelapses showing things rise from behind the horizon?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #89 on: May 29, 2019, 12:59:28 AM »
Looks to me like a bunch of sinking illusions are occurring here:



So you're admitting that some sort of flat earth illusion is causing the 850' of the hill to disappear when we should see all of it on a flat earth?

Where are the timelapses showing things rise from behind the horizon?

Here's a nice crisp one:

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #90 on: May 29, 2019, 01:10:51 AM »
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2019, 01:17:19 AM »
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe.

I have, it's not a very good read. Mostly anecdotal with little to no evidence for any of the claims or assertions. And woefully steeped in a scriptural bias.

Simple question, select A or B: You're admitting that some sort of flat earth illusion is causing the 850' of the hill to disappear when we should see all of it on a flat earth?

A) YES
B) NO
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2019, 01:19:18 AM »
It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 01:23:52 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #93 on: May 29, 2019, 01:37:47 AM »
It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.

Odd that you won't simply answer the question in support of your model.

A or B?

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #94 on: May 29, 2019, 01:39:08 AM »
It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.

Odd that you won't simply answer the question in support of your model.

A or B?

You can read about the sinking effect in the Wiki and Earth Not a Globe and other FE literature. It's part of FET. It would be better if you consider reading more and posting less.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 08:12:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5606
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2019, 02:00:48 AM »
Well as we read Tom's tap dancing to avoid a simple question, let's all remember that the wiki entry for the Bishop "Experiment" meets neither the scientific nor Tom's definition of what an experiment ought to be.  Perhaps one day, Tom will attempt to recreate it instead of relying on YouTubers, but that would be a level of Zeteticism that no one expects to witness.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #96 on: May 29, 2019, 04:04:52 AM »
It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.

Odd that you won't simply answer the question in support of your model.

A or B?

You can read about the sinking effect in the Wiki and Earth Not a Globe and other FE literature. It's part of FET. It would be better if you read more and post less.

Definitely odd that you won't answer such a straight forward question and punt to the wiki & ENAG. It's almost like you refuse to personally support your own model.

In ENAG, in the chapter titled, "Perspective on the Sea", SBR goes to great lengths to describe how when viewing objects over water, like a sinking ship, his 'Law of Perspective' reasoning for why ships go over the horizon doesn't always apply.  His 'Law of Perspective' can be found in the preceding chapter, 'Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before the Mast-Head', aka, the Sinking Ship Effect.

In "Perspective on the Sea" he writes, "If the surface of the sea had no motion or irregularity, or if it were frozen and therefore stationary and uniform, a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, would at all times restore the hull to sight."

He goes on to write, "Upon the sea the law of perspective is modified because the leading condition, that of stability in the surface or datum line, is changed...because the water is always more or less in motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line."

And he concludes with, "Thus have we ascertained by a simple Zetetic process, regardless of all theories, and irrespective of consequences, that the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound vessel is the natural result of the law of perspective operating on a plane surface, but modified by the mobility of the water; and has logically no actual connection with the doctrine of the earth's rotundity."

Now are we to conclude, from your refusal to give an answer, that the flat earth illusion that is causing 850' of that hill to disappear is due to the mobility of the water? The "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken are such that they reach 850' high into the sky from sea level obscuring our view? Or is there some other phenomena at work? Some other illusion, as it were?

You are so quick to call out RET for the use of refraction as an illusion. And here we can only guess upon your non-answer and rely on ENAG/Wiki's two illusions:
1) The atmospheric effects were so great that day that they erased 850' of a hill from view or,
2) An 850' tall "swell" rolled through obscuring our view

Which illusion was it that caused the 850' to disappear?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #97 on: May 29, 2019, 07:49:19 AM »
That video has no sound and no analysis.

So what?  You don't need sound to look at an observation.  I provided an analysis for you.
==============================
==============================
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1383
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #98 on: May 29, 2019, 07:51:46 AM »
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe.

I've cited two videos which are not over the open ocean. I suggest you look at more than ocean videos.
==============================
==============================
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"

tellytubby

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #99 on: May 29, 2019, 08:28:21 AM »
Quote
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe.

I said before in possibly another thread that Rowbotham was no doubt a very keen and dedicated observer. I'm sure that his descriptions of what he observed where on the whole generally quite accurate. However his interpretations and accounts for what he saw were less so and more influenced by what he wanted to believe rather than a quest for scientific accuracy.

Of course still to this day some people believe what they want to believe and see what they want to see (UFOs/Ghosts being other examples of this effect). So given that Rowbotham was a FE believer he would of course interpret what he saw as 'proving' his flat Earth belief. Even if it could be shown that he would see the same if the surface is actually curved.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 04:48:31 PM by tellytubby »