*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #100 on: May 29, 2019, 08:44:36 AM »
Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean.

Thought experiment;

If observer is onshore, at height H1, and is looking out over open seas, with an island in view, with a lighthouse of height, H2, then would you agree, if H2 is less than H1, that if the seas around the island are truly flat, that the sightline from the observation point through the top of the lighthouse MUST meet the sea at some point beyond the lighthouse?



Agreed?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 08:50:16 AM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
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: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #101 on: May 29, 2019, 09:06:03 AM »
The reversal of the observations of Cocklaw Radio Mast that I posted earlier are Miles Davis' numerous observations from Traprain Law and Byres Hill toward the Forth Bridges and beyond, to the same hills that flatsa took his video from.

Although they have slightly different start and end points, and the data is based on different bridges (which are all clustered within a few hundred metres of each other) they're all photographed over the same terrain, from opposite ends.



(Camera height 210m, bridge towers 210m, the green lines are indicative of Eye Level. The terrain beyond is therefore below eye level.)

Taken from;








I claim no refraction, illusion, sinking ship, or other optical effects.

Multiple observations by both photographers, from both directions, on widely-differing days, all show the same situation. 
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 09:08:01 AM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
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 Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9543
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #102 on: May 29, 2019, 03:47:51 PM »
I claim no refraction
Conveniently. After all, if you did, your bombastic claim about the observation matching RET would be immediately discredited. It's poor form, though.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #103 on: May 29, 2019, 04:27:26 PM »
I claim no refraction
Conveniently. After all, if you did, your bombastic claim about the observation matching RET would be immediately discredited. It's poor form, though.

Why?

I invite you or anyone else to show how refraction would invalidate a number of different observations, on different days, in different conditions.

Once again, there have been a number of observations in one direction (YouTuber Miles Davis) and another set taken from the opposite direction showing the same result (YouTuber flatsa).

For daytime observations, one will have sun on his left, the other on his right. For late afternoon/evening observations, one will have sun in his face, the other sun behind.

How would refraction affect both of them to the extent of invalidating them?

These observations are impossible on a Flat Earth.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 04:30:38 PM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
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"

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #104 on: May 29, 2019, 05:27:34 PM »
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.

...are you claiming that refraction doesn't exist? ???
Why would any of the hill be hidden on a FE?

Quote
The amount sunken in Bobby's photos regularly changed.

Yes, our atmosphere is complicated and the amount of refraction can vary during the day.

Quote
The amount of the Twisting Tower sinking scenes were not consistent with a globe, nor anything else we have looked at.

Well, they're not consistent with a perfectly spherical earth with no atmosphere but that's not the world we live on.
Any calculation about what we "should" see necessarily has to make some simplifications or assumptions. No online tool can know exactly how much refraction there will be in a certain scenario. You excitedly use disparities between a perfect, simplified model and reality as a "smoking gun" of something. But you ignore the fact that these results are not at all consistent with a flat earth. On a FE you'd expect the entire Twisting Tower to be visible no matter the distance - so long as visibility allows. So long as the viewer height is above the wave height, the amount of the building blocked cannot be any more than the height of the highest wave.



But that's not what the video shows. The video shows that the amount of the building occluded increases with distance. This is easily explained if we live on a globe, the further away you are the more over the curve the building will be. But on a flat earth you should be able to see the whole building. It should be restored with optical zoom but it isn't.

You say "Aha! But it doesn't exactly match the simplified model". Well, maybe not. As discussed, our atmosphere is complex. But those observations are certainly a much better fit for the globe model than a FE where the entire building should be visible.
I note you did the same with Bobby's image. "Aha!", you say, "You shouldn't be able to see the top of that hill on a globe, you can only make that work if you use some illusion".
I'm not clear why you believe refraction to be an illusion and ignore the fact that on a FE the entire hill should be visible.
I note you repeatedly refused to answer the straight question about where the 850 feet of the hill went. Why can't we see it on a flat earth?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #105 on: May 30, 2019, 03:59:39 PM »





Very good diagrams which would offer VERY strong evidence which supports the round earth model if we lived in a vacuum. Unfortunately we don't.

These diagrams don't outline temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, temperature, atmospheric composition, air quality and any of the other chaotic atmospheric variables under which these predictions are made. The temperature could increase 5 degrees and any observations or measurements would have a significantly different outcome.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #106 on: May 30, 2019, 04:10:31 PM »
These diagrams don't outline temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, temperature, atmospheric composition, air quality and any of the other chaotic atmospheric variables under which these predictions are made. The temperature could increase 5 degrees and any observations or measurements would have a significantly different outcome.

The observations have been repeated on different days in the direction indicated in my diagrams, with similar results.

A different observer has repeated them from the opposite direction, from broadly the location indicated partway up the hill, and got results which, although they centre on different targets near to the original observation point, also show the same result.

Which of your list could apply on different days, consistently, to different observers?

Are you genuinely suggesting that a temperature variation could cause a single sightline to be distorted by over 200m and have no other effect on the landscape, nor on the bridges observed in the middle? They're not distorted, excessively hazy, or obscured. 
==============================
==============================
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: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #107 on: May 30, 2019, 05:29:03 PM »
FWIW, I'm within striking distance to go and repeat these observations myself, should the weather clear up. 100% cloud and rain at present.

However, in the aftermath of the first observer publishing on YouTube, the FE critics over there were full of;

He's not proved what height he was at
He didn't level his camera
He didn't ...
He didn't ...

So I asked, repeatedly, for FEers to tell me what they would expect someone to do, should they go to Traprain Law to repeat the exercise. I'm not going to climb a 200m hill, spend an hour or so photographing bridges, publish on YT only to have critics respond with "Shoulda done ....".  So I asked, what should be done? What method should I follow? I told everyone what equipment I had, emphasised that I would not be spending money on their behalf, and asked for input. How many responses did I get? Not one. Not a single one.

There's some local FEers who were VERY vocal on YT. Could they be persuaded to go there, to do it themselves, and prove him wrong? No, they could not. As far as I know, not one single FEer has gone there, and I know for a fact there's at least two prominent on YT who are within an hour of the place.
==============================
==============================
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 iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #108 on: May 30, 2019, 08:32:24 PM »
FWIW, I'm within striking distance to go and repeat these observations myself, should the weather clear up. 100% cloud and rain at present.

However, in the aftermath of the first observer publishing on YouTube, the FE critics over there were full of;

He's not proved what height he was at
He didn't level his camera
He didn't ...
He didn't ...

So I asked, repeatedly, for FEers to tell me what they would expect someone to do, should they go to Traprain Law to repeat the exercise. I'm not going to climb a 200m hill, spend an hour or so photographing bridges, publish on YT only to have critics respond with "Shoulda done ....".  So I asked, what should be done? What method should I follow? I told everyone what equipment I had, emphasised that I would not be spending money on their behalf, and asked for input. How many responses did I get? Not one. Not a single one.

There's some local FEers who were VERY vocal on YT. Could they be persuaded to go there, to do it themselves, and prove him wrong? No, they could not. As far as I know, not one single FEer has gone there, and I know for a fact there's at least two prominent on YT who are within an hour of the place.

You're never going to make everyone happy. Tom would likely accept your evidence if you had some sort of atmosphere measuring station every 100 feet between the camera and the distant hills to ensure that air that the light is traveling through is consistent to minimize or reduce the amount of refraction. Same temperature, same wind speed, same humidity, same pollen count, same barometric pressure etc etc.

After you make the observation go out and make the same observation, same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but this time have the humidity 50% higher and document how that has changed your observations.

Start trying to outline how these chaotic atmospheric conditions affect what you see.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1179
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #109 on: May 31, 2019, 06:38:13 AM »
FWIW, I'm within striking distance to go and repeat these observations myself, should the weather clear up. 100% cloud and rain at present.

However, in the aftermath of the first observer publishing on YouTube, the FE critics over there were full of;

He's not proved what height he was at
He didn't level his camera
He didn't ...
He didn't ...

So I asked, repeatedly, for FEers to tell me what they would expect someone to do, should they go to Traprain Law to repeat the exercise. I'm not going to climb a 200m hill, spend an hour or so photographing bridges, publish on YT only to have critics respond with "Shoulda done ....".  So I asked, what should be done? What method should I follow? I told everyone what equipment I had, emphasised that I would not be spending money on their behalf, and asked for input. How many responses did I get? Not one. Not a single one.

There's some local FEers who were VERY vocal on YT. Could they be persuaded to go there, to do it themselves, and prove him wrong? No, they could not. As far as I know, not one single FEer has gone there, and I know for a fact there's at least two prominent on YT who are within an hour of the place.

You're never going to make everyone happy. Tom would likely accept your evidence if you had some sort of atmosphere measuring station every 100 feet between the camera and the distant hills to ensure that air that the light is traveling through is consistent to minimize or reduce the amount of refraction. Same temperature, same wind speed, same humidity, same pollen count, same barometric pressure etc etc.

After you make the observation go out and make the same observation, same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but this time have the humidity 50% higher and document how that has changed your observations.

Start trying to outline how these chaotic atmospheric conditions affect what you see.

If this were the criteria for all of these types of experiments, you would have to immediately throw out all that is in Earth Not a Globe and pretty much every other experiment/observation ever conducted in this realm. I can't conceive of a way to have, for example, the same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but have the humidity 50% higher. Can you?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #110 on: May 31, 2019, 11:04:08 AM »
Tom would likely accept your evidence if you had some sort of atmosphere measuring station every 100 feet between the camera and the distant hills to ensure that air that the light is traveling through is consistent to minimize or reduce the amount of refraction. Same temperature, same wind speed, same humidity, same pollen count, same barometric pressure etc etc.

>- - - As was said, there's none of this in ENaG, but he's happy with that .... - - -<



After you make the observation go out and make the same observation, same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but this time have the humidity 50% higher and document how that has changed your observations.

Start trying to outline how these chaotic atmospheric conditions affect what you see.

Perhaps someone could take the observations first, and prove positively that there's any effect from these at all  .... perhaps you could take a look and show me/us where you see this "chaos" ....? I don't see it.

The YouTuber I cited as observing from Traprain Law has been back three or four times. Another, totally separate YouTuber tried to disprove him by observing from the opposite end of the site, on further different days, around half a dozen times. Although they used different landmarks/targets with the general area, their results are in accord.

Multiple observations with the same result; negates the possibility that variances in the factors you cited would affect the results to the extent you seem to claim.
==============================
==============================
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: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #111 on: May 31, 2019, 11:26:53 AM »
A YouTuber has spent, apparently, three years or so doing his own variations on the TBE, and today has (reluctantly, apparently) accepted that the Earth cannot be 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 Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #112 on: June 06, 2019, 10:34:52 PM »
A YouTuber has spent, apparently, three years or so doing his own variations on the TBE, and today has (reluctantly, apparently) accepted that the Earth cannot be flat.


Didn't last long.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #113 on: June 06, 2019, 11:13:20 PM »
Didn't last long.

Descended into visible vs. tangible waffle, and deletion of non-aligned comments within a day or so...
==============================
==============================
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"

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #114 on: June 06, 2019, 11:50:05 PM »
Didn't last long.

Descended into visible vs. tangible waffle, and deletion of non-aligned comments within a day or so...
I was saddened by this. I watched the video where he read in the manual on the auto-level that it used "gravity" to level itself, and therefore he is rejecting it... You know... because there's no such thing as gravity.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #115 on: June 12, 2019, 03:00:36 PM »


Perhaps someone could take the observations first, and prove positively that there's any effect from these at all  .... perhaps you could take a look and show me/us where you see this "chaos" ....? I don't see it.







here:



these observations were made at the same day, same place, same altitude.

at 7:00 AM the opposite shore is clearly visible.
at 11:30 AM the opposite shore has mostly set  behind the horizon
at 11:36 AM the opposite shore has come back into view
at 12:32 PM the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.

at 1:32 PM at 64.7 degrees the opposite shore is visible.
at 1:41 PM at 64.9 degrees the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.


same day, same cloud cover, roughly the same time, same place, same altitude, almost the exact same temperature yet dramatically different observations.



Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #116 on: June 12, 2019, 03:52:38 PM »
One of the worse scientific experiment and observations is using ocean water patch visual level.  It changes a lot in minutes, just some small constant wind sheer from one or another direction can just push a bunch of water level from one side to another.  Not even talking about other factors, like tides and ocean currents that can cause the same effect.   FEs (and even REs) love to use such opportunities to "prove or disprove" the flatness of the planet.  It proves nothing, it is impossible to make sure of anything, even very rapidly light refraction changes on water surface, due temperature, spray, moisture, etc, it is a total uncontrollable environment for any scientific visual testing.  The fact that water is a gravity self leveling phase of the matter, doesn't mean it will be self leveled and perfectly distributed in a long patch.  If you ever traveled by boat or in an ocean cruise, and if you were curious enough to pay attention to the water, saw vast area of water depressions and lumps caused by wind or differential barometric column pressure.  Just look up, if you see a dark big cloud, the water below would be showing leveling anomalies. You can also be surprise how long does it take for the boat wakes to disappear and "flat level" back to normal.  The only place water is flat leveled is in a glass bowl over the kitchen counter, and even so there is the surface tension at the glass point of contact.  I have a lake at the back of my home, somedays I wonder the wind ripples over the water, but all tree leaves are static, so little air movement registered over water - I would bet the water level would be different from one to another side of the lake.


Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #117 on: June 12, 2019, 09:35:13 PM »
here:



these observations were made at the same day, same place, same altitude.

at 7:00 AM the opposite shore is clearly visible.
at 11:30 AM the opposite shore has mostly set  behind the horizon
at 11:36 AM the opposite shore has come back into view
at 12:32 PM the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.

at 1:32 PM at 64.7 degrees the opposite shore is visible.
at 1:41 PM at 64.9 degrees the opposite shore has set behind the horizon again.


same day, same cloud cover, roughly the same time, same place, same altitude, almost the exact same temperature yet dramatically different observations.

That's a really cool video, and it tells us A LOT!
You can see not only the water level appearing to rise and fall, but you can see other features rising and falling. I would say that this video demonstrates pretty conclusively that atmospheric refraction is a thing, and that it varies throughout the day.
One might be tempted to see this video, throw up their hands, and declare, "It's impossible to tell anything with this kind of refraction going on!" But let me just suggest, the refraction seen here can be studied. You can tell how much the refraction changed during that day. By extension, you could do a longer observation to get the full variation of refraction. You can describe how the refraction varies with height. You can tell which direction the refraction changed when.
You can correlate your findings with the various prediction models and judge how well each model did.

I encourage everyone to dig deeper. Don't just speculate and say, "it could be refraction." Dig in and figure out whether or not it really could have been.

Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #118 on: June 12, 2019, 09:55:54 PM »
One point to notice.
The water is not contaminated with biological, it is blueish, colder, not warm and not constant evaporating, variable moisture.  This may cause evaporation by solar radiation more dependent on clouds then thermal stored, intermittent.  Skunk Bay, Kitsap County, Hansville, WA, must be low temp.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« Reply #119 on: June 12, 2019, 10:02:05 PM »
Thanks for pointing out the timestamps, iampc. I've added your notes to the Sinking Ship Refraction Wiki page.

Some of the sinking ship examples have clear refraction effects going on. Much of the "sinking ship" media tends to have distortion at the horizon, which  is evidence that curving light rays are present. See Soundly's altitude change example:



The bridge appear and disappear from an inferior mirage.

The Lake Pontchartrain power lines also appear to be disappearing into refraction at the horizon:



An identical effect also appears to be happening in this road scene at the 58:21 mark:

« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 10:14:40 PM by Tom Bishop »